#82: The Reality of Suicide & Mental Illness

With all the buzz, and especially criticism, of Robin Williams's death, this is something that needs to be said. I understand that a lot of people have never had a mental disease, namely severe depression. If you've never had it, there's really no way for you to understand it. I realize that. But that's exactly it. People who criticize a suicidal mind need to realize just that - that it's something they couldn't possibly understand if they've never been in that place themselves. Read this, and maybe you'll understand it a bit more and humble yourselves.

I've heard a lot of crap about Robin Williams since he committed suicide. I've heard way too much criticism about a man who, until recently, everyone admired and adored. He made us laugh. He gave us a lot of really great movies that we can watch until we ourselves die. He gave us brilliance. So what has changed everyone's view of him? He made a personal choice. Yes, he was rich. Yes, he was successful and famous. Yes, I'm sure he had a lot of "stuff." But that just goes to show you money does not equal happiness. Depression does not discriminate. Just because you're rich and famous doesn't mean you're invincible. And, from what I've seen of the drug scene in Hollywood, being famous is a very stressful job. Did you guys know Robin Williams had been battling drug use and alcoholism his whole life? I heard he had recently relapsed before he died, but that could've been jibber jabber. What I do know is that he had recently been diagnosed with a lethal disease called Parkinson's. He had been given a death sentence. He knew he was going to wither away and die a painful and disturbing death. He would have, in his mind, become a burden to his loved ones, and then he would die. His life was pretty much over when he was diagnosed with Parkinson's. Yes, he may have been able to give more, but at the point of his diagnosis, I think he had just been through enough in his life. He was in his 60s, he had lived a pretty full life, and he had accomplished A LOT. He probably felt like he had given all he had to give, and he surely had given a lot.

Nevermind that. The point is that severe depression is a mental disease just like any other disease, except it affects the brain, the mind, the self-esteem, and the soul. It's painful in a completely different way than other diseases. It affects your self worth. Severe depression breaks you down until you feel like you have nothing left to give to anyone. And what hurts the most about it is that you feel like you're a burden on your family. You feel like everyone would be better off without you - like you'd be doing everyone else a favor if you somehow weren't there anymore. THAT is why suicide is not selfish. On the contrary, it's like the complete opposite. Someone who commits suicide thinks he/she is doing a selfless act. You get to the point where you feel like you can't take anymore and that your family and friends shouldn't have to suffer on your behalf, so you destroy what you feel like is causing their pain - yourself. Robin Williams was trying to do that. He was trying to keep his family and friends from having to take care of him and watch him wither away and die. He wasn't trying to be selfish. I swear, hearing ignorant people who just have no clue about clinical depression call someone who has just died "selfish" is the saddest and most disrespectful thing I can think of. What do you think Robin Williams's family thinks about hearing people call their son, husband, father, and friend "selfish?" Have you all completely lost your sense of empathy? This family has just lost someone very important to them.

Yes, suicide is very sad. It's sad that someone had to go out like that - in sadness and depression. It's sad when someone shortens his/her life and doesn't get the full effect of living. (However, Robin Williams was old enough to have lived a full life, and with all that he accomplished, I'd say he did just that.) It's sad when loved ones are left behind with questions. "Why did he think we'd be better off without him?" "Could we have done something to save him?" "Did I play a part in his unhappiness?" Yes, that is very sad and haunting. But Robin Williams made a personal decision. He didn't want to live anymore, so who is to say he shouldn't be allowed to quit? If that's really what he wanted, then he should have been allowed to do it in peace. We all have the right to live, and we all have the right to die. No one knows what Robin Williams was thinking, or what he was going through. Everyone is battling demons that no one else could possibly understand. But he made a choice for his own personal life - a choice that he should have been allowed to make.

So why didn't Robin Williams get help? Why didn't he talk to a psychiatrist and get some meds? Well, maybe he did. I don't know. Not every kind of medicine works for everyone. Besides that, medicine isn't a cure-all end-all. You have to use it right. When I had severe depression, my doctor gave me a pill and told me "This is not a happy pill. It will not work if you don't make it work. This is a tool. I'm giving you a screwdriver, but you have to turn it on the screw in order to make it work." Maybe Robin Williams tried but just didn't have it in him. Or maybe he was just like many others battling depression. Maybe he was afraid of exactly what he has received - judgement. Maybe he was afraid to seem weak. Maybe he feared discrimination and isolation. Afterall, he was very much in the public eye. These are the things that haunt tons of people who don't seek help for severe depression. Isn't that sad? They feel this way because of all this constant judgement that goes around when something like this happens. Instead of judging them, what would happen if everyone offered support, love, help, compassion, patience, tolerance, and open-mindedness? Then maybe people with depression would be more likely to seek help, instead of turning to such drastic measures such as suicide.

Think about what you're saying when you say it. Think about who it could hurt. No, I didn't know Robin Williams personally. But I've personally been in his place before, as I have previously battled severe depression. If it weren't for my mom's intervention, I could've ended up like him. Also, I've had 3 family members commit suicide in the past. It's not something to joke about, and it's not something to readily criticize. Think about who is around you when you tell people you think suicide is selfish. You may have no clue who you're offending. And I can tell you, I want to rip off the head of any and every person who has ever tried to tell me suicide is selfish.

Everyone has the right to their own beliefs. You can believe suicide is selfish if you want, even if you've never been in that place and could never possibly understand it. Believe what you want. But collectively, everyone needs to stop pretending like you have the right to judge how someone else lives their life or dies. No one can judge what they don't know or understand. How about we take all this negative energy from judging and, instead, use that energy to educate ourselves on the matter? And have some damn empathy - if not for him, then at least for his family. The man JUST died.

