Group+1

=O: Kyle JA, Tara, Kyle Ars, Priya, Raymond, Dakkota, Landon, Mira= =B: James, Nathan, Emily, Dillin, Melaine, Abbey=

Link 3
This just shows one of the few benefits of actually getting facebook. Not only did he find someone who could save his life, it was someone he didn't talk to in acound a decade. It is also a bit weird though if you think about how someone he hadn't talked to in awhile, found his group on facebook just like that. It shows how much of a life some people have. Do you think this story was pure luck, and won't happen ever again? Priya, 06/03/2010

Yeah, the odds of this happening are pretty slim. I agree that it would be really weird. I don't know how I'd feel with that... I think the best solution to the shortage of organs is cloning. I'm not talking about cloning an entire human, of course. I just mean the one organ. It can be done, so why isn't it? Either that, or making organ donor cards opt-out rather than opt-in. - James 10/06/03.

I think he didn't go down that route because he didn't have knowledge about it. If he had known about it, he would've saved his friend's kidney and acquire a cloned one (however you do that). It is still nice of his friend do give him one of his kidneys. I wonder why none of his friends on Facebook did not mention cloning organs. Why do you think so? -Kyle J. Ancheta 06/05/10

I believe none of his friends mentioned cloning because they probably figured that someone out there has a match for him. A real kidney would be more effective than a cloned one. Chances are it would last longer. But the way he found a donor, is a pretty nice story as it shows the benefits of having facebook. Do you believe that their are other cases of this out there? - Dakkota Aubie 06/06/2010

If there were other cases like this out there, we'd probably hear about them. This probably madea lot of news just because it shows what facebook can do. I agree with Dakkota when she says a real kidney would be more effective, rather than one that was cloned. Do you think if his old friend hadn't stepped up, someone else would have? - Priya, 06/06/2010

It's possible, but it depends on how many friends he has and which of those friends would willingly give up one of their kidneys. If I were to ask my Facebook friends (for a kidney), I highly doubt any of them would gladly donate one. But, I'm sure at least one or two of them would give me some information on kidney cloning or on someone who would donate a kidney. How many of your friends on Facebook do you actually interact with, either on Facebook or in the real world? - Kyle J. Ancheta 06.06.10

I would say i only really interact with about one third of my friends on facebook at most, probably not even that many. But it dose not surprise me that people responded like they did for this man. Facebook is a social network and it really helps getting messages out there and help inform people quickly. I'm not very surprised by this story because this was probably one of the best ways to notify many people at once about his predicament and most people if given the opportunity want to help. Do you think there would be a faster way to get out a help needed message like this one? - Emily Bishop 06/05/10

I don't think there would be a faster way. Facebook is used by millions of people around the clock and at least someone should be willing to help. This article just goes to show you how beneficial Facebook is. It isn't just a social network but real life line for some people. I don't know how Eli thought to put his message on Facebook but it sure did work out for him. I think everyone should have a friend like Paul Jones. Do you think anyone else would have helped Eli if Paul didn't? - Landon - 06-05-10

I think what I said about a cloned kidney was misunderstood. First, it would be *identical* to the original, so it would be just as effective, but younger, and therefor less damaged. Secondly, it would be cloned using his own DNA, so it would not be rejected by his body. The one thing about Facebook is that older posts are buried in the torrent of updates and activity. But I suppose you could repost the same thing several times... - James 10/06/07

I think this was a great thing for Eli to do for a old friend and to answer Landon's question I think someone else would but only if they knew the person. I am just not sure if enough people would see the message.-- Nathan 06-07-10

Thats a very good point Nathan, I definately agree with you. I guess there must be a stronger advertisements which catches people's sights. If not, majority of people won't be able to know people in trouble. In short, there will be lower percentage of problem solving which means there will be almost nothing done to solve health issues, But I do believe facebook has some good advantages due to the article. I do think it helps socializes people by contacting one another. What do you think?-Raymond 06/07/10

I agree and think that this just shows how beneficial facebook can be even though we hear bad things about it as well. I never thought about the message being unseen though, which it probably was for many people because of the way facebook shows you most recent items. This is a good point as the facebook is not constantly showing the need for help therefore lowering a chance for response, but maybe like James said he could just keep repeating the add for help. I also liked what james had said about the cloning idea but it would be hard to raise the funds for something that. Maybe he could have tried raising money for the idea of cloning his own organ, do you think that would be a better approach then just asking for someone elses organ? -Emily Bishop 06/07/10

Thats an astonishing thing to know, but the fact is that it is hard to clone your own organ. Biologists agrees that it is almost impossible to clone organs of people themselves. However, if it's possible to, I do think it is better to clone patient's other unimpaired organ rather than taking someone else's. Because donated person can get serious side affects by giving organs to the patient. Would you donate your organs putting yourself in a risk?-Raymond 06/07/10

I dont think I would donate my organs to just anybody, they would have to be a really good friend or a family member. Even then I would have to think about it and do some research to see what would happen after the transplant. --Nathan 06/09/10

