Homosexual Blood

While donating blood during school today, I was greatly disturbed by a conversation I had with a buddy of mine. My friend is openly gay, and quite the humanitarian, but was denied from donating blood due to his sexual orientation. I thought he was joking when he first told me, but as I filled out the mandatory 53 question survey about my life choices, it hit me that he was completely serious. The question read: "From 1977 to the present, have you had sexual contact with another male, even once?" I'd heard the stigma of homosexuals having a higher chance of contracting HIV, but I never thought they would be discriminated against like this in such an accepting part of the country. If the donor selected "yes" to the question, he would be kindly told he is "permanently deferred" from donating. A perfectly healthy man who had sexual contact with another man in 1980 would be denied while a man who got a tattoo, slept with a prostitute, and was diagnosed with Gonorrhea 13 months ago could donate. When I came home, I did some research to figure out if there is scientific reasoning behind this absurd rule. Turns out, this debate is a very lively one in Medical Forums. I also learned that no matter how high the yield of a blood drive, blood banks always need more donations. Because of this, most blood banks are actively trying to change this rule set by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Barry Zingman, an Aids expert even used the word "ridiculous" to describe this FDA mandated order. Every bag of blood is tested for 8 diseases before being distributed, HIV being one of them.  He says it takes about 7-10 days after infection to show up on HIV tests, not a lifetime. If any of the eight core diseases surface as positive, the blood is discarded. The chances of a unit going undetected after 10 days of extraction is less than one in two million. A California assemblyman put it perfectly: "Blood has no sexual- orientation, and the FDA should have no discrimination". The Banned4life project is a rights movement whose mission is to raise awareness about this FDA ban, and eventually bring it to an end. They have a petition to sign on their website if anybody feels strongly about this discrimination. More information, along with more studies conducted by Barry Zingman can be found here. As the needle went in my arm today as a first time donor, and my friend walked out the door, the lyrics to a Ronnie Dunn song came to mind: "We All Bleed Red".

Immediate Game Gratification

While looking through my iPhone apps, attempting to delete old games to make room for new music, I began to think about the difference in the popular games from when I was in grade school, to the popular games now. The one major difference in the games from these two time periods is the new addition of limited energy, or lives. The old, classic iPhone games such as Fruit Ninja, Tiny Wings, and Cube Runner all shared the same format. You would continuously play, as much as you desire, until you beat your personal high score. Over the past year, incredibly popular games like Candy Crush, Deer Hunter, and Injustice all force you to either wait the required amount of time, or buy a full set of lives/energy when your original set is used up. I believe this phenomenon goes deeper than just the greediness of application manufacturers, but extends to the impatience and need for immediate gratification of America's youth. Game makers are banking on the impatience of children (and possibly adults) who feel they must play immediately, so they spend 99 cents instead of waiting the 10-30 minutes needed for new lives. Have Americans become so snobby that they must have exactly what they want, when they want it? Well according to iTunes top grossing chart, Americans are that impatient. Although free, Candy Crush Saga is the #1 top grossing game. The immediate need for gratification is a problem in the U.S, and App manufacturers are not the first to utilize it for themselves. Skipping advertisements on a video by clicking a pop-up ad is another example of a company banking on the fact the user will be too impatient to watch a 15 second ad, and will therefore direct themselves to a whole new website, [usually] close that new tab, and proceed to watch their initial video. That sounds like so much work compared to just sitting patiently for a fraction of a minute, yet most Americans go through the tedious action to save themselves a few seconds. I can only assume that more and more games will take on the format of a pre-set number of lives before having to buy new ones, or test ones patience. Betting on American's to be patient, especially with each generation's attention span becoming shorter and shorter, is not a bet I would make.

Trophies for everyone

In today's youth sports programs, trophies are divvied out like orange slices are at half time. The winner, the loser, the MVP, and the bench warmer are all rewarded the exact same prize: a plastic golden trophy. As I looked up at my trophy collection sitting atop my bookshelf earlier on tonight, I began to think about how many of those I earned, and how many were given to me. Out of the 21 trophies, 5 of them are trophies that tell of the accomplishment, and 16 were given to everyone who participated. I'm sure my team won some of those leagues in which I was given an "everyone trophy", but I have no proof or source or pride because the administrators of those leagues felt everyone needed a trophy.  The point of everyone receiving a trophy is meant to raise the self-confidence of the group as a whole, rather then just the winners or the best. Although this is in theory a smart idea, it sets up these children to fail in their future. If you try hard and succeed, rather then slack off and lose, you are not rewarded any differently. This ingrains the idea that one does not need to work hard in order to get the outcome they desire. It teaches these children that life is not about succeeding, but about trying your hardest. This utopia does not exist. Basically all of my current high-school life is based on succeeding in what I do, not attempting. Whether it is receiving the grade I want, or making the team I've trained for, there is no one set prize all participants are given. Results are what matter at the high school age and on, so it should be taught and trained that way at younger ages as well. In a similar blog post by Todd Henry, he writes that everyone getting a trophy "has de-emphasized the value of contribution, and has emphasized the importance of recognition". (His post can be found here) He has a very legitimate point. He claims that by giving trophies out, it de-motivates children to put in their full amount of effort. Looking back on all those house-league basketball games, I wonder why I practiced so much and tried so hard only to receive the identical 8-inch plastic statue as the last place team. I'd be incredibly curious to see if countries like China, Russia, and Spain have taken away the importance from trophies by handing them out for free, or if you still must earn a trophy. It wouldn't surprise me at all if this was an American idea. American parents never want to disappoint their children, so they came up with this temporary solution that in fact does nothing but hurt their child in the long run. This aspect of American culture is a very flawed one, and does nothing but damage the futures of America's generations to come. 

