Reflection on my blog thus far...

Well, my original goal was to set out to start a blog for this class and hope that I could find some really good material from which to work with. By material, I mean anything that I found interesting over the semester that suits my interests politically and something that maybe I just have an opinion towards.

What it turned into was something I didn't initially. After this writing, I plan on posting my blog on facebook and sending the link to my families. I really like the idea of a blog. Not only is it a place to vent, but I really think that writing on a regular basis will help to improve me as a writer and as an debater. I also plan to freelance write or write a novel at some point in my life, so using this as an early reference point to what I was like near the end of my college years can serve as a practical example of how much I have improved and what still needs working on. I aim to be perfect, but believe that perfect is undefinable. I just want my work to shine, to really make sense, and really, through this blog, make an impact.

Essay arguing for the abolition of Don't Ask Don't Tell

Below is an essay I wrote, and an update to my very first blogpost, reporting on my feelings of repealing DADT.



Repealing ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’

$200 million dollars is the amount the United States Army spent on creating and instituting the ‘Army Strong’ campaign to recruit new enlistees (Keshin). So why is the military excluding potentially tens of thousands of recruits if it so desperately needs people to enlist in the military? The group being excluded is one that is able-bodied and willing to fight for their nation, no matter how bigoted laws are against them in the U.S. Gays have been disallowed from being open about their sexual orientation in the military for seventeen years, and because of the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy created by the Clinton administration, two gay people are kicked out of the military every single day because of their orientation (Jones). It is time for a change; this arcane policy needs to repealed immediately and gay and lesbian people need to be treated as equals in the military, and allowed to be open about their sexual orientation.
Increasingly, nations around the world are accepting gays and lesbians openly into their military forces. Considering the amount of worry and money spent on homeland security in the United States, it makes one scratch their heads as to why anyone without a substantial criminal record or medical issue would be barred from joining the armed forces. Currently, there are twenty-five confirmed nations that support the permission of gays and lesbians to serve in their militaries, including most recently Germany and Uruguay (Palm Center). If the United States is supposed to lead the world as a progressive nation, they certainly are failing at that attempt with this policy. Inherent discrimination against something biologically determined is a bigoted statute that should be addressed immediately.
According to a recently constructed Pentagon survey “of active-duty forces and their families, the majority do not care if gay men and women serve openly” (Bumiller). Now, certainly not everyone will ever agree on this issue. I served in the military and there are some bigoted soldiers, but there are just as many open-minded soldiers as well. There were people in my unit who were racist, but that certainly does not mean that only whites or only blacks should serve just because other soldiers may be uncomfortable serving alongside someone of another color. If in fact this where the case, the soldier who felt uncomfortable about such an arbitrary thing should be the one dismissed. Alas, over 13,000 soldiers since the conception of this law have been discharged for ‘coming out’ or for their commanding officers or fellow soldiers discovering the true sexual orientation of the soldiers (Keshin). Even though most soldiers have displayed via this survey that they are comfortable with gays serving alongside them, this ‘rule’ continues to discourage gays from joining, and discourage gays from even being themselves in the military. If they cannot be open and honest with those whose lives they must depend on, especially in a era of the two longest wars in modern American history, then there is something more seriously wrong with the military.
An interesting annotation about this issue is it appears that a growing number of elected officials are in favor of repealing the issue. Representative Alcee Hastings of Florida sent a letter to President Barack Obama in June of 2010 that was “endorsed by more than seventy-five members of Congress [that urged] a suspension in investigations and discharges because of ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’” (Keshin). The issue has been put into a defense bill that is set to be looked at by the U.S. Senate, and was actually repealed in federal court until the U.S. Justice Department stepped in an asked the courts to wait on overturning the policy because it was a matter that should not be decided judicially, but rather by the Pentagon and the military themselves. Bureaucracy has prevented our nation from repealing this policy, and as a result homeland security is suffering, albeit on a small scale but a scale nonetheless, and is stymieing recruitment of men and women willing to serve in the military. Robert Gates, the Bush and Obama Secretary of Defense, has recently come out urging Congress to repeal the law so the courts do not have to, thus saving the taxpayers potentially millions of dollars that would otherwise be spent fighting the issue in the judicial system.
“Twenty percent of gay vets who left the military said they would have stayed if they could have served openly…that means one in five who’ve left could potentially be interested in coming back” (Conant). Not only would recruitment open up to all gays and lesbians, but soldiers with experience might be willing to return to serve the country. According to a think tank at UCLA, the Williams Institute, the “U.S. Armed Forces spend about $22,000 to $43,000 to replace each individual discharged under DADT” (Conant). Taxpayers’ dollars, an issue so contested that the lame duck Congressional Republicans are vowing to disregard any bill until the tax issue is frontloaded, are being wasted discharging perfectly fine soldiers because of sexual orientation. Even fiscal conservatives, now matter how bigoted they may or may not be, have got to argue that this policy is outdated and trite. If even the lowest amount, $22,000, was spent on each individual discharged under the policy, that would accrue to $286 million for the estimated 13,000 soldiers discharged under the policy. This is essentially the minimum cost taxpayers have taken on to get rid of able-bodied gay soldiers in the military because of DADT.
‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is a policy that was effectively enacted to eliminate the potential for discrimination against gays in the military. The one problem with this is that the policy is inherently discriminatory in its nature. And it continues to only allow for more discrimination. Gays and lesbians are no different from any other sexual orientation, especially in their ability to fight and serve for the United States Armed Forces. At a time when we need as many soldiers as possible to help fight and solve two wars in the Middle East, we need to be accepting and open to all those who want to serve their nation, regardless of sexual orientation. Joseph Rocha, a former military bomb handler became an outcast and was ridiculed by fellow soldiers to a point that he was locked in a dog kennel and forced to eat dog food. If DADT was repealed, however, he wants to serve again. “You never lose that sense of duty and service and love for country…it’s a unique and beautiful thing most of us feel we were robbed of and would take the first chance to have it back” (Conant). Let us end this discrimination and give Rocha a chance to serve openly for the first time, so soldiers like him that are passionate about duty and honor can once again serve openly and freely in the United States armed forces.















