Corruption and immorality of Greece

There was the lake named “Copais” in western north Athens of Greece. In the 1950s, the government of Greece decided to drain off water to the sea and construct a road. In the year of 1957, the construction finished and the lake in Greek mythology disappeared. By the way, the organization which the government establishs to monitor the construction work remains until now. More than 30 public servants occupy the space but no one knows what they do at the work.

The reason this thing happens is that lifetime employment was guaranteed through constitutional reform in 1911. They can get much salary than people in private corporations and have good welfare benefit. In addition, they have no restriction when they fiddle around doing nothing.

Greece looks like a heaven for public officers. The bigger the government is, the bigger various evil of bureaucracy is. If you want to start a business of Greece, you might have to pay a huge bribe to public servants.

Main culprit of the Greek financial failure is evading taxes. “Kifisia” is the region the upper class mainly lives. Many people lived there who represent Greece economy including owners of the shipping industry, politicians, doctors, lawyers etc. However, the considerable number of the residents of the region is the poor strata. The rich are not paying appropriate taxes by giving a bribe to the public officers.

The European media are often sarcastic that “Greece is the poor country overflowing with the rich”. Millionaires of shipping industry are usually receiving a tax exemption by the reason that they have contributed to the Greece’s economy so far. I think this case is very ridiculous. It is natural that the national economy ends in failure because government is providing the opportunity for the rich to get out of paying taxes.

I think politicians have ignored the reality of national economy and were blinded by political considerations to win an election. Establishment does not face up to the reality under these trying circumstances. What was worse, the public officers are holding their opinion. They insist that they can not lose their power. In addition to that, they are under the general strike to resist to welfare reduction. I believe that ultimately, corruption and immorality are the main cause of a Greek tragedy.

-Hye Jung

Let’s Flip A Coin To See What Your Fate Is… Heads You Die or Tails You Live! This is the villain Two Face flipping his iconic coin which decides whether an individual will live or die. This colorful example portrays how politician are two faced by saying one thing and doing another. So are politicians heroes fighting evil, telling the truth, and helping citizens or could politicians be villains committing crimes, lying left and right, and taking advantage of the needing citizens. In other words are politicians in the USA and in other countries telling the truth as well as lying for the common good or are they telling the truth and lying for their own self interests. Furthermore, there is a drug that fuels corruption in politics as well as politicians and that is money!

The truth and a lie can be a powerful weapon used by a politician to which he or she can have a positive or negative impact. Depending on the magnitude of the impact the actions or words of the politicians could affect an individual, city, state, and nation. In a positive view point the truth or a lie can bring a politician or the government he or she serves positive legitimacy, but in a negative view the exact opposite can happen which leads people, communities, and businesses to distrust their politicians and government. Corruption in a basic form can be found at all levels of society which starts at the individual, city, state, and national level. It is not always the politicians who are corrupt and spreading it. An individual, politician, may not be the main problem in corruption because maybe the interest group, city, or state is the one that is corrupt. This corrupting direction will dictate in how the politician will act in order to achieve the goals of the faction he or she represents. What is the basic solution to end corruption at all levels of society in general? The answer is quite simple it must start at the individual levels of the society. In this paper Political Corruption in America it tells how the individual level can impact corruption and eventually lead to its eradication.    

Money in any political arena is the life blood and it can be gathered legally and illegally. The list of political money corruption is listed in this article Political Corruption which gives a description of these criminal actions. Also in this article Corporate funding and buying of influence there are two more ways that politicians can make money and these two are legal. These legal and illegal actions take place all the time in US as well as in international politics every day. The individual solution is the most basic and simple solution to political corruption, but in a realists and pessimistic view I see that political corruption will never end. This is because power is a dangerous drug that will never go away as long as the political hierarchal structure exists throughout the world.

--Will   

Fine Arts and Budget Cuts in Schools

Music, choir, band, painting, drawing, and pottery are all forms of art. Whether it’s fine arts or performing arts, the arts are an important aspect of education. Art is a way for students to express themselves, whether it’s singing, playing an instrument, drawing, painting, or any other form of art. It allows children to be creative and use their imaginations. With the economy the way it is, budget cuts are becoming a big problem and in a lot of schools arts programs are being cut because of it. With the No Child Left Behind Act, testing has become a key role in education especially in math and reading. Fine arts and performing arts education is seen as less important as it is not a core subject and is suffering the consequences.

Not every kid in school is going to be a math prodigy or scientist. Some students take as many music classes as possible in the hopes of going to college to pursue a career in music, same as the fine arts. Some students really thrive and excel in these classes and hope to carve a future out of their talents but will have trouble following their dreams if the availability isn’t there.  If art departments are having budget cuts and programs are being completely cut, schools are taking away the opportunity for students to continue on with arts in their future.