I'm not giving the depressed a way out here. I'm not letting you all off the hook. I still think you should take care of yourself and your loved ones if you can, because there is always another way. You can always decide to become happy and move on. With some help, you can do anything. Depression is very real. It takes lives, just like any other disease. It's not a joke, and it's not to be taken lightly. If you or a loved one has shown signs of depression, get some help NOW. Don't wait. To get started, you can go to this website: http://www.therefuge-ahealingplace.com/lp/depression-treatment?mm_campaign=A2E530639621994F7182B3D66DD5EFF1&keyword=%2Bdepression%20%2Bhelp&mm_utm_source=Google&mm_utm_campaign=Depression_Tier_2_Broad_HCVR&ad_type=Depression&_kk=%2Bdepression%20%2Bhelp_kt=c3d13c89-6fd4-48a6-bd1b-401378d07048&utm_term=%2Bdepression%20%2Bhelp&gclid=CKLFqeCfqMACFSbl7Aod_h4AiQ. You can get confidential help from their hotline, (855) 451-0970. And if anyone ever needs to talk, I'm always available.

 Let this be my memorial to Robin Williams. R.I.P.

 Mental illness does not discriminate. One in 4 Americans has a mental illness.

Zelda Williams, Robin Williams's only daughter, posted this after Mr. Williams's death.

Zelda Williams also posted this after her father's death. I think it says it all.

#81: Does True Love Wait, or Does True Love Show that Love?

In Christian churches, and I'm sure in churches, temples, mosques, etc. of many other religions, people are taught that they are supposed to wait until marriage to have sex. To do so before marriage is unclean and a sin. Some churches even teach that you will go to Hell if you have sex before marriage, although from my experiences in church, I've never been told something that extreme. This is definitely a noble notion in theory, in my opinion. However, what is the reality of it? The whole point of it is to keep yourself clean for your future spouse. That's great, but what if you don't see that as significant? What if your spouse doesn't see it as significant? What if having sex before marriage doesn't make you feel unclean? What if you have sex with one person before marriage and you end up marrying that person? Is it ok to have sex before marriage if you are sure you're in love with that person and will marry them someday? (Set aside the simple fact that lots of people think that about their boyfriend/girlfriend, and they don't end up marrying that person in the future afterall.) Here's my thing. Saving yourself for marriage is not really realistic in this day and age, and it may not even be necessary, as in it may be pointless. By this, I mean this may be an archaic practice, maybe even rightfully so. And also, teaching children to wait til marriage may be sending them the wrong message, even scarring them for life and tainting their idea of sex.

First off, think about what marriage is. It's a paper certificate. Yes, it symbolizes a lifetime of love, loyalty, friendship, intimacy, honesty, patience, and tolerance. It signifies your relationship with your spouse. It definitely means a lot to a lot of people. However, some peope realize that you can have all those things without a piece of paper that says so. I think marriage is good for some people, but other people don't need it. I have 2 friends who have been together for over 10 years, and they don't plan on getting married, but they have made a commitment to each other to be together for the rest of their lives. And I'm sure they have sex. No one doubts that, and so far, I haven't seen anyone condemn them for it. They love each other and are devoted to each other. My aunt and uncle are the same way. I think they've been together for more than 20 years and aren't married. You know what's funny? Both these couples have 2 of the best relationships I've ever seen, and they're not married on paper. Hmmm... Anyway, I'm not here to analyze what makes a relationship a good one or bad one. I just want to share with everyone the idea that marriage is not necessary. It's totally fine if you want to do it. I'm probably going to do it one day. But you don't have to get married if you don't want to. Does that mean you have to remain a virgin your whole life and never share that love and intimacy with your boyfriend/girlfriend? NO WAY! That's preposterous. I don't think I personally know anyone who would believe that. Here are the points of having sex: 1. Intimacy with your partner, 2. Having fun with your partner, and 3. Reproduction. If you want to reproduce but don't want to get married for whatever reason, who cares? As long as you stay together and raise that child together as a family, go ahead! It's your life and your decision, and just because you're not married doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to do that. It also doesn't mean you should be forced to get married if you want to reproduce. (That being said, I don't think people should go around breeding willy nilly when they aren't old enough and haven't built a home and aren't ready for it, just because I said it's totally cool for people to have kids out of wedlock.) My point is this: It's ok if you don't want to have sex with just anyone. I'm not prepared to say I think it's ok to have sex for pleasure with just anyone. But if you're in love, you can share that intimacy with your partner before you marry him/her. And even if you don't end up marrying that person, it's ok if you have sex with someone you're in love with. As long you're safe and mature and understand what you're doing, it's ok as long as you're ok with it. Don't abstain from giving yourself to the person you love, just because society or the church tells you it's wrong. Love is never wrong, and sex is a physical way of showing that love to your partner. Sex is supposed to be beautiful when it's with someone you love. Some people will tell you it's only for reproduction purposes, but if that's so, then why is sex so much fun? Why does it feel so good? People do it for fun and intimacy with their partners all the time, and there's nothing wrong with that. There's nothing wrong with enjoying it, as it is meant to be enjoyed. It's ok to have sex if you're not intending on reproducing. And it's ok to have sex with the intention of reproducing, even if you're not married. Do what you want to do with your life, and don't let anyone judge you for it. If you believe any of this is wrong and don't want to do it for your own reasons, then don't do it, and don't let anyone judge you for feeling that it is wrong for your own moral values. But if you want to do any of this, then do it, and don't feel bad about it or take anyone else's judgements of you into account. Everyone has a right to having their own personal beliefs and values, and everyone has a right to do whatever they want with their own life, preferably without judgement from others.