Works Cited
Bumiller, Elisabeth. "Pentagon Finds Little Risk in Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal - NYTimes.com." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 2 Dec. 2010. .

Conant, Eve. "Gay Vets Who Want to Return to the Military - Newsweek." Newsweek - National News, World News, Business, Health, Technology, Entertainment, and more - Newsweek. N.p., 27 Sept. 2010. Web. 2 Dec. 2010. .

Jones, Michael A.. "Every 24 Hours, Two Gay People are Kicked Out of the Military | Gay Rights | Change.org." Gay Rights | Change.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 2 Dec. 2010. .

Keshin, Eric. "United for Peace & Justice : With whom does the Army hold its current advertising contract?." United for Peace & Justice Index. N.p., n.d. Web. 2 Dec. 2010. .

"Nations allowing gays to serve openly in military | Palm Center." Palm Center. N.p., n.d. Web. 2 Dec. 2010. .

The Individual Mandate Health Law...

Recently, as NPR has written, U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson struck down the individual mandated health care in Obama's health-care law. The law requires that all individuals get health insurance. There are a few paradoxes here, though, as this was the only part of the law the judge ruled unconstitutional. As a result, with insurers required to take patients with pre-existing conditions starting in 2014, this could essentially mean that if the law stays in tact with the exception of the individual mandate, people can just buy health insurance when they get sick. Now, normally I would have a problem with this because it means it would affect the busineses. The businesses here are, however, health insurance companies. And I am one to believe that pretty much all health insurance companies are crooked and scammers, and honestly quite ruthless and without an ounce of empathy. They will turn down claims because of some of the most arbitrary decisions. Michael Moore's fascinating documentary on the health care system, Sicko, highlights these points and more.

I do believe, though, that more needs to be done now. It certainly isn't fair to these companies that people can just purchase insurance when they become sick, and it will certainly hurt the wallets of those who are already insured and keep their insurance. This law was created to safeguard the private insurers and the American public together. Unfortunately, with this law deemed unconstitutional, either the health care law gets rewritten, or we demolish the system and create public healthcare and eliminate private insurers. Now, we all know how receptive this country is to big government and socialism, so the latter option is essentially off the table for at least another decade. So we are stuck with the first option. We must rewrite the law, or somehow find a loophole to demand that everyone purchases health insurance. No one will be pleased, and no one really seems too pleased as it is with the healthcare law. Too many earmarks and too much bureacracy prevented this law from possessing the benefits it could have given. So, while I believe that we should have public healthcare, and it should be taken from our taxes, we are stuck with either the current healthcare bill with individual mandates to purchase from a private insurer, or we eliminate the pre-existing condition exceptions that begin in a few years. Either way, not everyone will be delighted with the outcome.

Dreaming of passage of the DREAM Act

The DREAM Act, the hotly contested act that is waiting to be looked at on the Senate floor, would provide a pathway to citizenship for those who enter the country illegally under the age of 16, and have lived in the U.S. for five years. I don't even understand why anyone would be against this. These kids, and now some adults, were rasied in their formative years in this country, are inherently naturalized citizens, and often times don't speak any language but English fluently, but are still considered illegal immigrants because of the arbitrary birthplace of their parents or families.

It is only smart to provide a pathway to citizenship for these folks. Critics may argue that this will just allow for illegal immigrants to bring their kids into the U.S. and wait five years until they're afforded a pathway, then they can themselves find it easier to stay in the U.S., but really all the DREAM Act does is allow those who would follow under the DERAM Act to stay for six years, and then must either have completely two years of college or the military. These are pretty tough stipulations for one to live in the United States, and many Americans themselves don't even accomplish that much for their, or any, country. Although opening up borders is impractical, it is only sensible to allow those who had no decision to enter the U.S., but have stayed here and been somewhat successful, an opportunity to become a citizen, because after all, we were all immigrants once upon a time.

Wikileaks: Redux

I wanted to revisit my last post concerning Wikileaks. I actually posted my blog on the role of Wikileaks the morning of the day Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, posted the tens of thousands of cables of classified documents. I actually posted the blog without the knowledge of the cable leak, because I wanted to touch on the thousands of documents that were released earlier this fall.

Assange, who recently turned himself into London jail because of the warrant for his arrest for alledged rape charges in Sweden, is pretty much in every headline on every world media circuit right now. One would be hard-pressed to not be familiar with his name or his website, Wikileaks.

I have been rather torn lately in regards to my support of Wikileaks. As stated in my previous blog, I am fully behind releasing these classified documents for the public to see because it provides for transparency of our government, which is neccesary as a citizen of the United States to know one's native country's foreign policy. I think the role of Wikileaks is vastly important, it helps serve as a watchdog organization and they also did something that may not had originally been intended: the release of these cables has spurned the Pentagon into action to tighten security. If Wikileaks can get a hold of this classified information, who knows who can get a hold of much other, perhaps more pertinent information. Although the security exploit may have just been whistleblowers inside the government, this also shows that really not many can be trusted. However hypocritical this may sound, while I believe in transparency of government, there are also certain things that the general public should probably not know, essentially because there are some things that directly affect national security.

While I agree with the release of the vast majority of the cables I have seen and read so far, particularly with the cables in regards to our debt owed to China and with Iran's nuclear proliferation, there are some I wish Assange and Wikileaks had used more discretion with in regards to national security. What I am referring to is the release of documents establishing where the United States keeps minerals that are pertinent to trade and any potential "apocalypse" scenario, in addition to documents stating hotspots for terrorist targets. There's obviously a bevy of these secrets out there now, and all our government can do now is tighten security, but I do wish that more discretion was used on the part of Wikileaks before releasing these documents. In spite of that, if their role is to release all documents, regardless of how vulnerable they may make the United States, then that is a different story. If Wikileaks is anti-censorship, then that can be understandable. As it is, it does not seem they are inherently against censoring these cables, so they need to know that what they are releasing will assuredly not affect the lives of innocents, which is more important than any cable allowing transparency.

The Atlantic did a terrific rundown on the media's favoritism and anti-Wikileaks bantor throughout the internet that can be had right here for your reading pleasure.

The Bush tax cuts...keep 'em?