By cutting these departments, schools are sending the message that the fine arts and performing arts are not important, when in-fact they play an essential role in students’ education. According the article, “Why the FineArts are Important”, art teaches students to respect one another’s individuality and expression.  This article explains that “As students imagine, create, and reflect, they are developing both verbal and nonverbal abilities necessary to school progress. At the same time, they are developing problem-solving abilities and higher-order thinking skills. Research points toward a consistent and positive correlation between a substantive education in the arts and student achievement in other subjects and on standardized tests. A comprehensive, articulated arts education program also engages students in a process that helps them develop the self-discipline, cooperation, and self-motivation necessary for self-esteem and success for life”.

According to the University of Michigan, in a Milwaukee school district, it was “shown that within two to three years of the budget cuts, morale has decreased and vandalism and delinquency has increased. Disciplinary staff had to be added to deal with the new problems that had arisen. In most cases, the additional staff cost more than the art programs themselves.”  In this article it explains that human beings need an outlet and a way to express themselves and the arts is a beneficial and safe way to do so. When students participate in the arts, it gives them an organization to be a part of. When students get to be a part of art, whether if they are in band and get to travel around the state to competitions or play during half time shows, or be part of an art club and submit paintings and drawings into a gallery for show, these opportunities give students unforgettable experiences as well as a well rounded education.

Arts are an extremely essential part of academic education and need to stay a part of the curriculum. This department is too important to cut. We need to find another way to deal with budget cuts instead of taking out art programs.

STOCK Act

When discussing government corruption, what immediately popped into my head was the recent successful attempt (passed in the House a couple weeks ago) at passing the Stop Trading Of Congressional Knowledge Act, or STOCK Act. For those unfamiliar with STOCK, if passed and put into law, it would prohibit all federal employees—Members of Congress, their aids, etc.—from using "any nonpublic information derived from the individual's position as a Member of Congress or employee of Congress, or gained from performance of the individual's duties, for personal benefit." It would also require every Member of Congress to publicly file and disclose any financial transaction of stocks, bonds, commodities futures, and other securities within 30 days on their websites.

According to the US House of Representatives Ethics Manual, members should "never use any information coming to [them] confidentially in the performance of governmental duties as a means for making private profit." While the Senate Ethics Manual states that its Conflict of Interest Rule 37(1) provides for "a broad prohibition against members, officers, or employees deriving financial benefit, directly or indirectly, from the use of their official position[s]." Yet no arrests or prosecutions have ever been made against members of Congress for insider trading based on nonpublic Congressional knowledge.

Nonetheless, there are still loopholes in STOCK. Essentially, one can still trade using nonpublic information, as long as that information is used—lawfully? That is, if like in the case of David Einhorn, CEO of Punch, someone with that private knowledge didn't sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement for whatever reason, then that person would still be within their legal rights to act on that knowledge. And in that case, it would be the company that gets in trouble for violating Regulation FD and not the recipient of the information. So, since Einhorn didn’t sign an NDA, he had no legal obligation to keep his mouth shut or his money out, and this loophole is still valid for both Congress Members and Non-Members alike. Even so, STOCK still appears to be a step in the right direction. However, the House and the Senate have passed different versions of the act, and so that needs to be resolved before the President can sign off on it himself and put it into law.

(Note: this isn't the first time STOCK has been introduced. It was proposed in 2006, and again in 2007 and 2009, and in each case promptly died in committee.)

So, while this is just a step down a long path, it's an important one. . .

Here's the whole passage from the STOCK Act that I quoted in part above:

S 2038 (Sec. 2) Amends the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 to prohibit Members of Congress and congressional employees from using any nonpublic information derived from their positions as Members or congressional employees, or gained from performance of the individual's duties, for personal benefit. Directs the congressional ethics committees to issue rules or regulations to carry out the purposes of this prohibition. Declares that such Members and employees are not exempt from the insider trading prohibitions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. Subjects violators of these prohibitions to appropriate punitive, disciplinary, and other remedial actions.

And here is an awesome interview with the author of the STOCK Act, Representative Louise Slaughter, and The Daily Show's Jon Stewart.

Go Sluts, Rock the World

Do you know “Slut Walk”? It is protesting the idea that “Provocatively” dressed women are to blame for sexual assaults. Slut Walk was started from Canada. Last year, a Canadian policeman said that “women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimised.” His advice to women sparked a new protest movement, Slut Walk. Participants - some dressed in jeans, others more provocatively, like “slut” - took the form of a march. Slut Walk were scattered over the world, America, Europe, and even Asia.