Here's something else that is interesting. When I was growing up in the church as a child, I was taught that sex was dirty. Yes, I was told that it was ok as long as it was done in wedlock. However, it gave me the idea that sex was wrong, and that' the way I looked at it. As a teenager, I wanted to rebel against my parents, society's laws and rules, and especially the church I had grown up in. Most teens go through that kind of stage - where they want to do the exact opposite of what they're supposed to. That's when teens find themselves, make mistakes, and mature. So since I had been told sex was wrong, that made me curious about it, so I wanted to try it, even though I didn't have any hormonal feelings that made me crave sex. I was simply curious, since everyone had made such a big deal out of it my whole life. You see, making sex such a big deal makes lots of teens curious about it. That can actually be dangerous, since a lot of teens aren't safe when they have sex, as a lot of teens really don't know what they're doing. So teaching children that sex is dirty or that they should wait til marriage to have sex can backfire on you. That's why I encourage everyone to stop sticking with these unrealistic teachings. It works with some people, but not with the majority of people. All too often, the opposite is what people end up doing. That's why I encourage people to educate their kids on sex, instead of teaching them things that they're inevitably not going to listen to 99.9% of the time. So teach your kids about sex, so they won't run off and find out about it themselves. Educate them about safe sex, and teach them that it's better to save it for someone they love. Don't fill their minds with these unattainable goals. (Again, for some people, these are attainable goals. I know someone who is my age and is still a virgin, because she wants to wait til marriage. However, she is one in a million.) Be there for your kids when they are curious about sex. If you answer their questions, they won't be so curious and won't run off and get the answers out there in the real world by whatever means necessary, which is what most teens do when they're curious. I mean it's normal to be curious when you're growing up. You're interested in the world and want to learn. That's a good thing! It's a sign of a healthy brain actually. Anyway, yes, I went through this stage, as tons of teens do. And I wasn't scarred by my church's teachings about sex, but I read an article about someone who had to go through intense sexual therapy due to her experience in the church. Her church taught her that it was wrong to have sex out of wedlock, so being a virgin became her identity and her pride. So when she got married, she felt guilty about having sex with her husband, because she felt dirty and was sad she was no longer a virgin. This put a road block between her and her husband, as they couldn't have sex. So she had to go to therapy to fix the problem. I don't have to tell you that sex, physical attraction, chemistry, and intimacy are extremely important in a relationship, and the lack of these can cause break-ups and divorces. So this is a really big deal! Not everyone reacts the way this woman did, but the point is, some people do. Also, this woman mentioned that she and her husband rushed into marriage and got married too young, because they were in a hurry to share that intimacy with one another. That is something worth mentioning. Everyone knows the younger you get married, and the less time you've been together befor eyou get married, the less likely your marriage is to last. Here is the article if you want to read it in full: http://thoughtcatalog.com/samantha-pugsley/2014/08/i-waited-until-my-wedding-night-to-lose-my-virginity-and-i-wish-i-hadnt/.

So here's another thing I didn't mention in the introduction. What if you wait to have sex til you're married? You think you did the right thing, but something went tragically wrong. You and your spouse don't match up in bed. I'm going to give you an account of a couple I know. (They are no longer a couple actually, but they used to be.) Now there were a lot of things that happened behind closed doors, besides what I'm about to tell you. However, here is an example of the point I'm trying to get across to you. I know these 2 people who used to be married. We will call the husband Jimmy and the wife Sasha. Jimmy would've had sex 3 times a day if Sasha would've let him. Sasha only wanted sex every now and then. Her sex drive was nowhere near as high as Jimmy's. They didn't enjoy sex together all the time, because they didn't match up sexually. But that was just the beginning of their sexual problems. Since Jimmy wanted sex so often, Sasha felt like a piece of meat, so that made her resent Jimmy and not want to ever have sex with him. Since Sasha's sex drive was so much lower than Jimmy's, Jimmy didn't get as much sex as he felt like he needed and deserved, so he felt unattractive and unwanted with Sasha's constant rejection. They ended up divorcing later. Believe it or not, sex is a huge part of a relationship. You have to be sexually compatible in order to have a good sex life, and thus a good marriage. That's not to say that sex is the only important part of relationships. I'm not saying that at all. But it is a significant part of relationships. Bad sex lives can absolutely cause break-ups and divorces. Guess what is a great way to find out if you're sexually compatible with your partner before you make a lifetime commitment to him/her: have sex before marriage! There's the same to be said about living together. You never really know a person until you live with him/her, so that's why I, personally, believe you should live with a person before marrying him/her. That way, you know your lifestyles are compatible and you can live together before you pay all that money to make a lifetime commitment to that person. Lots of Christians will tell you that, if you truly love each other and you waited to have sex til marriage, God will bless your marriage and keep you together. I know a ton of Christian marriages that have ended! Just because you waited to have sex before marriage doesn't mean you will not get a divorce or live an unhappy life with the wrong person. Some Christians will also tell you that, if you wait to sex have til you're married, you will definitely love the sex, because you'll have nothing to compare it to. This is total bull. The first time I had sex, I knew I didn't like it. I liked the guy I did it with, but the sexual chemistry wasn't right. I felt nothing for him in that way after I had sex with him. I had nothing to compare him to, but I knew something wasn't right. I didn't feel bad about having sex before marriage, so that wasn't it. I just didn't have fun with him sexually. I didn't feel like he matched up with me in that way, and he didn't give me that tingly feeling I knew I was supposed to get. What if I had married that guy before I had realized that we didn't match up sexually? Look, as a human being with instincts, just like any other animal, you will know when the sex isn't good or you don't match up sexually with your partner, whether you have something else to compare it to or not. If you gamble that you're going to enjoy sex with your spouse before you even try it, and you wait to have sex before marriage, then you're gambling the future of your marriage. For some people, things work out. For some people, things don't work out. The best we can do is try to take every step we can to make sure things will work out. And we can do this by making for certain that we're with the right person in every single way.