As the Bush-era tax cuts are set to expire at the end of the month, Democrats and Republicans are finally coming to a consensus, if you want to call it that, as they plan on extending the tax cuts at least for the following year. Democrats are understandably irked that the top 2-3% wealthiest of Americans still benefit from these tax cuts, thus denying the Fed $60 billion, but also will extend unemployment benefits for millions of Americans which would be set to expire. To top it off, the extension of the cuts would save middle-class Americans about $1,000 a year each, which is certainly necessary given the current economic recession.

Obviously, in an ideal liberal society, the wealthiest of Americans would not get tax cut extensions, and middle class families would still get tax cuts, and unemployment benefits would continue. It is highly doubtful this scenario would play out until the next election, about two years from now, given that the Republicans are set to take over the House, and they are certainly pro-tax cuts for all individuals.

Although the tax cuts for the wealthy are difficult for liberals and people like me to swallow, I think extending the unemployment benefits and saving middle class families around the country is a good give-and-take for bipartisanship, and for the economy. If an extra $1,000 was taken off middle class families salaries, our economy would certainly see that, given there are tens of millions of middle class families this would affect. Unemployment recently rose in November, so extending these benefits is crucial to keep families afloat in such difficult times. So, while extending the cuts for the wealthy seems unacceptable, the cuts continue for the Americans who need it the most, and we must suck it up and accept that until the next elections roll around, and hopefully our president's message of change can take full effect.

Iran: Will diplomacy work?

According to Wikileaks released cables, many Middle Eastern countries want the United States to do something about Iran's nuclear proliferation program. Considering that just yesterday, Iran announced that they have everything they need to create a nuclear weapon, one would think we should do something about this...just like we did with Iraq, right?

Well, we are all witnessing how the Iraq conflict played out and is playing out still currently. Unfortunately, a preliminary attack like some Arab nations alledgely support, would not be the best solution. Much like the current North Korea situation, we should use diplomacy and talks by heads of state and the Cabinets of nations involved to see how we may stall this process or eliminate. While it is hypocritical to stop a country from nuclear proliferation when we in the U.S. have thousands of nuclear weapons, there is no reason for any nation to have them. While in a pragmatic sense this is just seemingly silly, everyone must agree that nuclear weapons are inherently bad for society. If we could perhaps create a treaty with Iran, much like the SMART treaty with Russia currently on board, we must secede nuclear weapons and destroy them so Iran can feel comfortable, and we must also adit that peace is the answer, and hopefully sign a treaty that will establish positive relations with Iran, regardless of their human rights violations (and ours), this issue must be addressed imminently.

Are you still drinking out of plastic water bottles?

If your answer to this question is Yes, then you should entertain the option to stop. Plastic, that oh so cheap substance that is virtually in everything we buy and consume, is not good for you, not good for our planet, and nonrenewable. There are a plethora of options available for plastic bottle alternatives: Sigg bottles, Kleen Kanteen, Camelbak, Nalgene, and many other companies all sell reusable water bottles from $10 - $50 (depending on size, brand, style). And they are all free of BPA.

BPA, Bisphenol A, "is an endocrine disruptor, which can mimic the body's own hormones and may lead to negative health effects." Last year, The Endocrine Society published a study laying out the potential negative effects of BPA on humans, especially growing children. BPA is in nearly every plastic available, and when one drinks out of plastic water bottles, they are directly consuming BPA. Most water bottles are also packaged in PET, Polyethylene terephthalate, which makes up 1% of the United States' waste, and is currently recycled at less than a 25% rate.

If the health effects of BPA aren't enough to dissuade you, think about the waste. Oil, what plastic comes from, is a nonrenewable resource. The water in the water bottles has to come from somewhere too. Taking water from natural ecosystems is obviously abhorrent, but the fact that companies even have a right to water sources that should be intended for people in those areas is another. Where do property lines end?

Finally, the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. It is riddled with plastic water bottles, and plastic waste. It is a "gyre of marine litter" that equates to the size of Texas that just floats in the middle of the Pacific, accumulating trash and essentially unstoppable and uncontrollable. If we stopped our plastic bottle usage, we could greatly reduce the chances of furthering the size of this garbage patch, and hopefully with more eliminated plastic usage, we can find a way to stop the patch from growing, and becoming a problem for those who live on islands in the Pacific.

Those pesky 42 Republicans

Recently, the 42 Republican Senators in the United States vowed to neglect and vote against any bill during the lameduck Congress because the Bush tax cut issue has yet to have been addressed. Although I do agree this issue needs to be addressed imminently, as they expire in one month, to simply ignore any bill that comes their way is unacceptable and negligent. The United States citizens have voted these folks in to pay attention to, and vote on, these very bills. But since they are not getting their way with Obama and the Congressional Democrats, they are pulling this stunt.

This is not democracy. This is borderline fascism. They are exercising their power to...do nothing. Now, fortunately the Republicans agreed to address the new START treaty that would essentially sign a pact with Russia to eliminate a number of nuclear weapons and to reduce nuclear proliferation. Unfortunately, this is not the only issue that needs addressing in the Senate. Anything that truly comes before the Senate, which likely took many years to get there, deserves just as much attention as the START treaty, and simply ignoring it to get their way with the tax-cut issue is not a solution. If the Democrats had done this to the Republicans, I would feel the same way, and the liberal media would be in an absolute uproar. As it is, the Republicans are just fine sitting on their fannies until the tax-cut issue is frontloaded. So why are we paying these Senators to do nothing? Impeach, or move forward with the bills presented.

Why I support Lebron James

Lebron James is arguably the best player the NBA has to offer. The NBA, the United States' most dynamic and popular sport internationally, is obviously a pretty big deal. When Lebron James chose to leave the Cleveland Cavaliers after several attempts at winning championships, he upset a lot of fans in Cleveland, and especially the owner of the team Dan Gilbert. I can understand the anger towards his departure from a standpoint of a Clevelandite. But to spread hateful speech about him and stage a burning of his jerseys is a bit too much.

