Hong's Blog

Another Epidemic, but Closer to Home

2009-04-27T08:14:00.005-05:00

Bird flu seemed like a distant memory. News of the flu has recently died down due to reduced numbers of cases and the fact that there was more emphasis put on other diseases, such as cancer and HIV/AIDS. As most people have heard, though, there is now a return of the flu. Instead of China, it is much closer to home-Mexico. Instead of birds, the animal of choice is now pigs. Already there are more than 1600 cases and the death toll has recently passed over 100. But probably the more amazing fact is that the flu (termed, "swine flu") contains human, avian, and pig flu viruses from North America, Europe, and Asia. Currently there is no cure to this flu, as only syndromes are able to be checked under control with current vaccines like Tamiflu, but a cure is being researched. This is shockingly similar to the current situation in Africa going on where Tuberculosis is found in many drug-resistant forms. Many patients there were treated for TB only to find that the TB bacteria still existed in their bodies.

City officials said that there is no preventing the flu from coming to Chicago- there is only prolonging. At the airports, people are being screened all of the time, especially from Mexico. Other extensive measures have been placed in airports, but even with these measures, there is no denying the fact that one or two people will make it past the checks and spread the virus. We can only hope that the vaccine will be made in time and there are no deaths resulting from this virus. 5 states have reported cases- Ohio, Kentucky, Texas, New York, and California. I hate to be so negative but we should look at the facts truthfully and act accordingly. I'm not saying we're all going to die or be quarantined surround by people in HAZMAT suits, but we should be more careful of what we do, thinking of people who are already affected by this growing epidemic. In the meantime, might want to stay away from pork....

Picture credits to Alfredo Estrella/AFP/Getty Images and Kiichiro Sato/Associated Press

Actions with Potential

2008-11-19T08:32:00.002-06:00

I've read two articles today, and they both are very interesting. The first one was about how a company had to stop an anti-obesity drug because there were risky and dangerous elements involved. The second one showed how a painter painted in zero gravity.

I think both are useless.

Honestly, a company spending millions of dollars and countless hours developing a drug is alright. Right up until the moment it got shut down. Now I know this happens a lot, like when people found out abestos was harmful. But the original idea strikes me as a bit odd. Why make a drug that can prevent obesity? It's not like we can't do that by ourselves. We have to excercise and maintain a healthy diet. How lazy would you have to be for you to take a drug so you won't get fat? In this, I see the problem with a lot of things. People rely on pills these days for anything. A small headache, a small cough, a stomachache- all are things people solve with pills these days. Honestly people, take a step up in the world and just start exercising if you don't want to get fat.

Then we get to the painter. Firstly, I know painting won't have any positive or negative effect on our lives. It is a thing for us to look at and admire. These days, we often also wonder what the painting is depicting. Painting in space is a new trend, I guess, but just look at the thing. It looks just like any other abstract painting. Almost as ridiculous as those all blue paintings. Gosh.

How Much Do We Really Pay Attention to Obesity?

2008-10-26T17:17:00.002-05:00

Currently, the US is ranked #9 in having the largest percent of overweight adults. In numbers, 74.1% of those 15 and older are considered obese. I'm sure that rank may surprise the people who expected America to be number one, and in a way, they won't be disappointed. Numbers 1-8 are mostly countries whose population is poor, so they gorge on junk food because its cheaper, resulting in mass obesity. America, on the other hand, has been the field for a myraid of health products and weight loss advertisements for quite some time. Our economy is better than the other countries, and, if determined by numbers, we have the most obese people.

The problem lies in the very beginning. As the youngest people considered adults on the list, telling us teenagers that fighting obesity is important is one of the most pushed methods to fighting obesity. We have a health class this year, physical education is required all four years, and speakers have come to talk to us about it. But is it really working?

In a way, the school system may even seem hypocritical. They tell us to eat healthy and nutritious, but then they stack our cafeteria with hamburgers and burritos and chips. They are delicious, and we forget how bad they may be for us. Sure the apples and bananas and salads are there, but nobody seems to buy them. Why? One of the biggest reasons is price. Why would we spend 75 cents or a dollar on a single banana when we can get a pound of them for 79 cents at Dominicks? The difference in cost of a salad and a hamburger isn't that much (and in some cases cheaper), but the hamburger is more filling. In the end, the school is unconsciously divided- in the classrooms, eat fruits and veggies, but in the cafeteria, the hamburgers and fries are king.

If educating the teens is the best hope this country has to stopping obesity, then I would advise a serious rehaul on its policies. The idea sent out by the cafeteria and the classrooms are two completely opposite ideas, and none of that seems to add up. By the time we get to lunch, we'll just grab the most appetizing food, and that should change. In the meantime, I'm gonna get a hamburger.