I'm not saying anyone should do something they're uncomfortable with. In fact, I'm saying the exact opposite. If you would feel more comfortable with test driving the car before you buy it, then do it. If you are uncomfortable with having sex before marriage, and you have made a commitment to your god that you won't do it, and you're doing it for your own personal beliefs and not anyone else's, then don't have sex before marriage. Just make sure that you're doing what YOU want to do. Make sure you do what you do for your own self (or for your god, if that's what you believe.) Do YOU. Don't make life choices based on what your church congregation, pastor, or parents want from you. Do what makes you comfortable. If you have fallen in love and want to show your boyfriend/girlfriend that you love them in a physical way, then do it, and don't feel bad about it. Don't let anyone judge you for your own personal life choices, and don't let anyone make you feel guilty about it. And don't judge other people for their own personal choices. If you believe in something, live by example, instead of judging other people. Afterall, everyone has a right to live for themselves, by their own personal standards, everyone has a right to their own personal beliefs, and everyone has a right to peace without outside judgement and scrutiny.

Also, I'd like to throw out here that, if you wanted to wait til marriage to have sex, and you wanted that for your own self, but you didn't wait, then don't beat yourself up over it. We all make mistakes. You are not going to go to Hell over one silly mistake you made. You will be ok. Just keep pushing on and moving forward, and try to get back to your beliefs and morals. Just because you have "soiled" your virginity doesn't mean you can't go back and do it all over again. You can always go back and wait to have sex until marriage from this point forward. Nothing could ever condemn you to an eternity of torture, just based on that one insignificant mistake, and anyone who truly loves you will still love you even after you've made your mistakes. The best advice I can give you is to keep moving forward and don't beat yourself up over your past. It's never to late to do what's right, no matter what you believe is right.

#80: Right Vs. Wrong as a Man-made Construction

This is just a quick entry to get the gears in your heads turning. I had a really interesting discussion with a couple friends of mine one time, and we discussed the idea that right vs. wrong is a man-made construction. This is to say that humans make up what we believe is right and wrong, and that, in reality, there is no such thing as right or wrong - Right and wrong are what you make them to be. This sounds simple enough, right? I mean, for people who don't believe in a higher power who makes the rules, this seems pretty logical when you think about it. I mean this is a lot like the cultural universality debate, which I previously discussed in my 12th Dodger Logic entry. Is there a definite right and wrong, no matter the culture? Is there some wiggle room there? Can one person believe something is wrong, while someone else believes it's right, and neither one of these people is wrong in their belief?

This sounds great, but this requires a belief that murder, for example, is not necessarily wrong - It is what we make of it. It is wrong if we say so and believe it to be wrong. But if another culture does human sacrifices or lets people run around doing whatever they want, including killing people, then that's totally fine, because they don't believe that's wrong. Can we possibly force ourselves to believe this? Is it wrong to kill, simply because our cultural norms and our government say so, or is it simply wrong to kill, no matter what your personal belief is? What makes an action right or wrong? Who dictates those rules? Of course, I know religious people will say their god does, and that's perfectly fine. That's a legitimate answer, for sure, depending on your beliefs. However, that won't work as an answer for everyone, especially people who are not religious. Again, we come to an impass between beliefs. Who is right, and who is wrong? Or does that even exist?

#79: Fossil Fuels and Alternative Energy Sources

Here is a discussion I wrote for my Plant Biology class in college, in which I picked a fossil fuels article to write about and then explained my perspective on it:

Coal is formed from the remains of plants that lived up to 400 million years ago. These plants, which are decayed, are called peat. Specifically, coal is formed when peat is physically or chemically altered (bacterial decay, compaction, heat, time) in a process called “coalification.” Today the United States leads in recoverable coal reserves - over 260 billion short tons. Despite the environmental threats coal poses, we still use coal today, because of several reasons: 1. It is cheap, 2. It is efficient, and 3. It is abundant. In USD/st, coal is priced at 56.62. In comparison, in USD/bbl, crude oil is priced at 102.14, and in USD/mmbtu, natural gas is priced at 4.21. The graph below shows the projected energy demand until 2030. In the future, in order to give up coal, the world will need to switch to alternative energy sources. This means that coal companies and coal miners will be out of a job; however, more jobs for alternative energy sources will become available in its place.