The aim of Slut Walk is to highlight a culture in which the victim rather than rapist or abuser is blamed. We have a constitutional right to a freedom of expression and nobody can infringe on our the right. Whatever we are dressed, nobody touch our bodies without our agreements. A woman dressed provocatively, it does not mean that you can rape her. In other words, being assaulted is not about what you wear. A cause of sexual assaults is not clothes of victim but violences of rapist or abuser. However, using a pejorative word, like ‘slut’, to rationalize inexcusable behavior creates an environment in which it is okay to blame the victim.

In history, people think that a person who enjoys a sexual life is sexually promiscuous. This idea has oppressed more women than men. The term ‘slut’ has carried a negative connotation. ‘Slut’ usually has meant a woman who is very immoral in her sexual behavior. Therefore, women’s sexual lives has been subordinated to men. Slut Walk is trying to break from the old stereotype that women’s sexual lives are promiscuous. So they used the word, “slut.”

Last year, there was Slut Walk in Korea. Many women joined to march on Gwanghwamoon Street in Seoul. The movement protested a sexual assault happend in a field trip of Korea University. A woman had been raped by three men. Horribly, the men were her classmates. However, the blatant rapists said that she should be blamed because she had been only woman in members of the field trip. Their remark roused the indignation of many people and they started to march. The movement caused controversy because Korea is part of the Confucian culture. Not understanding the aim of Slut Walk, some men blame the participants due to their provocative clothes. However, their undesirable comments could not stop the Sluts’ protest.

I strong support for the aim of Slut Walk. It also have been attended by thousands of women and men, and debated in the media. Many feminists think Slut Walk have became the most successful feminist action of the past 20 years. A social atmosphere needs to be established where rapist or abuser is blamed and being assaulted is not about what you wear.

--Minyoung Lee

Un-occupy Wall Street

The Occupy Wall Street movement has been effective in doing one thing, nothing. Occupy does not support any political candidates, without any leaders, the occupation’s small work groups and offshoots are also just too unpredictable and risky to support. How is a group of young people supposed to be effective in changing anything if there is no leader for the movement? I think that the Occupy Wall Street members are just wasting their time, if they’re part of the 99% why aren’t they working? Being part of the 99% as much of us are, I have to work every day just to pay for college and living expenses. Occupy members should be concerned with what they could do to change their lives and not with what they want the government to do to change their lives, the occupiers could benefit from associating with the tea party in another, personal way. A great many occupiers complain that their college degrees in feminist literature have not gotten them jobs that make enough money to support them in style. The tea partiers, some of whom are managers, could teach the occupiers how to network, how to dress for and behave at job interviews, and how to start at the bottom of the corporate ladder and work their way up. If the occupiers were to do this they would help themselves from being unemployed at least. The Tea Party has been somewhat effective in its protest. Tea Party members at least are respectable members of society unlike the Occupiers.

It would be an interesting development if the tea party could co-opt the occupier movement, teaching it how to be an effective protest movement. The adults in the tea party could teach the kids in the Occupy Wall Street movement how to bathe, dress and to behave in public, something apparently their parents failed to impress upon them. The occupiers could learn the mechanics of voter registration drives, annoying corrupt congressmen at town hall meetings, and other aspects of political strategy. Only 24% of the 18 to 29 year old Occupiers voted in the 2010 mid-term elections and they still complain that their voices have not been heard. The government is no doubt unresponsive to the Occupy Wall Street movement when only a quarter of them voted. The Occupy movement by be more effective in the 2012 election if more that 24% vote, but they still won’t be happy with whoever wins the election. In all reality most of residents in the United States will not be happy with whoever the president is after a couple months in office.

Burke Lienemann

Gay Marriage

Gay marriage is one thing that this country has been talking about for years. Slowly more and more countries are legalizing the law that would allow it. Based on Christian morals this is considered unacceptable, but that does not make them intolerant. In the bible it does say that people who PRACTICE homosexuality are sinners. People think that this is what makes most Christians intolerant of people who are homosexual. I agree that gay marriage should not be legalized because of the morals that I hold. To say that I am intolerable of people who are homosexual is absurd. I do not think less of people who are homosexual as no one should. As I said before practicing homosexuality is a sin, but if you have sex outside of marriage it is also a sin. Sin can be forgiven. As of now, seven states allow gay marriage. Does being married allow gay people to have sex without it being a sin? I do not believe so. The bible states that any kind of homosexual act is a sin, and in this time, it was never even considered that homosexuals could get married.

Scientifically, gay marriage doesn’t make sense to Christians and atheists alike. From the Christian point of view, gay marriage is obviously a taboo subject due to passages in the bible. From an atheist’s point of view, how does gay marriage help the population? Is not the point of life to reproduce? If gay marriage was meant to be than why would there not be a way for men to reproduce together? Also, there has been no evidence that people have found of a gay gene. This does not necessarily mean that there is none, but it does mean currently that the proof leads towards people becoming gay as they grew up due to something in their life or by choice.