Lebron left Cleveland for the sunny beaches of Miami to play with his two good friends who he also happened to win gold medals with in 2008 in the Olympics in China. The reasons he left are the reasons I still support him fully: he left to win. No matter who you are a fan of, you have to appreciate an athlete who wants to win, and tries his hardest to win. Compounded with this, he took a very large paycut to play in Miami. The best player in one of the most popular sports in the world took a paycut to play in Miami. He also chose Miami to play with his friends. I can fully respect this. If I had an opportunity to play with two of my closest friends, and it was in Miami, and they were such great ballplayers that it would immediately give me contention for an NBA Finals championship, I would jump at the opportunity. So although Clevelandites may boo Lebron tomorrow when he returns to Cleveland for the first time as a member of the Heat, I think they should still respect the decision of a guy who really is just a man who wanted to win, and win with his friends.

O Tannenbaum

Recently, NPR posted this article referencing a new, efficient way of lighting a Christmas tree. When one truly thinks about it, there is certainly a whole lot of waste that goes into the holiday season, particularly Christmas trees. In many parts around the city of Chicago, one would be hard-pressed to travel more than a few miles without spotting a couple lots that are selling live Christmas trees. These trees are not grown locally, so they definitely travel a ways to get here. All of that transportation, coupled with the destruction of whatever ecosystem the trees came from, is disturbing. Sure, a lot of these trees are grown on farms that grow them specifically for the holiday season. Unfortunately, animals and other living creatures around these farms may not recognize this. Furthermore, the farms often use pesticides and herbicides to keep the trees in shape, and this has obviously been proven to be harmful to the environment and ecosystem.

So what is the consumer's other option? A plastic tree is the most common alternative. Unfortunately, the vast majority of American plastic Christmas trees come from China. So not only are we purchasing something that has traveled across an ocean and then thousands of miles to get here, but it is made from a material that is difficult to recycle, and is also often sprayed with toxins to keep shape. Not to but a damper on holiday spirits, but there really aren't many inexpensive alternatives, if any at all.

So while there may not be a green alternative that looks like a 'green tree' one could construct their own tree from recycled paper, purchase an organic wreath (local, and fair trade if possible), and one could also purchase a three-dimensional tree. Unless one lives in an area with pine trees aplenty that they can easily cut down and plant another one, the safest bet is to ditch the tree and start a new, eco-friendly tradition. Or use a hand-me-down plastic tree. Happy Holidays!

What to 'do' with North Korea?

North Korea, as we all may be aware, is a very agressive dictatorship. With their recent shelling and killing of four people (two civilians) on a South Korean island, the problem of what to do with a nation that secludes itself from the rest of the planet is one we must face. Certainly diplomacy has been at a stalemate since the Korean War, and with the imminent passing of their leader, Kim Jong Il, we must consider how to prepare for the next leader, likely Il's son. Now, obviously a monarchy or dictatorship is something that leaves no choice to the people, but who am I as an American to say that their political scenario is wrong? I've never lived under a reign similar to that of North Korea so I am surely not one to say that it should change.

The exception, however, is human rights. And certainly North Korea has it fair share of human rights violations, including penalizing those who enter the country illegally (even if the consequences are known). And I feel that we has humans, not as Americans, must decide that we should do something about the abhorrent living situation for many North Koreans. Being brainwashed from birth essentially, it is hard for many North Koreans to accept that their government is inherently corrupt and uses its people as pawns. The government is about money and power, as many governments certianly may be, but they have gone too far. It is time for the rest of the world to take notice. Perhaps diplomacy could take its course if many more nations were involved, or if China stepped up to recognize that North Korea is regressing rather than moving forward. Treaties need to be written up, and action needs to get taken soon, before another war in the Koreas begins.

The Role of Wikileaks

Wikileaks, an independent, anonymous website that allows anyone to anonymously upload files and documents that the public usually isn't privy too, and are often classified and not available to the general public, even through the Freedom of Information Act. There has been heated debate over whether or not this is cause for alarm for the national security of nations affected by potentially leaked documents. However, I believe that as citizens of the United States we should be permitted to view any documents that affect our wellbeing or our security. I understand that nature of certain classified material, but often this material is available to people who are not even elected officials, people the voters deemed fit to see these types of documents.

I also understand the importance of national security and that the U.S. is a very susceptible nation to terrorism. However, we often have very little idea if what our government is telling us is true. The reasons for the war in Iraq were based on evidence that was not accurate, and we are still entrenched in a war there. The public deserves to know the truth about most issues, and Wikileaks serves as a good arbitrator and mediator to this, as it is an unbias source that lets the public know the truth, as it is presented in the documents upload to the website. I support this, insofar as it still holds an ability to protect our national security, as its releases so far often has.

Happy T(of)urkey Day

So, with Thanksgiving upon us, a time to give thanks and respect to all those loved ones of ours, we get ready to expand our stomachs, feast, and wake up early Friday morning to get a new big screen at Target. All this fun consumerism aside, there are going to be over 40 million turkeys slaughtered this year for America's favorite feast.

Thats a very large number. Thats one turkey for nearly every eight Americans. Hundreds of millions of pounds, and most of it travels across the country. I never really want to tell people I am right for being a vegeatarian and they are wrong for eating meat. But when I read staggering statistics like this, it pains me. Obviously in an idyllic world we would all raise our own turkeys for the holiday and kill him 'humanely'. That is a tricky word, since animals are not human. But certainly, we must be respectful of our ecosystem and of other animals. They do, after all, have feelings and are sentient beings. Factory farming is only good for one thing: the consumer. Unfortunately this holiday, and the next big one, bring out the ultra-consumerism in us all. Spend spend spend. The irony? Most of us are not willing to sacrifice a few extra dollars for a turkey treated without antibiotics or pesticides. While at Whole Foods or Trader Joe's, these turkeys can be had for 1.50-3$ a pound, consumers choose for the $1 a pound turkeys at Jewel, Safeway, Albertsons, etc. This is simply a choice either of ignorance or disregard. We must vote with our dollars and understand this is the only way to enact change. Instead of spending so much on gifts for Christmas, go out and buy that bird that is raised ethically, in a farm where it can roam, be natural, and spread its wings. You'll feel better, and the turkey will at least get a chance at a normal life.