Eric McLamb’s article “Energy’s Future Today” discusses fossil fuels, the environment, and potential future alternate energy resources. McLamb opens with an explanation of what fossil fuels are: coal, oil, and natural gas, which as explained above, formed from the decay of dead plants from millions of years ago.  McLamb explains that these energy resources will eventually deplete, and then the world will need alternate resources for energy. McLamb also explains the environmental impact that fossil fuels have, as the combustion of fossil fuels is the main emitter of greenhouse gases, which is the leading cause of global warming. McLamb explains some of the terrifying effects of global warming, such as the melting of the polar ice caps, which will change the composition of the surrounding water. Regardless of the impact that fossil fuels make on the environment, they will be depleted in anywhere between 50-120 years. What everyone also has to keep in mind is the incredible population growth the world has seen lately, and this causes a continuous rise in the need for energy. McLamb explains the efficiency of solar power, wind power, hydroelectric power, and biomass energy, since they are renewable and non-polluting. They are much better for the environment, and no one has to worry about their depletion. According to the Europena Photovoltaic Industry Association, “solar power could provide energy for more than 1 billion people by 2020 and 26 percent of global energy needs by 2040.” Renewable energy is the way the world will have to go, or else there are going to be some major problems in the future.

I believe exactly what the article says, which is one of the reasons I chose it. I do, however, also believe that people are idiots and will not change their ways until they are absolutely forced to do so. I have rallied for alternate energy resources since I first learned about global warming as a child, and tons of people simply do not listen or do not even believe in global warming. However, I do believe fossil fuels are not long for this world, and once they are gone, people will have to start believing and making changes, because they will have no other choice. It is understandable that nobody wants to believe the world is having such problems, and that people will not be able to live as comfortably as they have been forever. But, in all honesty, I am a big believer in “Survival of the Fittest.” Once fossil fuels are depleted, people will find other sources of energy and will survive, because it is our instincts to do so. That is not to say that people will have an easy time doing it. It will be difficult, and drastic changes will have to be made, but I do believe it is possible. However, I also believe changes need to be made immediately. The world needs to become more dependent on solar, wind, water, and biomass energy, and it needs to become less dependent on fossil fuels. If you asked me what will happen in the future, I would have no better answer for you than “we shall see.”

Bibliography

1. http://www.ecology.com/2011/09/06/fossil-fuels-vs-renewable-energy-resources/
2. https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=910&bih=444&q=projected+energy+demand&oq=projected+energy+demand&gs_l=img.3..0i24.604.3297.0.3481.23.10.0.13.13.0.65.340.10.10.0...0.0...1ac.1.9.img.CJgvLIGhvTI#imgrc=T_HMIISA0YLX0M%3A%3Bi6qND0uh4m6uaM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.kids.esdb.bg%252Fimages%252Fworld_energy_demand.png%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.kids.esdb.bg%252Fusesectors.html%3B485%3B387
3. http://www.uky.edu/KGS/coal/coalform.htm
4. http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=2930
5. http://www.infomine.com/investment/metal-prices/coal/

**NOTE: I also wanted to include this article entitled “5 Breakthroughs That Will Make Solar Power Cheaper Than Coal,” because it is interesting and insightful: http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/blogs/5-breakthroughs-that-will-make-solar-power-cheaper-than-coal.

Projected energy demand until 2030.

#78: Is That a Fingernail in My Chicken Soup?

The point of this entry is to tell you guys you should know what's in your food before you eat it. This entry is just one example of a huge lie that most people believe. Everyone thinks Smoothie King is really healthy, and they believe the calorie count in the brochures. However, if you actually look at how Smoothie King makes their smoothies, you'll realize they're not healthy. When I worked there, my manager used to change the recipes to make them taste better. This included adding much more sugar and syrups to the mixture, making the calorie counts in the brochures a lie. I'm sure this type of thing happens at all kinds of restaurants and other food establishments. Anyway, I just think we have a right to know what's in our food, and we should look for it. This includes the grocery store. Go to fresh markets, which sell healthy, organic fruits and vegetables, as well as healthy, cruelty-free, cage-free, antibiotic-free, vegetarian-fed meat. Make sure you know what you're consuming! In this country, EVERYTHING contains antibiotics, potentially dangerous chemicals, and preservatives. We should push to change this system, but until then, do your research, and find out what's in your food!

So here's my example. As I said, I used to work at an Atlanta Smoothie King. Can anyone guess what these smoothies are made out of? Most people guess fruit, right? Wrong. There's a ton of sugar in them, and most of them have some kind of supplements in them. Admittedly, some are good supplements, but some of them are not so good, or are not so good for certain kinds of people. For example, some of the proteins used are only recommended for men, but women still drink smoothies with these proteins sometimes. One kind of protein that is used in most of the smoothies, in particular, is not very good for anyone - soy protein. But the most astonishing part about Smoothie King's lies is that these smoothies are not made with real fruit. They are made with syrups, concentrate juices, and purees. The only whole fruits they put in the smoothies are coconut, bananas, peaches, pineapples, and strawberries. However, the strawberries come in a tub of sugary syrup and are chalk full of preservatives, and the pineapples and peaches are Del Monte canned pineapples and peaches, which also come in a sugary syrup and are full of preservatives. One would think Smoothie King would be above this, since they make themselves out to be so healthy. But this is why you should learn what's in your food before buying and consuming it!

I'm not saying it's wrong to eat at Smoothie King. I love buying smoothies there every now and then. I drank smoothies all the time when I worked there. But it's good to keep in mind that this is a place to buy a treat every now and then, not a place to buy your breakfast before work every single day. And it's just good sense to find out what's in your food.

