Monday marked the 10th anniversary of a very shocking event. Many might remember live news feeds from Littleton, Colo. as police stormed a school to stop two shooters. Yes, April 20 was the passing of 10 years since Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold brought assault rifles into their school and murdered 13 before taking their own lives.

What some aren’t aware of is the truth about the event.

The “Trench coat mafia” was a student group at Columbine H.S. but Harris and Klebold weren’t part of it. The dusters that they wore before and during the shooting have been shown to be worn for fashion, not affiliation. According to an article on CNN.com, the “Trench coat Mafia” was a “nonviolent … group of computer gamers.”

Initial reports said that one victim was asked if she believed in God and after answering “yes” she was shot and killed, becoming a “poster child for the Evangelical movement.” The reports not only listed the wrong name of the victim, but also the fact that she didn’t die.

Investigators also have concluded that the perpetrators didn’t target any group in particular – they just shot.

Along with misinformation from the news media, ordinary people are to blame for spreading misinformation, half-truths, myths, and other falsehoods.

A few weeks ago I received an email talking about ‘flesh-eating disease’ that can be carried in women’s undergarments. The caption the sender included was along the lines of “I haven’t taken the time to look in to this, but send it to everyone you care about.”

Snopes.com is a great site to check on this and other ‘urban myths.’ It reveals that the images in the email depicting parasite infections and fly larvae being pulled out of a woman’s breast were not related to the email they were sent with – and one was Photo shopped.

Please, before spreading information, do some fact checking. Let me help – no you are not in line for that inheritance as the secret great grandchild of the king.

What if I were to tell you that the tragedies of the Holocaust may have been to the partial credit of the United States? You would probably be caught off guard and attempt to explain to me that it cannot be true.

I would like to be able to look you in the eye and confirm your disbelief, but unfortunately I cannot. The science of eugenics which became a part of American popular culture was the big brother to the discrimination and torture of the Holocaust.

American scientists were on the forefront of finding way to “cleanse society” of the feebleminded, the insane, the criminals and other “misfits.” Led by the half-cousin of Charles Darwin, Francis Galton, these early scientists believed that traits such as artistic ability, musical talent, personality traits, and successfulness were passed from parents to children.

All-in-all the American government at the federal and state levels lawfully permitted the forced sexual sterilization of over 160,000 Americans from the early part of the twentieth century up until as late as the 1970s.

California was on the leading front of the research and implementation of eugenics. In fact California’s scientists were pen pals with German scientists that conducted brutal and unethical experiments on sets of Jewish twins in Auschwitz. By the time that many Americans realized what they had endorsed, it was too late for the over 350,000 Germans who were sterilized and thousands of others who were put to death. It is interesting to note that after World War II while the German scientists were on trial for their crimes against humanity they cited America’s eugenics support and scientists as defense for their actions.

One can easily see our society has progressed beyond this primitive game of social favorites, or have we? Recent “repogenetics” technologies now allow parents with enough money to custom-build their future children. Traits such as hair color, eye color, height, muscling and even athletic ability can be combined to create “designer children”.

Although on the surface it may not seem like eugenics the final result is ultimately the same- the creation of a “more perfect” human race and further separation between social classes.

Other more affordable types of prenatal screening allow parents and doctors to determine if a child will be born with certain diseases or deformities. It has been reported that 90 percent of parents that learn that their fetus has Down syndrome decide to terminate the pregnancy.

I’m not saying that these tests are wrong or in any way unethical. I am simply suggesting that eugenics is still alive today just in a remodeled, more humanitarian form.

Our society has come a long way from forcing criminals and those in mental institutions to be sterilized. Like it or not, the science of eugenics, which got its start on shaky ethical ground, is still alive and well in our society today.

I think I’d like to get a dog. A furry companion with a quickly readable meter of emotion in the form of a wagging tail and a lolling tongue would make the long stressful hours comprised of class, work, and the drama the seems to carry itself between the two a bit more bearable.

And what is it about these caring canines that seems to be so beneficial? Their unrelenting desire to bestow affection, perhaps. Not like a cat. Cats are moody. Cats are temperamental. You can’t take a cat to the park and throw it a Frisbee.

Having recently watched the movie ‘Marley and Me,’ I’ve come to grips with my emotional need for reciprocated friendliness. Rest assured that no one saw the unavoidable emotional breakdown each audience member experiences at the end of the movie.