Gay marriage is becoming more widely accepted in this nation. One poll shows as many as fifty three percent of Americans believe gay marriage should be allowed. The astonishing thing is that most Americans also consider themselves Christians. Either people who are Christians do not know the doctrine that they read, they think it is no longer relevant, or they just do not care. Gay marriage is something I believe to be wrong based on my religious background. Is being against it intolerant? If so, than everyone is intolerant about something. Gay marriage should not be any different to me, based in my religious beliefs, then sex outside of marriage. And it isn’t. They are both wrong. I still respect people who are willing to fight for what they believe in, but that doesn’t make what they’re fighting for right.

Money Money Money!

When it comes to running for presidency it takes a well rounded person fit for the specific job, and of course, a whole lot of money! The amount of spending that goes into elections is ridiculously high, and I believe it's out of hand how much these candidates can dish out to support themselves and attack others, or what even seems like bribing. Just to give a little bit of an understanding of how much these candidates are making it rain ill throw out a few numbers. Just recently Mitt Romney's action committee spent $7.7 million on an ad to be aired for the next two weeks in ten states for a contest; in Florida alone he spent $10 million in support of his campaign. He has also purchased $1.8 million in Michigan, $1.9 million in Ohio, $1.1 million in Tennessee, and $1.1 million in Georgia. These states I've mentioned above are only a handful, so I can only imagine what the total is for the remaining states.

Candidates spend a good portion of their time raising money, they get the money they get power, power is what government is all about! And what good ole Teddy Roosevelt said is too much money and too much power in the hands of the few is never a good thing for freedom or fairness in any nation. Money has too much of an influence on politics, sure in this generation its going to take money to accomplish things, but the high amounts of spending is corrupting the way it should be working. The public does not realize how much money they are paying these candidates just for them to be helping themselves raise money to get into congress.

The Santorum campaign raised just under $2.2 million, putting him dead last in the current Republican field. Mitt Romney pulled in $23.9 million in the fourth quarter alone, so for the year Romney had a 28-1 raising advantage of Santorum's. So Santorum's earnings was basically pocket change to Romney's. Money dominates our elections, how did we get to this point where money was the biggest contributing factor? Well I think of it an evolutionary chain for politics, as time passed survival of the fittest (one with the money) was the key factor for winning.

Reed Hanke

Should drugs be legalized?

Should the US legalize the use of drugs?  Alcohol is legal, so why aren’t drugs.  Alcohol is just as dangerous and deadly as drugs (according to some).  Would it be so bad if people consumed marijuana, cocaine, or ecstasy legally?  In my opinion, yes it would.  Personally, I believe that taking drugs is very unhealthy, and no one should ever use drugs.  Now, I don’t drink alcohol either, but I think alcohol is something this country would riot over if the government banned it… again. I also think it would portray a bad image of Americans if we legalized drugs.  We would then be known as a country that freely drinks and gets stoned.  That is not what I want our country to be known as.  America is known for people having the freedom to do ALMOST whatever they want.  However, the government has to provide for the common good of the people.  I don’t think legalizing drugs would be for the common good of Americans.

I know one of the arguments is that if drugs were legalized, people would not be as interested in it since it isn’t illegal.  It would not be a way of rebellion.  Here is my statement back.  Alcohol is legalized.  When alcohol was outlawed, there were bootleggers like today there are drug dealers.  Now, alcohol is legalized and anyone over the age of 21 can buy alcohol.  If we legalized drugs, then would it be okay for any 21 years old to drugs?  Just because alcohol is legalized, doesn’t mean drugs should be too.  People under the age of 21 can still obtain alcohol illegally.  Today, it is estimated that 5,000 minors die each year from underage drinking.  Just because there is an age requirement to consume alcohol, doesn’t mean the people who are underage are safe.  I fear this would be the case with drugs.  If we set the age requirement for using drugs at age 21 as well, minors could still get ahold of these drugs.  If anything, I think if drugs were legalized it would make it easier for minors to get drugs.  They wouldn’t have to go to a scary drug dealer anymore.  All they would have to do is convince one of their friends who is 21 to go buy some for them.

Recently, seventeen students at Texas Christian University (TCU) were busted for selling marijuana, cocaine, and ecstasy.  Four of which were on the football team.  This brought shame to the University.  If drugs were available to all those who were 21, don’t you think drugs would be more abundant on campuses?  Putting more students at risk of becoming drug addicts, overdosing, or injuries resulting from drug consumption?  It is estimated that 599,000 college students are injured from alcohol consumption.  If we added drugs to that figure, the number of injuries and death would only increase.   Think of how much shame Universities would receive then.