Here is a healthy alternative: Make your own smoothies at home! They're probably cheaper, and they contain what you put in them. You don't have to worry about not knowing what's in them. I do this all the time at home, and I never add sugar. I usually mix whatever fruits I feel like eating that day, orange juice, and spinach into a smoothie, but I also like making chocolate peanut butter, banana, and spinach smoothies. Also, beet juice is naturally sweet and delicious. Sometimes I make smoothies with beets, orange juice, and fruits that I like. Carrots, kale, and arugula are also good in smoothies. There are really all kinds of great fruits and vegetables you can add to smoothies, and there are lots of websites for this online, especially on Pinterest. P.S. Don't ever use apples in a smoothie. The fibers in apples collect together after being ground up, and it's the nastiest thing you'll ever taste. All other fruits that I can think of, however, are delicious in smoothies.

Also, I have to go ahead and say this. If you ever find yourself at a Smoothie King in Atlanta, and the owner's name is Greg Emrich, don't give him any business. He's an awful human being.

This could not be more misleading.

#77: False Advertising

So there are several "Killing Me Softly" films, but the one that I saw and thought was really great was the 4th one. I know you can rent it at the GSU library if you're a student here. It's on reserves. I don't know how else to get ahold of it, but I highly recommend it. The film contains all kinds of pictures that prove the points that the speaker makes, and lots of them are actually very funny. But it's all pretty awful if you think about it. The speaker makes her points well. I will try to incorporate some of the pictures at the bottom of this note, but it's just not the same as actually watching the film, so check it out! Anyway, I took some notes on it while I watched it, so here are some bullet points if you want to get a closer look at advertising these days, and what it's doing to us:

Self Image and Human Rights:

1. Only one body type is portrayed as being beautiful. The super skinny models, who are incredibly under weight, give women the idea that they are not beautiful if they are not dangerously under weight, which is bad for their health. There are all kinds of models that have died from being too underweight. This is serious.

2. Airbrushing and computers alter what people look like, giving women unreachable expectations for themselves. This also gives men unrealistic expectations of what they should have in a woman. Cindy Crawford once said "I wish I looked like Cindy Crawford." Check out this video to reiterate what I'm talking about: http://www.upworthy.com/4-ladies-get-the-cover-model-makeover-of-their-dreams-and-then-hate-the-results-11113?g=2&c=ufb1.

3. Women's bodies are turned into objects, and portions of their bodies are cut out of the advertisement, which is dehumanizing. Most of the time, it's their face that is cut out of the advertisement, so the message is that their bodies are all that matter.

Light skin is portrayed as ideal.

5. Black models are turned into animals and portrayed as being wild.

6. They teach people to be unhappy with who they are and what they look like by pointing out their flaws and offering treatments, surgeries, and more to change who they are. Lots of women are told their boobs are never big enough, so they should get breast implants. But lots of women who do this lose feeling in their breasts, so they're an object of someone else's pleasure, instead of their own. They teach women that, if their husbands aren't happy with what they look like, then they should change themselves, rather than changing their husbands - or getting rid of the dirtbags.

7. They mock celebrities who gain weight, and they mock normal people who are ugly/overweight.

8. The portrayal of gay men are almost never advertised. Advertising is primarily heterosexual.

9. They make women ashamed of eating, as if eating food is a fopaux.

Sexualization:

1. Food is equated with sex.

2. The sexualization of children (little girls mostly) is advertised more often, making child porn seem like not such a bad thing.

3. You often see lesbians as being portrayed as sexy and pornographic and nothing more.

4. Sexualization in advertising causes depression, eating disorders, and low self-esteem.

5. Violence is eroticized, linking sex with violence. 1/3 of all women who are murdered in America are killed by their male partners. Battery is the single greatest cause of injury for American women.

Bad Habit Promotion:

1. It promotes consumerism, rather than being smart with money or only buying the necessities. Advertising is capitalistic.

Sexism:

1. Men are portrayed as being strong, and women are portrayed as weak, which causes sexism and violence agaisnt women.

2. Advertisments discourage men to be sensitive, which puts people into gender roles. Feminine qualities are discouraged in men, making feminine qualities seem lesser, which devalues women in their minds.

What We Need:

1. Awareness, education, and discussion

2. Activism

3. Media literacy

What We're Doing:

1. Some agencies are now labeling digitally altered models.

2. Some agencies are now not using models under a certain BMI.

3. Some schools are teaching media literacy.

4. Some agencies and schools are encouraging healthy body weights.

So what do you guys think? After reading this, looking at the photos below, and watching the film (most importantly,) do you think advertisements have any impact on what we think and we turn out to be? Do you think advertising sends us subliminal messages and makes us do and think the way the advertiser wants? Afterall, isn't that the purpose of advertisements?

Dehumanizing advertisement.

Advertisement that eroticizes food.

This is a model who died of anorexia.

Sexism right here, guys.

The black model is, of course, portrayed as being animalistic.

The picture on the left is the digitally altered photo. I don't know what they were going for there, but this just goes to show how far airbrushing goes in advertisements sometimes.

 I feel gross even putting this up here, but do you see what I mean by sexualization of children in advertising?

Another dehumanizing advertisement, since all is cut from the picture, except her naughty bits.

#76: Operation Evacuation Planet Earth

Ever since I was in the 6th grade and my favorite substitute teacher was teaching one of my classes one day and told the class we might someday have to evacuate earth and move to the moon, I have wondered if such a thing could be possible. Could earth really deteriorate to the point where we can't live here anymore? Could we actually send people to the moon to live, repopulate, and save the human race? My dad always told me that substitute teacher was a nut, but scientists and environmentalists today don't necessarily say so. Many people these days believe the earth will be destroyed, contaminated, and/or struck by a foreign object. Some people even think it may someday be overtaken by foreign invaders. Who knows? No one knows the future. And since we can't possibly know what the future holds, should we prepare for the worst, just in case?

