LSU Medical School Gets Creative

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/10/21/
katrina.med.school.ap/index.html

Louisiana State University Medical School has taken a most creative approach to “returning to normalcy” in post-Katrina Baton Rouge. They are housing students on the FinnJet, a Finnish ferry currently in the Port of Baton Rouge. While five hundred members of the faculty, staff, and student body camp on the ferry, class has been re-established in a nearby movie theatre prior to the matinee shows.

The Medical School realizes the importance of these future doctors as aids in long term hurricane relief. Such realizations lead them to the decision to take drastic and indeed innovative steps to reinstate class. Such a move exemplifies the ideal of putting the pieces back together. It acts as an example of what all organizations should be doing as the recovery effort continues.

My question is why is it that a university can have so much initiative, while our government recovery lags slowly on? I understand that the scale is much larger. I also realize that many people have been placed in homes and schools in Texas. But it seemed that such moves sailed forward at a painstakingly bureaucratic pace. It is my greatest hope is that our current government, as well as the general public will take notice of LSU’s resourceful and timely approach to the ongoing recovery effort. Maybe they will acknowledge the efficiency of LSU’s efforts and apply such methods accordingly in the future.

Marijuana May Grow Neurons in the Brain
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Neurology/GenerReview

Research teams in Canada recently discovered that a synthetic cannabinoid, similar to the compounds found in marijuana causes the growth of new neurons in the brain, and reduces anxiety and depression. This synthetic cannabinoid is one hundred times stronger than THC, and was administered over a period of several weeks. Scientists hope that this could lead to new treatments for anxiety and depression.
These new findings can further contribute to the argument in favor of legalizing marijuana. Although the drug used in the study was synthetic and given in high doses, it still raises a number of questions about the potential of marijuana. The argument is especially strong considering that marijuana has been previously used in the medical field to treat chronic pain in cancer patients.
If you were to compare the health ramifications of cigarettes and alcohol to that of marijuana, would marijuana truly be severe enough to be illegal? Cigarettes have been proven to be deadly, and alcohol in excess can leave a person in a drunken stupor. Are carcinogens from marijuana any worse than those from cigarettes? Is being high any more dangerous than being drunk? If we allow the legal sale of cigarettes and alcohol, how can we justify making marijuana illegal?
I think that the drug’ healing qualities should at least be further researched, and legalization further considered.

Intelligent Design, Evolution, and the Public School System
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/10/06/evolution.trial.ap/index.html

Once again, the theories of intelligent design and evolution are causing friction in the public school system. Eight families in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania have taken the Pennsylvania Public School System to court over the issue. They complain that references to intelligent design in a student biology book "promotes the Bible’s view of creation, violating the separation of church and state."
Firstly, the Biology book under fire presents the theories of evolution and intelligent design equally. To me, it seems that such a book should be praised, not ridiculed. A truly open minded book should always present all theories involved to create a fair and logical argument. People often become so caught up in supporting "their cause", that they abandon all rational thinking abilities when dealing with such situations. Evolution and intelligent design are both theories, and neither are proven fully! If you do not believe in one or the other, you have the right to hold that belief. However, it would be unfair to remove a theory from existence simply because it does not settle well with some people. References to knowledge should always try to present a balanced argument.
Secondly, references to intelligent design are not necessarily religious. Although it is a popular belief that an intelligent designer could be a divine being, the theory itself does not reference such. The theory also does not use the Bible as a means of proof. Intelligent design is simply a theory that some intelligent being whether it be divine or even alien, created the living creatures on this earth. Such a theory is plausible, and can be logically argued. So, my question is ",why can’t it be presented along side other plausible theories?"
Thirdly, I do not understand why the theories of intelligent design and evolution cannot be reconciled. The two theories can be intermingled. One or the other does not have to be necessarily right or wrong. They can both be accurate. One should always have the opportunity to choose what to believe. If the public school system is robbed of it’s ability to present all sides of an argument, students will never have the chance to choose what to believe or not to believe. If we are force fed knowledge without knowing all aspects of the situation, will our choices be accurate? Are we to become drones, and believe something that is not challenged? We as a nation should stand for our right to knowledge, our future and well being depends on it.

NASA Wastes Millions on Travel
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/09/30/nasa.waste.ap/index.html

As I looked through the CNN headlines, I was hardly shocked to see an article on NASA’s wasteful use of tax dollars. As I clicked on the article, I muttered to myself ",What’s new." It seems that we have witnessed NASA’s misuse of American tax dollars for years. The headlines have been littered with stories of million dollar projects that have failed due to easily preventable faults and defects. After so many incidents, I hardly even flinched as I pulled up a new article on the subject.
However, as I read the article I was utterly floored to find that NASA had reached a new low. In this instance they were wasting money, and hurting the overall economy by insisting on providing their own air transportation instead of using local airlines. Not only would using local airlines be cheaper than providing their own, but it would also help boost the financial stability of a business that has struggled financially since September eleventh. I cannot find any way to justify a decision that hurts the economy so badly. Local airlines desperately need business, and our tax dollars are not plentiful enough to be wasted so carelessly.
It infuriates me to know that this government agency is allowed to squander it’s funding, while other agencies struggle to provide basic necessities (ahem, the public school system). I think that regulations should be passed and enforced to ensure that government agencies, such as NASA, should be forced to make decisions that are economic and reasonable. Luxuries, such as one’s own airline system, are unnecessary and financially unreasonable.