![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
silveradeptToday was kinda boring. Class, paper assigned in Dante, hopefully that I can work out of and possibly strike a first draft before the end of the week. That's the plot, anyway, considering I still have a science fiction novel to read and write a short paper on for next Tuesday. That's okay. It's when another paper comes down the pipe tomorrow that things could get interesting. Oh, well. Here's hoping that things work out and that I don't do the insanity thing. We hope.
From the files of the slightly-odd, one of the university papers has been slightly interesting as mini-fireballs are exchanged over the Letters to the editor column. There were some interesting things said about Christianity as a whole, especially in regards to sex ed. The original story actually happens to be about the State of the Union address and how the president is still pushing programs based on his faith, one of them being about abstinence-only education.
Well, an alumnus that I know (Letters to the Editor, Jan 23) from the marching band spat back at the columnist. (I hope these links work. If not, go to the main site, Michigandaily dot com and enter the word "Abstinence" in their site search box. You should see both the article and the current letter-storm.) It was a decent piece, but the expression of opinion then leaves one open to the potential of retaliation. So far, every issue from then has had a response to the alumnus or his detractors.
So what's the point? Well, there's the whole apparent abstinence vs. protection debate (the two are not in opposition in a proper sex ed. classroom. The point being that if you teach that abstinence is the only surefire way to prevent STDs, and that if you decide to take that risk upon yourself, then protection is generally accepted as the way to minimize that particular risk.) Plus, people dragging faith into the issue present wider targets to fire at, and often draw attacks aimed at their faith being horrible rather than the issue at hand.
Either way, I'm following this with both trepidation and a bit of irritation. I just wonder what'll happen next.
From the off-beat files:
Take Free Advanced Big 30 Personality Test
I'm a wreck. But I'm not surprised. Not at all... what's scarier is that I've been getting similar results as my friends. That's really weird.
And the final thought for tonight: In Dante class, soemone with less brains than I would expect of one attending my university wrote on the writing surface I was using "U of M = U of shit." I know not what political, religious, or other ideological agenda he or she was toting around, but it seems downright silly to deface the stuff that you're paying tuition money to be able to use. I've also seen a wall in one of the buildings used to express political ideologies. Stuff like that makes me wonder just what these people are thinking...
...Especially when the equation above is most certainly not true. I have the professors to prove it. Professor Williams alone proves that equation wrong. Which reminds me... Lectures tomorrow. Should be aiming for bed soon.
From the files of the slightly-odd, one of the university papers has been slightly interesting as mini-fireballs are exchanged over the Letters to the editor column. There were some interesting things said about Christianity as a whole, especially in regards to sex ed. The original story actually happens to be about the State of the Union address and how the president is still pushing programs based on his faith, one of them being about abstinence-only education.
Well, an alumnus that I know (Letters to the Editor, Jan 23) from the marching band spat back at the columnist. (I hope these links work. If not, go to the main site, Michigandaily dot com and enter the word "Abstinence" in their site search box. You should see both the article and the current letter-storm.) It was a decent piece, but the expression of opinion then leaves one open to the potential of retaliation. So far, every issue from then has had a response to the alumnus or his detractors.
So what's the point? Well, there's the whole apparent abstinence vs. protection debate (the two are not in opposition in a proper sex ed. classroom. The point being that if you teach that abstinence is the only surefire way to prevent STDs, and that if you decide to take that risk upon yourself, then protection is generally accepted as the way to minimize that particular risk.) Plus, people dragging faith into the issue present wider targets to fire at, and often draw attacks aimed at their faith being horrible rather than the issue at hand.
Either way, I'm following this with both trepidation and a bit of irritation. I just wonder what'll happen next.
From the off-beat files:
| Advanced Big 30 Personality Test Results
|
I'm a wreck. But I'm not surprised. Not at all... what's scarier is that I've been getting similar results as my friends. That's really weird.
And the final thought for tonight: In Dante class, soemone with less brains than I would expect of one attending my university wrote on the writing surface I was using "U of M = U of shit." I know not what political, religious, or other ideological agenda he or she was toting around, but it seems downright silly to deface the stuff that you're paying tuition money to be able to use. I've also seen a wall in one of the buildings used to express political ideologies. Stuff like that makes me wonder just what these people are thinking...
...Especially when the equation above is most certainly not true. I have the professors to prove it. Professor Williams alone proves that equation wrong. Which reminds me... Lectures tomorrow. Should be aiming for bed soon.