I just don’t believe legalizing drugs is a wise idea.  I am all for people having the liberty to do what they want, but when it comes to harming one’s self or somebody else—that is where I draw the line.   

Although men outnumber women in arrests for drug offenses, women represent the fastest growing population of people being imprisoned for drug related crimes.  According to the Drug Policy Alliance, since 1986 the number of women in prison has increased 400% and for women of color, 800%.  This dramatic growth in the prison system has impacted the lives of millions of children; according to PBS, 1.5 million children have parents in prison.  One idea created in response to this problem is prison nurseries.  An Indiana prison opened a nursery program that facilitates women with sentences of 18 months or less after they give birth to raise their children.  This program allows women to forge bonds with their infants and the mothers are educated on proper child-care skills.  There are many other programs that allow women to see their children, some include a 4-day camp in the prison, monthly visits, and even apartment style living.  

Although this may or may not keep the women from reoffending, when did we lose sight of punishment?  These women knew right from wrong…that is what happens when you break the law and go to prison; you serve your time and lose your rights.   Not only are these people breaking the law, their actions affect many other people and their victims pay the price.  Our main priority should be to punish not treat them to happiness.  Because of their poor choices, their children experience school changes, separation from their siblings, or foster care.  They may endure inappropriate but convenient caretakers and most of all they are traumatized and confused, why would their mother do this to them, was it worth it?  As taxpayers, extra money is being spent to run these programs.  While awarding these offenders to have contact with their children, we are exposing the kids to a criminal atmosphere, their parents are poor role models, and in a sense the offender is not the only one doing time.  If we continue to make prisons and jails more like homes than what is going to keep these people from committing crimes?  The worse that could happen is they are incarcerated, get to keep their babies where they have their own room to play, and share three meals a day.  Some of these women are barely making it on the outside; it is almost as if they should commit a crime just so their baby can have a nice home.    


-Brett Alexander

FBI's Secret No-Fly List

The FBI of the United States has its own “no fly” list?  According to msnbc.com, there have been two recent cases of American-North African businessmen being denied flights back into the United States, particularly returning from North Africa.  According to this most recent case, Mustafa Elogbi has been flying to and from Libya for the last three years.  He was traveling home and when he reached London, he was told he could not fly home and must return to Tunisia.  The British officials stated that it was Elogbi’s country (United States) forcing him to stay.  But with the changes happening in Libya and most of North Africa, the whole system changed and no one understands who the FBI is targeting.  These disruptions in these two men’s plans have kept them from their families and friends.

Yes, since the attacks on September 11, 2001, more fears of terroristic attacks have begun and will continue, according to New YorkTimes.  Even though the United States has been fairly quiet when it comes to terroristic attacks since that day in 2001, fears of terroristic attacks have increased significantly.  Other peoples’ fears have made more people fear another attack, and possibly this is the reason for the FBI creating a secret “no-fly” list.  No one, not even the family members of these men, knows why this practice is happening. 

But just because of fears, does this give the government the right for denying American citizens the right to fly?  I do not believe so.  Yes, these men have traveled to rioting countries and have associated with them, but that does not mean they are harm to our nation.  These men should not have been denied the right to return home to be with their families.  They are not fully cleared until their last flight home, because any stop, they could be forced to stay.  Elogbi should not have been forced to stay in another country to be questioned by our own country.  He should have been able to return to the United States, and, if still need be, questioned in his home country.

Why would our FBI send their men around the world to question these men trying to return home in another country?  What is the reason for all this secrecy?  Why should our fellow American citizens suffer from these acts of the federal government without reason?  America needs to fix the secrecy and allow American citizens the right to travel and return to their own country.   

Environmental Impacts on Indigenous Popuations

Indigenous populations have been dealing with environmental issues ever since they were forced to leave their homeland. This act of relocation of indigenous groups is something to be viewed as wrong and irrational. I will just briefly talk about how indigenous peoples can be affected by hydrofracking. As more and more people become aware of these ever-increasing problems, the effort is increased to solve these problems.

Often times the land that was provided for the indigenous populations seemed, on the outside, unappealing. When in retrospect, the land held valuable substances beneath the surface. Hydrofracking is one of these substances. Hydraulic fracturing is an issue that poses a threat to indigenous peoples if their land sites on rich oil deposits. Hydrofracking is process in which a mixture of water and other chemicals are shot into the group at high pressure to create fissures, cracking the shale deposits, releasing the fossil fuels “http://thelcn.com/2011/07/before-criticize-get-facts-straight-on-hydrofracking”. The process of hydrofracking is harmful to the environment. Damage to drinking water from chemicals in the solution and leaving behind a toxic sludge that is increasingly difficult to deal with are some environmental impacts from hydrofracking.