X-Rays at the airport

Referencing this and many other articles recently...So x-rays at the airport; passengers now are subject to a possibility of either getting a fullbody x-ray scan or getting an aggressive pat-down by TSA security. For those who oppose to either? S.O.L. It is absolutely incredible that to fly in a plane now, one could be subjected to having a government agent either see their nude body in a negative, or touch their crouch, with the front of the hand, not the old method of back of the hand. What gives the government, Department of Homeland Security/TSA, this right? Well, I suppose the government. The same one thats supposed to be 'of the people.'

There is also an alarm, especially for frequent travelers and aircrew, about the radiation exposure. Some unions are already telling their workers to avoid the x-ray scanners, but the new patdown has been likened to molestation. This is incredulous. Even people who work for the airlines are suffering. All because of security. Or so the DHS says. Security threats in airlines are no new thing, but these policies are invasive and seemingly just are scare-tactics. The government has literally no right to force this policy on its citizens. We make the laws, and we vote in our lawmakers, and we need to let our voices be heard. These new regulations are illegal and scary; to me it instills fear in passengers and increases anxiety. I don't feel safer going through an x-ray, I feel as if I am considered guilty and must prove my innocence to the government. We do not need any more regulation in this field. Maybe I will end up eating my words, but this is no solution to enhancing security at American airports.

Kanye West is a real man

Referencing this article I must say that Kanye West truly is an authentic individual. I read a lot of existentialist fiction last semester and it really got me thinking about authenticity in humans. I truly think Kanye West is one of the only real people I have ever heard of, or know. I don't know the man personally, but it truly is something to envy when a man can speak his mind, no matter his opinion. This is not to say racists and homophobic people are to be celebrated for their freedom of speech, but Kanye certainly isn't comparable to these folks. He is morally a good person. He wants the best for all people. These aforementioned folks, not so much. Kanye truly is an altruistic man, and a philanthropist.

The whole Taylor Swift thing was immature, definitely. And so was the George Bush doesn't care about black people thing. But he was just saying what was on his mind. You have to give him credit for speaking his mind, especially in such a public arena. And really, both of the times, I kind of felt like he was right, to an extent. In the end, what it boils down to, is that people need to lighten up. People can get so uptight about the littlest, trifling matters that they forget that we are all just people trying to have fun, enjoy life, and get by. Kanye wasn't trying to hurt anyone's feelings, he was just telling the world what he thought. Maybe he goes a little too far, but if I were in the spotlight all the time, I don't know if I'd be able to resist that temptation all the time, especially with the talent he possesses. He truly is the voice of a generation, and one of the most creative musicians of all-time.

The Two-Party system and undemocracy.

Well. Its the day after the midterm elections and Illinois still doesn't have a governor-elect. Be it Pat Quinn, or Bill Brady, I am a dissatisfied voter. Rich Whitney, a Green Party candidate in this gubernatorial race, was excluded from most debates in the race. He received enough signatures to get on the ballot, and four years ago received nearly 13% of the vote. This time around he was not so fortunate (currently at 3% of the vote) likely because most voters cannot stand Bill Brady and thus had to make a conscious choice to vote for Quinn even if they believed in Whitney (or Scott Lee Cohen for that matter). Regardless of the reason for leftists voting Democrat or Green, no candidate should ever be excluded from the right to debate. If they are on the ballot, why deny them their right to argue with their opposed running mates? This is unfortunate and sad that our democracy has become so entrenched in the two-party system that a voter must choose between this, or that.

What kind of democracy lets voters simply say you have only two choices, so you must be satisfied with one? I have never been satisfied with an Illinois governor, both Republican and Democrat. Why can I not see a candidate I support debate these two? If we don't allow third-party candidates to debate, we will never introduce another party into the system. This isn't democracy at all. When has anyone really been satisfied with how Congress is doing? Really, its hard to say anyone has ever been fully satisfied. While this isn't pragmatic necessarily, its definitely more of a feasibility if only two opinions are heard. Often Congressmen vote along party lines, and if you don't agree with either party, then, well, you're out of luck. We need to start allowing these candidates to debate so we can stop being the last Western nation with only two legitimate political parties and turn into a more multilateral democracy where multiple voices are heard.

Wal-Mart

So the last few years I've stopped shopping at Wal-Mart (and Sam's Club, although I've never really been there in the last fifteen years) and sometimes I feel bad for fighting this corporation when really the only people I am hurting by not shopping there are the low-paid low-level workers. Well, not entirely I suppose, but I certainly am not putting a dent in the Walton family fortune. Nevertheless, I recently read an article in Newsweek contesting that Sam Walton should have won the Nobel Peace Prize because he pays workers more than the average living wage in poor Latin American and Southeast Asian countries. On average, a Latin American worker earns about $12 a day working for Wal-Mart, where a farmer in that region survives off of $1-2 a day. Now, all things considered, it is great that Wal-Mart is employing these otherwise impoverished people. But what kind of message does this send to other corporations?

It says that we can pay workers outside the United States whatever we want, even if its more than the average current living wage, because it benefits Americans wallets because they aren't spending so much at the store. If Wal-Mart can churn out multi-billion dollar profits a year, they can afford to pay their factory workers in developing nations a comparable salary to American factory workers. This could even benefit Wal-Mart because they would likely recruit the cream of the crop from these respective nations because of the inevitable competition for such a high-paying job. And putting more money into their wallets would help their economy as well, and perhaps they themselves could build hospitals and schools, instead of relying on foreign philanthropy.

There is another thing unmentioned often in the Wal-Mart debate. Well, putting aside the fact that they outsource most of their products and thus labor, it pins the American manufacturers against them, and Wal-Mart is too strong and too vast for them to not succumb to Wal-Mart's low quality standard for their products. The other factor is the environment. Now, I will concede Wal-Mart is making strides (they say they will cater to whatever the current modern consumer wants, which is why they now carry free range eggs and almond milk) in that capacity, and are even investing in alternative fuel and energy sources. This isn't enough though. When most of your products are coming from China, that is a huge environmental risk traveling your products (of which there are literally hundreds of thousands) across the largest ocean on the planet. This puts an enormous stress on our planet, and this is not the best way to help out the common American consumer. I must say, I will continue my boycott of Wal-Mart until they start localizing their business more (they are starting to do this with local farmers) and start paying these off-seas workers a real wage.