So I was watching this documentary yesterday, and you guessed it. It was about the earth becoming uninhabitable and humans having to be sent away to other planets in order to save the human race. It was called Evacuation Earth, and it was on National Geographic. I've thought about all kinds of ways we could do this, things that could go wrong, why it wouldn't work, why it would work, and what could be some possible outcomes if we had to evacuate the planet. So based on things I've thought of myself and things that I got from the film, I'm going to take you through, step by step, what we would have to do, some potential problems that could occur, some things that might be possible, and some things that would inevitably be impossible. And I'm mostly just going through what was said in the documentary, but I'm adding my input to it - my questions, my thoughts, my concerns that were not raised in the film. Maybe you guys have some input too. And just so you guys know, the documentary has a lot more specific information, is really intense and entertaining, has great graphics and images if you're confused about what things I'm trying to explain actually look like, and has really cool music. So you should check it out here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95n9BclgBUM.

I have explored tons of the ways the world could end in my note, "End of Ze World." There are all kinds of scenarios that could occur, but the one that the film writers used in the documentary was the impact of a neutron star, which is like a meteor. It's a star in another galaxy that died. When a star dies, it collapses in on itself, and debris from it is sent hurtling through space. This would be our first clue. We would get all kinds of crazy, unprecedented meteor showers that killed crazy numbers of people, so we'd look into it and be able to predict approximately where the neutron star has sent itself hurtling off to, and approximately how long it would take it hit earth if earth was in its path. And of course, in this example, earth is definitely in its path. So these scientists were able to predict that it would take 75 years for the neutron star to reach earth. So how would people react to this news? Plenty of people would not believe it, but I would say most people would end up realizing it was the truth after a period of times goes by. Supposedly, based on a theory I learned in one of my classes in college, when humans are faced with certain doom, they are more likely to band together for a common good than to fall apart, destroy each other, and lose hope. However, there's no way to know what would really happen, and with an earth is big and full of so many different kinds of people who come from different cultures and don't even speak the same languages, there are so many things that could and inevitably would go wrong here.

Now my substitute teacher in the 6th grade told me that we'd relocate to the moon if we had to leave earth. That is obviously not possible in this scenario, since the neutron star would wipe out the moon along with the earth. If the world ended some other way, like because of a pandemic, for instance, could we live on the moon? Maybe. I'm not really sure. I mean there's no oxygen up there, so we'd have to build a dome of oxygen. Would that be possible? Anyway, the moon would not be an option in the particular scenario of a neutron star impact. So where would we go? What would we do? I guess an earth evacuation plan would be our only hope. So since we've decided to go somewhere other than earth, how do we get there? We would have to build some rockets to send people up into space. How would we get the money? We'd have to forget the idea of money and just all work together to put this thing together for the common good. Would people be willing to do that? There are tons of greedy people out there who will want to keep their money, even if it means nothing anymore. So if we get some people to fund the mission, I guess NASA would be the ones who build the rockets and figure out how to ship them up into space. They would need scientists, architects, engineers, etc. to help create this. They'd have to create an anti-matter engine, so that we'd be able to travel close enough to the speed of light in order to get anywhere in an actual period of time. Is there even a way to do this? Now NASA would probably decide to create an enormous ship that would send an incredible number of people to where ever we decide to go. But this ship can't be a rocket. You can't shoot it out into space, because you can only shoot small objects into space, and they way ships are built, it just wouldn't be possible to shoot them off into space. So what would we need to do? We'd have to send some astronauts into space and shoot parts up to them, so that they could construct the ship while already in space. It's insane to think of that as a possibility, but it's been done before. These parts would need to be created and sent up into space from all kinds of different ports all over the world. It would take total world cooperation and communication.

In the mean time, what will happen on earth as people realize the impending doom? Some religious cults might try to stop the efforts to save the human race. (They may take the signs to mean that God is destroying the world, as promised, and that it would be against God to try to save the human race.) There would be total chaos. Rates of suicide would increase. Rates of homicide, muggings, burglaries, rapes, wars, etc. would increase, because people would stop caring and do whatever they wanted. What would you do if you knew you were going to die soon either way you slice it?

There are plenty of planets out there in the middle of space (in other galaxies, of course) that could potentially work for us, based on what we can know about them. They have oxygen, and some of them may even have water and plant life. So which one do we pick? Well, we'd have to do as much research on it as possible. What if we got there, and there were noxious gases in the atmosphere that we didn't know about? What if there was life on that planet, and that life didn't want us there? Anything could happen! And we really would not know until we got there. So we'd have to do as much research as humanly possible based on what can find out about these planets without actually being there and seeing for ourselves. In the film, scientists picked a planet that was about 80 years away, using an anti-matter engine that we were somehow able to create. How could it be possible to put people on a spaceship and send them somewhere that would take them 80 years to get there? We would literally have to create a little world inside that spaceship. Could we do that? Could we create growing grass, weather, homes, etc.? We would have to do it in order for people to be able to grow and live in this spaceship for 80 years. We could continue to reproduce up there, and then the adults who originally boarded the spaceship would never get to see the new planet we picked to make our new home, but their children and grandchildren would.