In 2005 The Energy Policy Act amended the safe Drinking Water Act was changed so that hydraulic fracturing was legal. In 2009, bills were introduced to the Senate to place the regulatory jurisdiction to the federal government to decide what the proper actions were http://www.iogcc.state.ok.us/hydraulic-fracturing.

As you can see hydrofracking can affect indigenous populations. This process of retreiveing foissil fuels from the earth damage the environment that the inigenous people live on, affecting where they can get food and clean drinking water. We as a nation need to see the effects this is causing and do something about it.

21st Century Slavery

21st Century Slavery

It is a widely accepted and preached belief in America that slavery is wrong in many ways. Slavery changed the course of America and is such a powerful topic it caused the only civil war our country has ever seen. Slavery was abolished in America with the 13^th Amendment to the Constitution. After Congress passed this law, and America fought a war over the law, many people figured the topic would be put behind us and would not be a problem again. Yet in the 21^st century it can be argued that slavery is worse today than it has ever been. According to Free the Slaves, there are more current slaves than in the history of the world. The perception of slaves makes this hard to believe for many Americans. Most people think of slaves working on farms where they are bound in chains, or cleaning houses for extremely wealthy people. Truth of the matter is many of the labor slaves are no longer in America, but the other countries worldwide.

The present day slaves are experiencing worse conditions than the slaves of early America. Even those people who work in sweat factories or production factories are living in worse conditions than early American slaves. The slaves of early America received food, shelter, and the ability to raise a family. Those people who work in sweat shops barely make enough money a day to feed themselves, without even thinking about their families. Those working in sweatshops may not seem to fit under the “slave” category, but the circumstances they are in are worse than slavery in some aspects. These people struggle to find a place to live and many cannot afford to have kids and support them. Other “true” slaves of the world barely receive enough food rations for them to live each day. Under no circumstance am I condoning or agreeing with slavery in early America. I am just pointing out that slavery is not always what we perceive it to be, and how it is only getting worse.

There is an estimated 27 million slaves worldwide according to Stephen Lendman. The average slave today costs 90 dollars, compared to the slaves in 1850 costing 40,000 dollars. This shows the care and treatment of slaves is only getting worse. The fact that people are putting a price on human life is sickening and disturbing. There is no worse way to treat living humans than to treat them as objects. One may ask how is this going on or how it has not been stopped yet. The majority of the slaves are in Indian and African countries. The slaves in the United States go undetected because around half of the slaves are used for prostitution or sex services. In a country which prides itself on equality and freedom, it is hard to believe that this problem is still around in the model country of equality itself.

Religious Freedom or Religious Control

President Obama’s newest proposal to a part of the health care sector has recently caused a lot of tension, debate, and confusion. In his latest idea, President Obama has asked Catholic hospitals and employers to now offer contraceptives in their health care plans for employees. For anyone who may not know, Catholics theology has always been against anything contraceptive. As a result most all employers who are associated with the Catholic Church don’t include the coverage of contraceptives in the policies of their respective employees. The government putting these mandates on these businesses now raises the question of a constitutional infringement of our religious freedom. It also raises a question of religious control by the employers.

                In an article by Kristen Powers on The Daily Beast she points out how the Obama administration and our government have crossed a constitutional line. Religious freedom has always been an important part of the United States from even before the constitution was written. The fact that our government is now trying to put restrictions on how a religious entity goes about its business, and so blatantly against what the Catholic Church believes in is a slap to the face of freedom. I myself am not Catholic, and am not against contraceptives, but the principal of the government telling the Church that they must be liable to provide these people something they believe is wrong makes me cringe.

                Of course in every argument there are two sides, and this is no exception. Some Americans are saying that the Catholic Church is denying people their right to get the treatment they desire under their health care plans. In a CNN article by Jennifer Glass, she explains the hardships of working at Notre Dame University, a Catholic establishment, as a non- Catholic during her childbearing years. Her point of view shows states that it should be the right of citizens to choose their medications, such as contraceptives. The Catholic Church seems to be unrightfully controlling their employees by manipulating their healthcare plans.

                The arguments above suggest two liberties being influenced here, the right to religious freedom, and the right to contraceptives. Last time I checked, there wasn’t anything in the constitution about the second of those. Even if the government complains that the Catholic Church shouldn’t have the right to pick and choose what they cover on health care, they should realize they themselves put the employers in charge of providing health care. If they want to make all kinds of medicine available to everyone they need to change the structure of how we get healthcare, not tell certain groups what they have to provide. This isn’t merely a question of is their enough availability, since nearly every other non-religious provider covers contraceptives. The Church has never denied their employees get contraceptives; they simply do not pay for them, as that would be condoning or supporting something they don’t believe in. So if the government doesn’t like that fact that not everyone has a chance to be covered for a type of medicine they need to change the structure of health insurance, not force religions to go against what they believe.    