Why is Germany so resistant to multiculturalism?

I've lived in Germany. Not for a very long time, but it was enough to immerse myself in their culture and at least begin to understand it. But I must say that the German Chancellor's recent statement that multiculturalism is essentially not working in Germany comes at no surprise. Talking to many young people there, the sentiment of Germans toward the Turks is akin to that of many Americans toward Latin Americans. Both minority groups play similar roles in each culture as well, taking up much of the labor force and both are the largest minority groups in each nation.

I find these comments, however expected, quite disturbing. There are many jobs in Germany that are currently vacant. And with a surging technological market, and the desire for tens of thousands of engineers, Germany should be opening their borders, not closing them off. Being part of the EU, thats not really an option to close the borders. But Germany has strict laws regarding citizenship that are similar to those in the United States. If Germans care at all about their reputation in the world, they must recognize that many people still think of Nazism when they think of Germany. While this is unfortunate, it is understandable. World War II made an enormous impact on the entire world, and we still hear about it today, 65 years after its end. So if they really care about how the world thinks about them, they must understand their distaste for immigration is going to be compared with their distaste for other cultures 70 years ago. They must embrace immigration, and start making their public education system more streamlined and accepting to immigrants rather than creating a process that shuns them. If we want to live in a world of tolerance, we must accept one another's cultures, and we must adapt and evolve beyond these arcane convictions.

My goals for this blog...

When I started this blog for my Secondary education class I thought it would just be a cool thing to try. I certainly hoped it could lead somewhere for me. I think, eventually, it could look good to create a portfolio to add into a resume if I ever want to pursue a job in the field of journalism or publication. I also wanted to learn how to write without worrying about what others think. I will leave it open to the public but I do not plan on posting the link anywhere public. If someone happens to stumble upon it, then so be it. I am not trying to make money off of this venture, or to get my name 'out there.' I am doing this for myself, sort of as a way to vent as well. There are many issues in this society and culture I am passionate about and its nice to get them off my chest in a way that is helpful and beneficial to my future career in the field of English education.

The works I have submitted and will continue to submit are mostly political. I really am concerned with many currents events issues and I try to focus on those. I tend to focus on issues that are covered by media outlets that I read daily, such as: The Atlantic Monthly Journal, The New York Times, The New Yorker, ESPN, Deadspin, CNN, The Socialist Worker, The New Republic, National Public Radio, The Economist, Digg, and the Missouri Review. I also take class discussions from my English and Education classes, especially those relevant to current events and pop culture. Local issues are important to me, obviously because Chicago is a large, influential metropolitan area. I wrote for my high school's newspaper in high school and also for the Independent my freshman year of college at Northeastern Illinois University. I really try to take a stance on every issue, and I obviously write with a bit of a tone of persuasion, because I truly think that my opinion on these matters is the right one, otherwise it wouldn't be my opinion, eh? I think eventually I will post my blog address in a public forum or on a social networking site, but I really want to polish my work and check for accuracy of all facts mentioned and make certain I cite any references, although most of what I have written so far is either general common knowledge or things I have learned in the past and have become engrained in me. I really think online media outlets are an easy and great way to learn about current events, but one must truly try to get both sides of every story before making any judgments or opinions, and this is what I certainly strive to achieve.

I also want to add, that although I am very opiniated, I like to keep an open mind about everything. I like to exercise pragmatic values and realpolitik, but sometimes I feel my moral values and judgment get in the way, necessarily, in my posts. Ideological notions are necessary sometimes as well, but certainly not always practical, and in this sense one must certainly exercise some realpolitik in their writing. A fine balance of all of these is the best, most efficient way of getting one's point across.

Lake Shore Drive or Lake Shore...?

Chicago is a very lucky city. With 33 beaches and an 18-mile paved bike trail, an ample parking at most beaches, Chicago's citizens really get the full opportunity to enjoy the summer at the lake. And for out-of-towners, its easy to get to most of these beaches via Lake Shore Drive. But every year in Spring, there is a bike ride held, Bike The Ride. The main mission of these ride-goers is to turn Lake Shore Drive back into a place where kids can play, families can barbeque, and cyclists and roller-bladers can cruise without the worry of getting hit by a car or running into slow-joggers on the crowded lakefront bike-paths.

Now, I ride my bicycle probably a bit more than the common citizen of Chicago, and I also have a car to get around with as well. I can see both sides of the issue. Lake Shore Drive truly can be an eyesore, and it covers a stretch of real estate that probably could equate to billions upon billions of revenue for the City of Chicago if they were to depave the Drive and sell off parts of it to investors or realtors. This is what I foresee happening if they were to ever (which I don't feel they would even consider) depave the Drive. It wouldn't equate to more beaches, trails, and playgrounds, at least not entirely. Furthermore, if Lake Shore Drive were to be depaved, those that live off of Marine Drive adjacent to Lake Shore Drive would be stuck with an immense amount of traffic that Los Angelens would be afraid of. So much traffic is saved from local streets, especially in Chicago's Loop, by Lake Shore Drive. It serves as a bypass to all of the car traffic that goes on east of the Drive. I agree that it really is not the best location for a bypass 'highway,' given its proximity to one of the most beautiful lakes in the midwest, but for all practicality sense (and economic sense), tearing down the Drive would be an awful idea. There are ample bike-paths along the lake, and tons of parking and green space as it is. In an ideal world, no one would be driving and traffic would never be an issue. But we must face the facts and accept that this would not change under any circumstances. We have to keep the Drive to keep our sanity.

Educator Tenure

Teaching unions are very strong in the United States. A recent New York Times article stated that nearly one in a hundred doctors and lawyers lose their license. Educators, however, lose their certification at a rate just a bit higher. One in 2,500 teachers suffers these consequences. Teachers, arguably just as important as a doctor in the development of a child's life, are rarely fired because of the lack of ability to produce results or for failing to accomplish goals. Why are doctors and lawyers, who grow through a seemingly infinite amount of education, subject to tougher standards than educators, the foundation of our school system in this nation? Rhetorically I ask this, although unions are the answer.