But what about gravity? There's no gravity in space. Without gravity, our bones deteriorate, and our health declines in many ways. If you have ever seen videos of astronauts who have been in space for a few months and then came back down to earth, they literally have to be carried off the ship, because they're so weak. They have to completely re-adjust themselves to being in an environment with gravity. Imagine spending a lifetime in zero gravity! And then there's reproduction. Can we reproduce in space? Our reproduction system relies on gravity in order to work. So we'd have to creating artificial gravity, which scientists believe they may be able to do by create a spinning cylinder to contain our spaceship. So NASA would have to figure out how to build that and get it right - the first time, since that's all we'd have.

So how many people can we support in this spaceship? Certainly not 7 billion. So we might be able to take maybe 250,000 people. Who do we choose? Who lives, and who dies? We'd have to have a genetically diverse group of people, or else everyone on the ship would be susceptible to disease. If a few people on a ship with people all contained in a small space together get sick, everyone does, and then everyone dies. That brings me to the next point. We would have to only allow people with perfect health and long life expectancies to board the ship, because we're talking about the survival of our race. So we couldn't allow people with many diseases in their family background to board the ship. I have lots of cancer in my family, so I probably wouldn't get to go. Old people couldn't go. Sick people (like schizophrenics, autistic people, diabetics, etc.) would not be able to go. We'd need people who are used to harsh conditions and have survival skills. We'd also need people with certain sets of skills to go - like doctors, pilots, astronauts, scientists, engineers, etc. And we'd need the best of the best. So who gets to choose? And how do we choose? The film suggested we send "Evacuation Eligibility Kits" to people's houses for them to test themselves and send back to NASA.

So during this choice of who lives and who dies, we'd have to allow people who worked on the spaceship project to go, along with their families. If certain countries backed out of the project and didn't want anything to do with it, should we allow people from their countries to go? How would we tell people who goes and who doesn't? You have to realize that more than 99% of people would not get to go. What would happen when people find out they can't go? Lots of people would try to stop the efforts. Lots of people would revolt. I mean, I don't think anyone would realize just how much chaos would break out. That movie Deep Impact, no matter how good it was, doesn't even make it look like much chaos would break loose during such an event, but that is a huge factor to take into consideration when thinking about whether these efforts would work or not.

As impact time gets closer, we'd have to have shelter. We would preferably need to hide somewhere underground, because the radiation that would come from this star would increase and be brutal and fatal. All kinds of not so natural disasters would occur as the star would begin a major global climate shift. There would be hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, major storms, extreme heat waves, extreme cold weather, volcanic eruptions, etc. of intensities that have never been seen by man before. And these would occur in places they've never occurred before - all over the world. So many people would die during this course of time.

What supplies would we need to send to the spaceship? We would need soil, hopefully some animals, bacteria, and all kinds of other supplies (to ensure that we will have oxygen, gravity, homes, weather, etc.) These people wouldn't be able to eat meat, because it takes way too many vegetables to sustain a cow, so we can kill it and eat it, so it'd be a better bet to just eat those vegetables. The food we'd have to grow would be veggies that could grow in such an environment as outer space. We'd be eating "Chlorella Crackers" and algae, according to the film. And remember, we'd have to take bacteria up there with us in order to keep our digestive systems working, etc.

So what about sending rockets of people up into space to be put onto the spaceship? What if those rockets blew up? I mean they have anti-matter engines, so they can't come into contact with any matter. That's extremely hard to do here on earth. What if our rockets hit some debris in space and exploded? There are so many things that could go wrong when you try to send a rocket up into space. Even if we can't, we've already sent some astronauts up there, so even if we couldn't get any civilians up there, at least we would have some astronauts who would survive and board the spaceship. The only thing is, with such a small group of people who have to procreate and repopulate our race, it's unlikely that our race would survive. So let's say we got some people up there, even if some of our rockets failed. These people would have some major mental health problems, I'm sure. They'd be super depressed, as they'd have to say goodbye to some of their family members, friends, places they grew up, etc. FOREVER.

And you better hope that the artificial gravity, oxygen tanks, and artificial weather work on that ship for 80 years. You better hope you don't run out of food or water. You better hope no mechanical errors arise while you're on that ship. You better hope you can properly dispose of waste, so as to not make everyone sick and disgusting while on board. And you better hope you don't have a pandemic on board, which would be easy with such a small group of people stuck so close together. You also better hope the engine doesn't blow. How do you make an engine that can run for 80 years anyway?

I can't even begin to imagine what life would be like on board the ship. But I know they'd be able to see the huge explosion as the star struck the earth. And they'd know that their loved ones were going through hell at that very moment. And think about it. What happens here on earth? Rape. Murder. War. Disease. What if someone tried to overtake the ship and stop the efforts? You would have to have a kind of small government and police force within the spaceship. You'd have to have rules and laws. You couldn't have a dictatorship, of course, but would we want democracy? Would that work with a group of people that is so small and contained? What would work, and what would we agree on? Once they reached the new planet, there would be all kinds of emotions. Most of the original people who boarded the ship would be dead. Their kids and grandkids would be the ones to touch down on this new planet, so this ship would be all they ever knew so far.

Like I said before, even if we are able to get there, and even if our landing is safe and we're able to touch down, there could be all kinds of things wrong with this new planet that could kill us. So would the human race survive?

Sending supplies and such to space.

Space food. Yum!

 Neutron star collapsing in on itself.

The earth during the neutron star collision.


 This gives you an idea of what the cylinder-shaped spaceship (in order to allow for artificial gravity) might look like, and in this picture, you can see the astronauts working on building it in space. I couldn't find a picture of the inside of the spaceship, so you should go check out the documentary! You really need to see it, because you can't exactly imagine what it looks like. It's literally like an earth within a spaceship.