Not to mention that dogs always attract girls. Doesn’t matter what breed or age, if a woman sees a dog it is instantly reverted back to being called a puppy.

And with all the costs of food and veterinary visits, chew toys, replacement dress shoes after a successful gnawing session, we love these often smelly, dirty, shedding creatures.

But at this stage in my life, approaching my last year of college with a post graduation direction akin to a leave and a strong wind, a dog just doesn’t seem like a good idea. The attention that this animal would require and deserve, the added expense to landlords for carpet cleaning or not having a fenced in backyard are both concerns to consider.

For the last several months, I’ve gone back and forth on the pros and cons of rescuing a dog and giving he or she a proper and loving home. All of this stress, this burden, this thinking so far in advance all for a four legged mutt seems strange. It wouldn’t be terrible if I were to dedicate this passion to a potentially more fruitful pursuit but the prospect that something so mundane could require such a high level of mental activity is a fun sort of exercise.

In life it’s important to analyze both what is happening in addition to what could happen. Weighing those measures and allowing foresight to run a little rampant isn’t such a terrible thing. Whether you’re trying to find your next step in life, or whether or not your next companion will be a canine, feel free to think it over a lot and when you’re done with that, just do what feels right.

Online dating has become a comfortable norm in today’s society. What was once a taboo idea, cyber love is the “in” way to acquiring happily ever after these days. The popularity of online dating made me wonder how it all worked, if people can really find love and what is the price of love.

Although I am not in need of an online dating service, I signed up for eHarmony during its free communication weekend to investigate. The free communication weekend provides non subscribers the opportunity to meet people via the site and forge friendships, and maybe more. I answered several pages of questions about religion, love styles, communication, values, and even whether or not I screw the cap back on the toothpaste in the morning. Some of the questions seemed rather ridiculous, but made me realize that I hadn’t even asked my boyfriend of two years some of these questions. The in-depth questions do assist in breaking the ice, however by the time people meet, there might not be enough mystery left. Mystery is what makes dating fun, and when you take that out of the equation there really isn’t much else to talk about. Sure there is great comfort in knowing everything, but not all at once.

Within my two days of free communication, I received nearly 40 hits from men across the United States. To my surprise, most of these men appeared dateable- engineers, musicians, teachers, doctors, and self-made businessmen. In less than two weeks, I have received nearly 200 hits. Online dating appeared to have a silver lining until, however, I checked out the hefty prices of what people pay outside of the free communication weekend. Members can either pay a one- time fee of $240 or $19 per month for 12 months. According to eHarmony, the 12- month plan is the most successful. A sixmonth membership is a one- time fee of $179 or $29 a month, three months for $119 or $39 per month, or one month for $60. eHarmony went from being the friendly dating site you see on commercials, to a virtual pimp. When you think of it, the dater makes himself or herself look as appealing as possible then eHarmony or “the pimp” finds johns. In return, the dater gives the pimp money. Good old fashioned dating sounds much cheaper. However, given the credentials of these men and women, eHarmony would probably be good place to pick up a sugar daddy or a cougar.

The prices of eHarmony also made me question what lovehungry people do. It was pretty clear that if a person does not have the cash, then they don't get love. But that’s okay, dating old school is probably the better route for most people. Old fashion dating holds the excitement of seeing someone across a room, or sharing an intimate glance over drinks while divulging secrets and flirtation. Dating also holds the rush of building something special with a friend, colleague, or blind date. Now I’m not saying people cannot have this with online dating, however I think if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.

The truth is, people can really find love with online dating sites. People should never end their search for love and if it is truly important to them, then sacrifices need to be made. Love can be found but if you go the online route, it’ll cost you.

As yet another schoolyear comes to a close, I find myself at another life transition. For many students who will continue taking courses during the summer semester or who will return next fall to continue in their programs of study, the process of returning to campus will be a relatively comfortable one.

Some students will receive their degrees this May- an exciting achievement, most certainly. Many of these graduates will go on to join the “working world,” whatever that is. I call it “having a normal life that does not involve a refrigerator containing only condiments,” but, that’s just me.

Some graduates though, will grasp firmly their degrees, and head right towards the back of the line for more scholastically-induced cranial molding, or graduate school.