America Do We Need to Cut the Military?

According to the Pentagon proposed budget cuts would slash the size of the U.S. military by eliminating thousands of jobs, mothballing ships and trimming air squadrons in an effort to shift strategic direction and reduce spending by $487 billion over a decade.

With being in the national guard I feel that with president obama’s proposed reduction of military forces. President Obama is planning on cutting down all the military forces by almost half. Its been said that with the cuts in military funding and government spending the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines are going to be the smallest force since before World War II. When Obama announced that he was going to reduce the military force you will notice that many people agree with his decision because the cuts in spending instead of raising taxes.

With the military getting cut instead of raising taxes you can see that the military will be the first thing to be cut because the military not only has the most money from the budget but it also uses a lot of money which is probably overused. With not only being in the military I can see the cuts and they really are hurting some of the good things that the military has going. The national guard is getting most of the cuts along with the active army. The question I pose is what happens when you have a natural disaster and you need the national guard but with all the budget cuts they cant help with everything they should be able to do. The most recent cut I have seen is that I have seen the reduction in force. I have seen great soldiers get kicked out of the military just because they cant pass a physical fitness test and then they get only three more tests before they are forced out of the military. These soldiers are great soldiers they  just aren’t able to pass a pt test .

As you can see my opinion on this I really hope you see the impact that It could have on not just the people in the military but it could and will probably happen that we will go to another war and then we arnt going to have the man power to start a new war. We could also see an economic impact that if we do start a war and we don’t have the man power they your going to have to pay all the new soldiers coming in so why do we need to be kicking some out.

Democracy: A get rich scheme.

The United States of America, once a new and fragile democracy, soon became a leading example of success and domination. However, is America really the country to set an example? Having been founded on the moral and ethical standards set by our fore fathers, leaders were to uphold the rights of the people. The leaders chosen to protect those rights were to be honorable, unselfish, and ethical people. Yet in this modern day and age, those who run for the desired position to lead a great nation are corrupt. The idea of Democracy, the foundation to serve the people is tainted. Nominees have lost the idea that they will be elected to serve the people. Having that responsibility would imply that one would have to understand whom they are serving. Why would we work to elect someone who lacks the empathy to understand how the “average American” lives?

Although it does take a wealthier person to be able to get started in politics; the idea is not do this for the money. However, everywhere you look there are numerous corporations either forming SuperPACS or solely funding nominees. You really think that a nominee having this major influence is here to serve in the best interest of the people or to serve in the best interest of the corporations? Steven Colbert from Comedy Central made a very humorous and realistic point about these SuperPACs. A very current and perfect example is Mitt Romney. He has SuperPACs that are not only helping him win the election, they are fatting his wallet. Furthermore, on top of the millions these corporations are donating. Donald Trump recently announced he is willing to endorse Mitt Romney. Jon Stewart of Comedy Central pointed out this mind-numbing announcement. So the moral of the story is the richer are helping the rich. This would not be a problem, if the rich were serving the rich. Yet, the rich are serving the poor. Money corrupts the human mind.

There needs to be a reformation in politics. America grew to be a very large and successful nation. Yet, how is America supposed to continue to be a dominating nation if the foundation is corrupt? The generations to come are going to be even more self-centered and easily influenced. All I have to say is that, Al Gore may be correct with global warming. However, global warming is not even close to the damage that will come if money is the drive behind politics. America will find its doom, due to the fact that the leaders will be so involved in money and forget about the heart of this wonderful nation, the people.

How successful will the combination between Islam and Democracy be?

‘Arab Spring’ has been quite a change following the death of Muammar Gaddafi, the former Libyan leader. Arab Civil War hit hard the entire the Middle East. Although it isn’t fast as the fall of the Berlin Wall and democratization of the countries on the Eastern Europe, Arab civil revolution has been a motive power of construction of new system of the Middle East.

Tunisia, Egypt and Libya show signs of new democratization by the success of civil revolution. I don’t know how the civil revolutionary upheaval will result in but it definitely seems that this revolution will be recorded in world history as well as Middle East history

In particular, Arab civil war has significant meaning in the respects that the dictators who had ruled with an iron fist were disappeared in the mists of history all at once. International community takes a growing interest in observing how new system and public order of the Middle East will be constructed after Arab civil revolutionary outbreak.

I think that Tunisia is the first country to change toward democratization among the countries that civil revolution was successful in. Tunisian general election was held like a festival of citizens in October, 13, 2011. Every single person exerts sovereign authority because free election was held for the first time. Meanwhile, many people show a special interest in every move of Libya in the future. Some people say that Libya might be an Islamic country in the near future. Islam might be the nucleus in the Middle East countries because of structure of a complicated region and tribal society.