Link 2 - Watch the video (if you are unable, read the article) and make your comments.
Im urprised at how younge he is, but he was probably just copying his parents. And they shoud have discouraged it immediately. No he is going to be the only one to suffer. It coud cause him severe problems because of how much he smokes, and because of how younge he is. It cold even stunt his growth. Yes it is costing them alot of money, but its there own fault for lettin this go on so long and get to this point. Caitlin 06/03/2010 It is quite surprising that smoking has finally reached the two year old kid. It is sure that smoking will affect him badly because his immune system isn't fully developed. I am concerned why can't the smoker's parents stop their kid from smoking. They are just avoiding the situation just by blaming their smoking cultures. I think negative phenomenons should be demolished even though it is accepted as a crucial part of their culture, or bit of a change at least. What do you think?-Raymond 06/01/2010

I think they should defiantly be demolished, or at least start trying to make a change. It is unbelievable that a child who is only two years old, just starting to walk and talk, is smoking. First of all how could parents allow that, even if smoking wasn't terrible for your body, they are giving their child something that could seriously burn him. He's only two and could drop the cigarette on himself, or on something else causing a fire. I think it's crazy that smoking has reached such a young age, and i belive that it is terrible parenting to let this young child smoke. Since both of his parents quit, i think it would be natural for them to want their child to stay away from cigarettes at any age. In my opinion they are just allowing him to continue this because he gets upset when he doesn't have them, do you agree? -Emily 06/01

I agree with that but I also think they really don't know how to stop it. The mother thinks by cutting it down each day she can stop it but the chances of that happen seem slim. If one two year old can do it, many others will start. When she said she saw him smoking at the market, that should've been the end. The young boys parents let it get way to carried away out of their reach. Do you think if they would have never given him a second cigarette he'd be in this situation? Priya, 06/01/2010

Most people can't just quit smoking instantly - it takes a lot of work. Both parents have managed to quit smoking, but they obviously know how difficult it is to do for someone their age. Imagine how hard it is for someone who is only two. That said, I don't think they should allow the smoking to continue. In fact, I think it would be interesting to //force// him to quit by not giving him any more cigarettes and to see what would happen. - James 2010-06-01

I agree with Priya. Why would you keep giving your child cigarettes? She definitely should have put a stop to it right then and there. I still can't believe though that a child that is only two years old smokes and that the rate of smoking for children aged five to nine jumped four hundred percent! What is this world coming to? I think that she should force him off cigarettes immediately before it affects his health anymore. - Landon 2010-06-02

I don't know what the world is coming to, this just came as a shock. The mother should realize that yes, the kid will cry and cry if he doesn't get his cigarettes, but he's still just a kid. Kids can only cry and complain for so long before they completely forget what they were crying about. The mother has to try to make her kid quit now, and not wait an extra day to put her plan in action. How long will it take her to realize she won't have a son much longer if he continues this bad habit? - Priya, 06/02/2010

This boy, he will cry and cry and throw up because he is on the addiction. The mother should know that saving her son is more important than hearing him cry. I believe that it will take a while until she realizes this since she makes a point of she is going to start to cut down and she will slowly reduce it. Why would she reduce it if she could just take them away. He is two years old, he won't have the addiction cravings a 15 year old would have. Do you believe if the boy never smoked, he would end up smoking later on? - Dakkota 06/02/2010

I think he would yes because they mentioned in the clip that smoking has been a part of their culture for a long time. If his mother really cares for him and loves him she would realize that she needs to get him to stop ASA. She should make him quit smoking completely, not just make him cut down. If he continues his smoking how long do you think he would live? - Landon 2010-06-02

Is hard to say how long he could live if he continues to smoke. But I believe that because of the smoking he is really stunting his growth and hurting his immune system making him more eligible to get seriously sick and die at a young age. Even if he is able to quite i wouldn't be surprised if this early addiction affects him later on in life. Also another factor to consider is his weight, he seems to be quite overweight for his age which may lead to even more health problems. Do you think if he stops he will ever be able to completely be rid of the damage the smoke has caused? -Emily 2010-06-02

No i do not think that if he stops smoking he will ever completely rid the damage, this boy has been smoking 40 cigarettes a day! There is no way he would ever be able to stop the damage, especially since no one is getting him to cut back or stop him because he might get mad, and cry. He's two years old, he's gonna cry. Just take them away! Do you believe if the mother would just make him quit right away, not reducing it. The boy would try and hurt himself over a cigarette? - Dakkota 06/02/2010

I think you're right Dakotta. Quiting things at once can lead to more stringent problems. For this 2 year old boy, withdrawal symptoms can damage him deeply. So in order to go over cigarette addiction, it is likely for him to lessen the amout of smoke. If Aldi wasn't that addicted in smoking, we could have used 'quiting at once' option. I am wondering how could 2 year old child could easily obtain smoke. I mean could there be a person which gives a cigarette to a 2 year old? Who could it be?-Raymond 06/02/2010