Walter White: A Family Man?

After beginning to watch Breaking Bad, the hit television show that the entire world told me I "had to watch", I have not stopped thinking about the American values demonstrated in the show. For those of you that are unaware of the storyline of Breaking Bad, it is about a Chemistry teacher, Walter White, who is diagnosed with lung cancer, and decides to manufacture Methamphetamine to pay for his treatment and to support his family. What made me decide to write a blog about this is a scene I watched yesterday, in which Gus, Walt's distributer convinces Walt to keep cooking Meth because he must be the man of the house: the provider. Walt takes the advice, and continues with the illegal actions. This is a perfect example of two American values at a crossroads. On one hand, family, and the safety and security of family is such a prized value is America. By Walt continuing to cook, he is putting the whole family at risk. On the other hand, the classic American gender roles are at play. If Walt stops cooking, he stops providing for his family, leaving his wife to be the bread-winner of the house. Rather than hurt his pride by doing the smart thing for his family's safety, he lets his ego control him and he takes the offer. I think this decision extends deeper than just the life choices of an incredibly interesting t.v show character, but reflects the true values of America. This example is just an extreme version of a choice that men make everyday: choosing their career (whatever it may be) over their family. Of course the argument can be made that by choosing a career, you really are helping your family. The reason people work so hard is to provide the best they can for their family, just like Walt is doing. So is Walter White a family man even though he is putting his family in danger?

The MLK Speech Scandal

After reading an article about the possible plagiarism committed by Martin Luther King Jr. during his "I have a dream" speech, I began to think about the legitimacy of the claim. The accusation was that a Chicago Pastor named Archibald Carey Jr., recited almost the identical ending to MLK's I have a dream speech 11 years before King Jr. did. At the Republican National Convention of 1952 in Chicago, Carey exclaimed: "From every mountainside, let freedom ring. Not only from the Green Mountains and the White Mountains of Vermont and New Hampshire; not only from the Catskills of New York; but from the Ozarks in Arkansas, from the Stone Mountain in Georgia, from the Great Smokies of Tennessee and from the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia — let it ring."Anyone who is familiar with MLK's famous speech on August 28, 1963, knows that the ending is eerily similar to previous words spoken by Carey. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke:  So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania! Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado! Let freedom ring from the curvaceous peaks of California! But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia! Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee! Let freedom ring from every hill and every molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring."When Wbez first stumbled upon this audograph disc no more than six months ago, people began to argue whether this changed the brilliance and passion of MLK's speech. I absolutely do not think it takes anything away from MLK's speech. The article discussing this topic claims that MLK and Archibald Carey Jr. had met at least twice, and members of the church Carey was the Pastor at even considered the two of them to be close friends. This is not a matter of plagiarism  it's a matter of two people, both looking to accomplish the same goal, working together to complete their mission. It would be a different story if Obama used a section of Carey's speech in regard to healthcare, or a non-racial related theme, but MLK used this idea with the same outcome in mind: racial equality. Plus, people who consider it plagiarizing haven't considered that fact that the core line of the speech, from every mountain side, let freedom ring is originally from the anthem: "My Country tis of Thee". If MLK plagiarized Carey, then that means Carey plagiarized Samuel Smith, who wrote the lyrics to My Country tis' of Thee. Though there is no way to know if Carey gave King permission to use his words, one can only infer that he was okay with it, considering he never claimed those words to be his own. He also wrote a letter saying that "When I need help, I can count of Martin Luther King, and when he needs help, he can count on me" (Wbez article). King obviously took these words to heart, and took Carey's words and made them famous. Carey's speech can be heard here. It is very interesting to listen to how different the two of them say basically the exact same words.  King's ending to this speech was world-changing, whether or not he thought of the words himself.