I don't have a problem with unions. There are a lot of shady business dealers out there (see: Enron, Worldcom, Citigroup) and unions help to protect workers' jobs. They generally do a great service to employees in their field. Unfortunately, the teacher's union is very strong, and it leads to unsatisfactory performance by some members. Obviously the public education sector in the United States is not doing too great. Our children do not rank in the best of any content area of developed nations in this world. This is abhorrent in a country that should be leading the revolution, and one that spurned the industrial and technological revolutions.

Teachers definitely have a tough job, and sometimes they just have bad students. Its hard to argue that even a great teacher can get through to the worst student. This just isn't pragmatic. But, this is often not the case. After three years a teacher is granted tenure generally and their job is theirs to really screw up and lose. Tenure should be merit-based. A teacher's performance, not their seniority, should reflet their pay scale. We cannot continue to pay and keep teachers who are simply not doing a good job. In New York City alone, teachers who underperform or are under a subpoena, cost the city $65 million a year to pay these teachers not to teach essentially. We need to develop a method of evaluating and observing teachers, and by the rate at which their students succeed. This is what pay should be based off of, inherently this is the smartest and most ethical (to our students, society, and fellow educators) procedure for which to pay educators.

The George Washington Bridge Jumper and why jail might be a deterrent...

Recently, a freshman at Rutgers University jumped off the George Washington Bridge in the DC Metro area, likely because his dorm-mate streamed a livecast of him having intercourse with another man. Obviously, this is deplorable and completely unacceptable. Authorities are still trying to determine whether or not to charge the man who filmed it. Apparently, a lot of this guy's friends are saying he wasn't a bad guy and was just trying to be funny and it was not a homophobic gesture at all. Now, I am certainly inclined to agree this wasn't an act of hate, or homophobia, but rather just an eighteen year old boy just having a laugh. Ostensibly, the outcome is truly saddening. The kid who filmed it will likely have this guilt in his conscience for the rest of his life, and thats something that will certainly not be easy to deal with, and its certainly a fit punishment for the 'crime,' right?

Well. I often think jail is an unsuitable option for crimes, especially things like minor possession of a drug. I think rehabilitation and educational classes are great alternatives that often work instead of a penitentiary. I really think jails should be reserved for criminals. But...jails truly are a deterrent. Many people certainly would commit more crimes if they knew beforehand that the only repercussion would be a class or a rehab clinic. There are very sadistic people out there who would film their friends sexual exploits without him knowing, and some people truly wouldn't care about the outcome, even death, especially those who may be homophobic. Its unfortunate, but definitely true. Therefore, I really, unfortunately, think that this kid needs to go to jail, if only because it will deter any other eighteen-year-old copycats out there from doing this again, if the only alternative would be not going to jail and living with the guilt. Sure counselors and therapy would be suitable, but I do not think they serve as a deterrent to heinous criminals, of which there are many out there. I think it sucks, to be fair, but it is a necessary evil to send people to prison, as they did commit the crime, especially when it tells others out there that this in unacceptable.

Marijuana legalization and the abolition of gay marriage are very alike...

On November 3, California voters will go to the polls and vote on many issues, but one is taking the spotlight away from all of the candidates vying for statewide positions and propositions set to enhance the wellbeing of California citizens. Propoisiton 19 asks the voters of California whether or not they want to legalize completely the use of marijuana in the state of California. As it looks right now, the voters of California seem as if they will pass this proposition, effectively changing the cultural climate of the United States forever. There's one hitch though. According to The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/09/californias-marijuana-initiative-a-problem-for-obama/63681/), President Obama may very well have to sue the state, just as they are suing Arizona over their new immigration enforcement laws.

There is a major difference, however, in suing Arizona over their arcane immigration laws and suing California over an issue the voters vote on. First, the Justice Department is suing Arizona because their laws essentially legalize racial discrimination, violating First Amendment rights, and because they restrict civil liberties of any American, especially those of color. Now, if one were to truly look at the issue of marijuana legalization, one must say that restricting someone from being able to possess and smoke marijuana violates our civil liberties as well. Regardless of one's stance on drugs or the fact that marijuana is a plant that grows naturally in our ecosystem, one must admit that restricting anyone to smoke marijuana is in fact against the First Amendment as well. There are basic freedoms owed to us in this nation, and the government does not exist to tell us what we can or cannot do to our bodies. Some might argue this argument could lead to the legalization of harder drugs, etc. But did the end of prohibition on alcohol lead to the legalization of any other drug? Certainly it has not. And the difference between marijuana and drugs such as cocaine and methamphetamines is that marijuana is not physically addictive. Furthermore, it can be used in its natural state. Even culturally, it is more accepted, but this should not be taken into consideration when arguing a law.

Now, another reason the Justice Department should stay away from the legalization of marijuana if California voters do pass this is that the voters are the ones who truly should be deciding the laws. Congress and the Justice Department are not above any other citizen, and this seems to be forgotten on a daily basis on Capitol Hill. Rich Congressmen seem to think they know what is best for the common American, even though many of them never live the life of a common citizen of the United States. They are there to serve not our best interests, but what their constituency believes in, and if that means the legalization of marijuana, and the legalization does not violate any constitutional code, then the Justice Department should not stick their nose in Prop 19's business.

The one flaw in this argument is perhaps Prop 8 of the 2008 elections which delegalized gay marriage in California. Obviously gay marriage is a contestable issue, and the majority of California voters voted against the legalization of gay marriage. Therefore, we should accept that this is what the voters want and move on, right? Wrong. Just as is the case with the Arizona immigration laws, the delegalization of gay marriage in California is inherently restricting all civil liberties of gay couples, because of their biological sexual orientation. This is clearly discriminatory and violates the civil rights of gay couples everywhere. So, you've got these three issues, and although voters may vote one way, Congress is in no place to tell them that they know better than the average American. However, the issues of gay marriage and immigration are ones that deal with civil rights and equality laws, whereas the legalization of marijuana does not contest any equal or civil issues among Americans. So, the Justice Department needs to avoid any conflict with the voters of California and let them decide once and for all whether or not they want to legalize the use of marijuana recreationally in their state.

Are all Atheists really just Deists?