Speaking as someone who is in this situation I have to say that the prospect of being a “new kid on the block” at the age of 24 is anything but appealing. I feel like I have finally gotten comfortable in my academic niche. I know the area that all of my classes are in quite well, I have developed professional and personal relationships within the college of arts and sciences here at Ferris, and I know which vending machines in which buildings carry the snacks I like.

The situation is not unlike the transition from high school to college, and the transition from middle school to high school before that. I will be placed in a new immediate environment and have to do some exploring, asking around, and a slew of other semi-uncomfortable things. And thanks to an obvious lack of tact, this opens up many opportunities for me to put my foot directly into my mouth and nibble for a while.

Like the growing pangs of my past, the ones in my immediate future will continue to shape the person I am soon to become. For this reason, I am grateful that life is keeping me on my toes. There might be an uncomfortable period of transition as I wiggle my way into yet another new life-role, but being comfortable, to me, implies being stagnant. Change is irritating and tough, but is a cheap ticket price for personal growth.

I would like to first let you know that this is simply a piece of political speculation, a sort of political philosophy. I have found what seem to be inconsistencies among party lines, and would like to share my thoughts.

If there is one thing that cements the consensus of liberals, it is the idea that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was a complete mistake and would have been better to have not happened at all. On the other hand, it seems that most conservatives are convinced that this was all part of the War on Terror, or that as a humanitarian cause we needed to help oust Saddam Hussein from power. I hope these generalities can be agreed upon.

I understand that there are those on each side of the spectrum that do branch off from the rest of their party on this issue. We have the paleo-conservatives on the right who hold a non-interventionist stance on foreign policy, and there are the liberal hawks or Wilsonian Democrats on the left that have supported this invasion and the spread of democracy to the Middle East.

The main inconsistency that I find with the proposed generalized stances of each party on this issue lies in their fundamental philosophies. Each party has been known to adopt a certain way of thinking, and I feel that with Iraq in particular, the stances should be reversed.

The Republicans generally have an individualist stance that each person should fend for themselves and get out of the system what they put in. They believe in laissez-faire capitalism and the idea that people should not have the government regulating them or telling them how to live.

The Democrats on the other hand have a vision of brotherly equality- the concept that we need to help each other out. We need to help the lower income population by instating a progressive tax, and we need to have systems set up through the government to help out our citizens.

My main problem with the Iraq stances is that if Democrats feel we need to help out our neighbors and look out for each other, why can’t they extend this concept to Iraq? On the other hand, if Republicans think that each person should have to look out for themselves, why do they suddenly feel this urge to spend government resources and American lives on a war that is not really national defense, but more of a humanitarian cause?

I say that this is a humanitarian cause because that is the type of argument many have used to support the invasion. The thinking goes along the lines that Saddam was part of a dictatorial crime family who was oppressive to his citizens, and because America has the resources and the means to help out, we therefore have the duty to do so.

I find these scenarios horribly inconsistent. It makes little sense for a conservative to claim we have the duty to help them out with our military, but then argue that our own government should not help out our own citizens. I also think it’s hypocritical that a liberal will say the government should help out our citizens, but then can’t extend this idea for the removal of an oppressive dictator.

I understand that this is a very complex issue that has more to it than the surface of how it is often portrayed. And not just Iraq, but we also have the Afghanistan situation on our hands. This also seems to cause inconsistencies, but this time more so with Democrats.

While the Republicans favor a strong national defense, it is consistent for them to support the invasion of Afghanistan, since it is a national defense issue and not a humanitarian cause. Democrats though have argued that Iraq should not be happening because it is a distraction from Afghanistan. When they generally support concentrating on domestic affairs, why are they so gung-ho on a national defense war instead of a humanitarian one?

I can see were both sides are coming from in the Iraq situation. Both seem to be looking out for the best interests of the nation, just disagree about how these interests should be defended.

In the end though, it still holds true that the majority stance of each party is a deviation from their general philosophy. The arguments put forth for both ideologies seem to have been driven more by an attempt to persuade the American population than anything else. Partisan politics seem to be inevitable in our political system.

In my own view, I think that the Iraq invasion was ultimately for a good cause. Yes, it was very much mishandled. Yes, there were many lives spent. But I think that a post- Saddam world is far more favorable that one where he still has a powerful fist in global affairs.