Violence Through Entertainment and Teens

2008-10-25T22:22:00.004-05:00

There has been a growing issue with entertainment and teens so far. As the content becomes more and more violent, are they desensitizing the kids who play them to pain and murder? Arguements have been made on both sides and neither holds much of an advantage over another.

Sure the obvious statement would be to say that killing people is a bad idea. Take into such instances like Manhunt, an extreme case. Game reviews have been generally favorable, but due to its grisly and dark, violent content, it has been the topic of controversy. Owning the game is an offense in some countries, and in Britian, it has even influenced a murder in Britain. If you were a relative of the victim in that murder, wouldn't you want to keep these games off the shelves?

Violence is also prominent in movies as well. Such instances as Rambo, and Kill Bill all have grisly death scenes. Yes they are rated R, so "nobody" under 18 can go and watch them. Yet how many times have underage people (me included) gone to a theatre and watched a movie like that? Security has been especially lax in most theatres, and the production companies know this. Why do directors go to such great lengths to keep their films R? What is so wrong about the next step- the NC-17 rating? Because nobody under 17 is allowed at all, theatres will have to enforce this, and that will cut sales. They know the majority (or a big percent) of their revenues comes from underage viewers (in R rated movies).

However, you can argue that the games would be outlandishly boring without a certain degree of violence. For instance, take Halo 3, a game where you kill aliens as a supersoldier. Yes, it offers first-person view, blood, and the choice to kill humans by just shooting them (although it'll get you killled). However, if that were to be replaced by cleverly moving bullseyes or other inanimate objects, it wouldn't be very fun, would it? Giving the impression that the opponent is alive and thinking gives us a sense of victory and happiness to know that we were able to outsmart them. These games put you in a scenario where its one versus a thousand, and you are victorious. Personally, that is a thrilling experience for me.

The fight between the two sides will never shrink for as long as games and TV exist. Both sides have very valid arguements on what to do. So then the question becomes this. Is it possible to have a middle ground in where a situation is created that is acceptable to both sides?

The World of Idols- Should We Care?

2008-10-18T23:47:00.005-05:00

On an everyday basis, the public spends their time analyzing every move certain celebrities make. Despite the obvious time we are wasting we choose to spend hours and hours mocking the actions they choose to take when we could instead be doing something creative. Oh yeah, Oprah's latest diet or Lindsay's latest rehab news may give us a topic to talk about, but most of the stuff mentioned is pretty much the same old same old.

So what if we do the things we're supposed to do. Don't spend the time reading about the stupid things on the web about stupid people, and pay attention to the stuff that matters. Look up news on the election or about the crisis in the stock market -anything. Chances are that it'll be better than most pop star news.

And if you still cannot keep away from the celebrities, then choose to look at the people that matter. Stuff about Bono from U2, who always tried to help other people whatever way he could. Rise Against, a popular rock punk band, has been constantly outspoken on animal rights. All of their members are vegetarian, and they even made a video on animal cruelty for one of their songs. If anything, this is the words of the celebrities who actually try to use their status to help make the world better, not people worried about how the public will react to every step that they take.

The Good and Totally Useless Stuff on Commercials. Fun!

2008-09-19T23:58:00.003-05:00

The average kid in the US is shown 40,000 commercials every year. That means over 100 in a single day, and it seems that they are doing their jobs. Through these ads, they will feel pressured into nagging their parents into buying them one, especially if they're between 12 an 17 years old. On average, they will ask their parents nine times before they give in to get a product they saw advertised on TV, whether it be a juicy Big Mac or an iPod. Often, along with the nagging, it is also stated that the kids feel better after buying that specific item.

Another factor that is huge is the presence of peers. Many teens admit to buying a product because their friends have them, which isn't always good to the parents. Financial situations may vary with house to house, and many kids are also ignorant of that fact. This is commonly found in the ages of 12-17, when kids start to hang around with each other more, bringing their fancy mp3's and cell phones and Gucci bags. Other kids start to notice, become jealous, and decide to compete. The only people who benefit are the companies.

It's funny though, because this advertising isn't all just present at home. It can be found in places like the school cafeteria, where schools will sign exclusive contracts for "pouring rights" with soda companies, and in work places, where partnerships may call for a "couple" of signs.

However, it is okay to watch the occasional commercial. It's not deadly, especially the ones with no relevance to you. For example, the Ameriquest commercials are better than most commedy shows, and I can only hope to draw as good as the UPS guy. They don't really make me want to get anything right away, so I can watch them and appreciate the creativeness they hold.

Test Post

2008-08-27T09:00:00.000-05:00

Testing