St. Patty's Day MOVED???? Can they do that???

Apparently they can, because they just did. Many Catholic Churches worldwide held mass for St. Patrick's Day on Friday, March 14 this year instead of this coming Monday. Why? Because this year the real St. Patty's Day occurs during "Holy Week" which apparently is "the most sombre week of the Church calendar year". Well, I definitely wouldn't want to be stuck going to one of THOSE masses.... Luckily for us, no more of this confusion will be happening while we're alive - this is the last time St. Patrick's Day will overlap with Holy Week until 2160.

(http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411365/1636038)

Past Idealism and Realism: just LIFE

We have been putting so much emphasis on realism vs. idealism in class that I think we have in fact lost sight of the real picture: not everything is that straightforward, and people don't always have one view or the other. Many people just live their lives, and no one needs to judge whether they are a realist or an idealist. So where did this all start? People believe in what they want to believe in. Some people are chronic dreamers, while others are pessimists. But the majority of the planet consists of just plain old PEOPLE. Who are we to judge whether they are a realist or idealist? We will never have all the facts of their lives and will never be able to analyze them fully and correctly. So why do we try?

"New Sins"???

The Pope recently released a list of the "new sins" that have to do with the sins of the modern times. Things that were not relevant before include "going green", but at the same time can this really be considered a sin that damns you for all eternity? That might be a little harsh, if you ask me. I didn't even know there was a list of sins in the first place. Why does there have to be a list? Sins are different for every situation and personal beliefs, so HOW can there be a list?

http://green.yahoo.com/news/nm/20080310/hl_nm/pope_sins_dc.html

Pharmaceuticals Found in Drinking Water of Over 41 Million Americans

Apparently there are trace amounts of various pharmaceuticals in the drinking water of millions of people worldwide. These drugs range from anti-convulsants to mood stabilizers to sex hormones. The amount of these drugs that our water contains is way less than an actual dosage of the drug, but what will happen to our bodies after being exposed to them for a long period of time? Will the drugs become less effective when we actually need them? Or will the effects be more serious?
Also, I found it interesting that some cities, Chicago included, refused to test the water, and other cities lied about the results. If it is widely known that almost all drinking water has trace amounts of drugs in it, why not embrace the problem and try to be the city that actually does something about it?



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080309/ap_on_re_us/pharmawater_i

We are famous, again

New Trier makes headlines again, but this time for a hacker:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/education/820000,newtrier022908.article
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-new-trier_01mar01,1,3006724.story?track=rss

Chicago newspapers and radio stations are eating this up...

Especially this article: http://pantagraph.com/articles/2008/03/02/news/doc47ca3cf53324a948284949.txt which explains the competetive nature New Trier is known for.

McCain Clinches Republican Candidate Title

But will people vote democratic just because they don't like Bush? That is the ultimate question, in my mind.

I think that is the case, at least from all the talk I've heard. Voters do not necessarily have a reason to vote for Clinton or Obama or any other candidate for that matter, they don't even really have a reason to vote democratic other than they want CHANGE. That is all we hear about nowadays. CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE. But wouldn't McCain and his administration be just as big of a change as having a democratic president? Maybe not AS much change, but certainly a lot of change. And maybe America isn't ready for a huge change, even if we think we are.

"Living Goddess" Retires

I came across this interesting article on the yahoo home page a few days ago, which explains the belief of Buddhists and Hindus in which there is an incarnation of a powerful goddess. Although I found the fact that she could retire from being a "living goddess" very interesting, the thing that struck me as extremely odd came in at the very end of the article. There was a sentence stating how some humans rights activists have petitioned to the Supreme Court about ending the practice of choosing a young goddess. Why would people in the United States be so against practices half a world away? I believe it is because here pretty much all we ever hear and learn about is Christianity and Judaism, and even Judaism not that much. So do these human rights activists just not fully understand the practice and for that reason believe that it "denies the girl her normal life"? Because what is a normal life anyway? If being portrayed as a goddess denies her a "normal life," what about princes and princesses, or even children of our presidents? I just found this to be outrageous and almost humorous.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080303/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_nepal_goddess