Well, there are people who buy small children as sex slaves, and people who plan to bomb places, so I wouldn't be surprised at all that there would be someone who would give a cigarette to a two year old boy. Also, you should consider the environment he lives in. In places like Indonesia, and other countries of the same status, smoking is one of the last things they worry about because there are more important things their mind is on. But in this case, careless parents are probably the ones who give cigarettes to their children. But in this particular case, the child acquired it by accident. Do you think countries should have a legal smoking age? -Kyle J. Ancheta 06/03/10

I think countries should have legal smoking ages. Mostly because it's very damaging to one's health and smoking early on in life will make quitting harder. I think a smoking smoking limit would be 18 or 19, or whatever the legal adult age is in the particular country. Do you think this two year old Idonesian boy will quit his smoking habit? -Kyle Ancheta 06/03/10

In response to Kye's last journal, I think that smoking should be outlawed altogether. It has almost no positive effects, and not only does it harm the smoker, it also harms others. The best argument (not that that's saying much) I've heard for smoking's legality is the tax revenue generated. However, people don't realize that the taxes collected from cigarettes do not nearly cover the cost of treating smoking-related diseases. On a slightly unrelated note I think that the best determination for the legality of an action is this: if it harms no one but yourself, go for it. - James. 10/06/03.

=Link 1= Events like this seem to have become more and more common recently. Afghanistan is a stalemate, and Iraq is effectively in a civil war. It has gotten to the point where the media does not even report deaths there anymore. How long do you think it will be before we stop hearing about North Korea? - James. 2010-05-29

I think it's safe to say we won't stop hearing about North Korea for a while. North Korea can't always predict where a torpedo will land, and the fact that it landed in South Korea and killed some sailors doesn't mean it was done on purpose. Hillary Clinton can't just come in and say "it requires a strong but measured response" and not explain what she meant by that. She also doesn't have to drag the United States into the drama. If North Korea denies it was their fault, it should be taken in to account. Is it probable to assume that this was just a terrible coincedence? - Priya, 05/29/2010

I highly doubt that this is just a terrible coincidence. Mainly because the target was a South Korean warship. I'm not saying that North Korea is to blame, but I think some random nation, or group, was targeting South Korean vessels. Do you think this little fiasco, could lead to war? -Kyle J. Ancheta 05/29/10

I do believe that this 'fiasco' could lead to war, as people are already stating that the North Koreans are to blame and in this article it states "North Korea denies it was to blame and has threatened any attempt to punish,it could lead to war." The two countries have also been exchanging threats. Do you believe that if the Secretary of State hadn't jumped into this fiasco so quickly, and just let it calm that we would have this dilemma? - Dakkota 05/29/10

I agree with Kyle that the odds of a torpedo just happening to strike a ship in an enemy country seem to be very high, and I think that North Korea is probably to blame for this attack. Kim Jong Il (the leader of North Korea) is not in good health, though, and it probably won't be long before he either steps down as Supreme Leader or dies. I wonder if DPRK's policies will change after that happens? - James. 2010-05-30

The policies won't change even if the leader changes. North Korea could easily be blamed for the attack, and if it is it would just rise even more tension between the two countries. The United States and China both being involved in this doesn't really solve anything. Do you think because the United States and China are involved will impact the decision to start or to not start a war? - Priya, 05/30/2010

I think that because they are involved, a war won't be started. Both the US and China have the strongest armies in the world and they both have plenty of allies. With that said, I think North Korea wouldn't risk it. Do you think North Korea is bluffing when they said any attack on them could lead to war? - Kyle J. Ancheta 05/30/10

I believe that North Korea is not bluffing when they say that any attack will lead to war as they are getting blamed by everyone for something they might not have done. I also think that if they have done the attacks and get blamed for it, there will be even more tension and a war could actually break out. No one believes that North Korea will start a war. Do you believe the threats will continue even if it is shown that North Korea did not attack South Korea? - Dakkota 05/30/2010

I believe not, because why would the country which assaulted South Korea put themselves in risk again? No thives would try to rob the same house which they did last time. However it is clear that North Korea sank the South Korean ship because there was a Korean letter written in the debris of torpedo. I'm pretty sure that war will break out between them. To prevent that, I think the world must some- how react to the situation before it gets worse. What do you think?-Raymond 05/31/2010

I agree completely with Raymond. The world needs to react and react fast. The war between these two countries never really ended; it was just calmed down. If something isn't done it will only flare up again and more innocent people will die. What can't understand is why the North Koreans would want to start it up again. It's obvious that that ship was sunk on purpose by someone who wants to get something going; but who? - Landon 05/31/2010

I believe that North Korea wishes to reunify with South Korea by using military power. Most of us will know economy in North Korea isn't good at all. Perhaps they are trying to go over monetary crisis by reunification. Anyhow, I'm wondering why would North Korea sank South Korean warship rather than declaring war against South Korea. Could it be their stragedy to upset South Korea so that they could start a war against North?-Raymond 05/31/2010

That's a good question Raymond. The North Koreans could be trying to get the South Koreans all riled up so that they start the war. Then in turn people would blame the war on the South Koreans. I think the threats about the north saying any attack could lead to war are a sign that the North wants a war.I still am not sure though why the North Koreans would want a war to deal with in the first place. Haven't the had enough of war? - Landon 05/31/2010