I had an interesting discussion with my roommate and best friend the other day about whether or not Atheism is truly just a theory. I suppose I must preface this by saying one cannot truly know what everyone else in the world firmly believes, because often one isn't even sure what they believe in most of the time.

So Atheism, for this sake I shall call it a theory, by all dictionary definitions, not a cultural American definition, is defined as the rejection of belief in the existence of deities (shoutout to wikipedia for these). Now, if we are to accept this as the definition of what an Atheist truly believes then let's go forth to the definition of Deism. Deism "is the standpoint that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for either faith or organized religion, can determine that a supreme being created the universe. Further the term often implies that this supreme being does not intervene in human affairs or suspend the natural laws of the universe." So, really in essence Deism is the belief that there is a POSSIBILITY, regardless of how trivial or minute this probability is, from .000001% to 99.9%, that there is a supreme being.

Now, I have always regarded myself as an atheist. But really in essence I cannot rule out completely the existence of something that controls the universe. No one can. No one can say for sure that there is not a god, just as no one can say there is a god. And by 'god' this does not insinuate there is a person or a sentient being controlling all. Not by any means is this what a god could be. Our bodies are made up of so many particles that replicate millions of times and fail so infrequently, and our body has time to correct this, that it is seemingly perfect. Now, this can be attributed to nature or evolution, sure. But if we have so much in us we don't understand, it really isn't possible to rule out that we don't have the capability to fully fathom what is beyond us, or what is in other dimensions.

I used to use the old atheist argument that if there was a god, who created that god? And so forth and so on. But to use this argument is to say that our brains can understand infinity, and really we cannot truly grasp just what infinity means. To believe in the existence of ourselves we must accept that there truly could be no beginning to the universe or what it really is, because something, SOMETHING, had to come around to make the universe. Wrapping your head around that can make one go nuts.

So, if deism is defined as entertaining that there could be something in this universe we do not comprehend, which clearly there is, then we must say that atheism is not a practice, but a theory. There are things beyond the control of humans in this universe that happened without us and will happen for eons after us. Maybe Jesus Christ didn't rise from Hell after sparing humanity by sacrificing himself three days previously, but certainly it cannot be DISPROVEN ever beyond theory that maybe there is a man upstairs, however unfathomable it may be.

Edit*: I suppose I should add that I do believe that Atheism has turned into a cultural term for those who generally disbelieve in a 'God' such as a higher power. But this cultural term is mislabeled, because truly no one can rule out the existence of anything. Therefore, agnostic or deist may be a more suitable term than atheist for nonbelievers.

Death penalty...and Dexter

I've just recently started watching season 3 of Dexter, and am about halfway through. Dexter, a serial killer in his own right, is really a vigilante of sorts, a la Boondock Saints. The thing with Dexter is that he, as he explains in the show, needs to kill. Its in his nature to shed blood, and he has chosen the supposed moral path to being a killer. A forensics leader in the Miami Police Dept. he really has his pick on the worst of the worst. He, for the first time, recently killed a child molester that had never killed. It 'broke his code' but he still felt good about it.

I find two inherent problems with this image, and I think the writers do a great job of involving those who support capital punishment, and therefore likely support Dexter's vigilantism (if they don't believe in the judicial's system like the ADA Jimmy Smits does) and those are pacifists or against killing another human being in prison, regardless of the crime. My problems with Dexter are that I think any human is capable of overcoming a biological difficulty. Instead of trying to do this, even as he becomes a family man, he just succumbs to this psychological/biological need to kill. I suppose one with dementia could never really overcome dementia, but the desire or need to kill, if we are looking at it from a strict scientific point of view, it is feasible to overcome. The man does not even see a therapist, nor does he have an attorney to confide in (until Jimmy Smits really, and even then he hides his ritual). And the one man he does confide him supports this unhealthy addiction.

My second issue is that killing humans is simply wrong. Killing a man who hasn't killed, as the pedophile that he killed, is no worse or better than killing a murderer, but even he had a code and broke it for this innate urge. Truly, pacifism I feel is not completely feasible in a world with fear and hate, although these are both human emotions that can be overcome, however that does not take away from the fact that it IS possible, however impractical. In Dexter's reality, where there is no exercise of self defense, the truly only justifiable defense of killing anyone in my belief, he kills for revenge. Killing for revenge or for a vendetta is inherently immoral. Killing is simply the most, by definition, inhumane act that could ever occur.

Alas, I enjoy the show because it sparks discussion like this, but I do feel that it helps spread the message, however insignificant or significant, that killing for revenge, i.e. the death penalty, is okay and justifiable. Furthermore, I feel that with the death penalty, even the trivial chance that an innocent could get killed, the potential for an innocent man to die is too much to justify the killing of anyone. So many men on death row have been exonerated after several appeals. Our judicial system may be faulty in great lengths, but it certainly isn't Dexter's job to pick up the slack.

Don't ask, don't ignore.

"A nation under a well regulated government, should permit none to remain uninstructed. It is monarchical and aristocratical government only that requires ignorance for its support." Thomas Paine could've told the United States government this now, and they'd still stare at him like a deer in headlights. 


It is hard to ignore rationality when it stares one in the face. With the United States' Senate recently deciding to sweep the 'don't ask don't tell' policy debate under the rug because grumpy Republicans think this isn't the right time for it, we are clearly stuck in the past. We are fighting two wars halfway across the world, and our recruiters are killing themselves, and regular soldiers as well, at rates never before seen in the United States Army. We have been fighting longer now than we did in Vietnam, and the military claims it needs soldiers. If there are willing citizens ready to take up arms, why is the US government so unwilling to let gay soldiers in? It is so ignorant to think that gay Americans are any different from any other American. It is furthermore infringing on many civil rights laws. Homosexuals have no physical or mental defect prohibiting from doing the job of a soldier, yet they are disqualified from joining the US military because of something that they were born with, something biological. Now obviously this same rhetoric could be used to justify gay marriage, but that requires another post at another time attacking the religious fanaticism behind that deplorable debate. It just is counter-intuitive for the United States Senate to ignore the facts, and the abhorrent civil law violations that this policy evokes. The people of the United States need to let their elected Congressmen know that this is not right and something needs to be done. We cannot let the minds and wallets of a few determine such crucial matters as these.