It has been reported that it is possible for Islamic extremist group to get a power under the cover of a temporary vacuum of public security. In reality, a few radical Islamic groups have been existed in Libya.

I think, however, that the women’s rights will be violated and the citizens of the Middle East will have difficulty in adopting democracy if Islamism is overemphasized. It seems that conflicts are inevitable about Islamism and human rights and the democratic system. When looking into the Middle East regions, I can find that Islam collides with the change that modern society is demanding by occupying lots of part of politics and living of citizens.

We need to have enough time to look whether combination between Islam and democracy will be successful or not.

 -Hye Jin Jung

Has Religion Always Been A Tool? Do religious people force their religion on other people? Possibly religious institutions have been built by governments, leaders, radicals, or even terrorists in order to control the people with fear, ideas, and norms simply because they lack education to determine for themselves. After watching Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus, which gives a specific religion, affirmed my assumption that people are so fickle and religious institutions are nothing more than tools used by the powerful in order to twist, bend, and indoctrinate the weak. However, the powerful could mean an upper class and even a lower class individual or group who are capable of gathering human and even economical resources in order to influence religion. In my atheist view this video Why I Hate Religion, And Jesus, again gives a specific religion, clearly presents the errors of religion, religious leaders, and the overall indoctrination techniques. Once an organization is born a hierarchal system is established. In a realist perspective this means once power is gained the group or individual desires for more which eventually leads to corruption of religion, religious leaders, and institutions.

Religion is the same as war, money and natural resources because each is used as a tool in order to accomplish victory over an opponent. However, every powerful individual or group who uses religion as a tool usually plays off the people’s lack of knowledge, but also to whatever that individual or group of people need. I view that religion was produced by the government and the upper echelons to control its citizen or caused informal obedience by creating a system of values. Another way is for the oppressed or lower class to create religion because of need for equality and freedom. Karl Marx famously said, “Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.”(Age Of The Sage)

The holy crusades, is a great example of religion being use as a tool, in which the Roman Catholic Church uses its religious zealots to pillage and sack the Middle East to increase the wealth and power of the church. Even in the present individuals who I like to call radicals are using religion as a tool to indoctrinate the undetermined,“blind leading the blind,” in order to keep this ridiculous realist cycle of religious nonsense spinning. Example of this present day religion battle can be seen here Christians v. Atheist where individuals such as the Christian women argue with only emotions and curse words to validate her explanation. In my opinion this is way religion will always stay a tool because radical, blind, religious zealots will emotionally protect and attack foreign concepts because those laws of religion have been so engrained into books as well as people that it will take eternity to open people up to change or accept new ideas. I also view that all religions are the same there just in different perspectives and in a somewhat utopian society we live in today I don’t understand why this new age of people can’t accept these many religious perspectives, but as always humans go for the path of less resistance which is war, blindness, and stubbornness.

--Will

Who for President?

The 2012 Presidential election is right around the corner and Mitt Romney is at the top of the Republican Primary and I am going to say that it will by Romney going up against President Obama in the 2012 Election. This makes it very difficult for me to choose someone to vote for. Not because they both are good candidates but because they both seem to have a fair share of problems.

When Obama was elected in 2008 promised to make a "change".  I do believe that he has made some changes but he hasn't made enough good big changes to please me. His Obamacare has many flaws and requires a lot of money to make happen. Also during his presidency America has been in the deepest debt ever and will take a long time to fix. He promises to create jobs for Americans but he turns down the XL Pipeline that would have created many jobs. They may have only been for a short amount of time, but you have to start somewhere.

A lot of people don't have anything bad to say about Romney but that is because he is a panderer so he tells people what they want to hear and stays away from the negative questions. He promises the American people the same exact thing that every Presidential Candidate does: lower taxes and government spending, and increase jobs in America. Honestly i'm not buying it.

I'm not happy with Obama's first term and I am afraid of what will happen if Romney gets elected. So if Romney wins the Republican nomination, who should I vote for? I am not convinced that I should vote for either one.

Women in Iran Learn Martial Arts

In countries around the world, the equality between men and women are different. Not all women are treated equally and suffer from a male dominant society. In Iran for example, women are thought of as lesser people than men and have many restrictions placed upon them. In The Atlantic, it explains that women “are considered inferior to men in almost all legal matters, especially family laws such as marriage or child custody, and their testimony is officially equal to half of a man's. Clothing restrictions and fierce segregation laws marginalize women in the public sector, making participation in society arduous and painful. Those who try anyway are often singled out for harassment and punishment “.

Women are allowed to participate in athletics in Iran but the state is trying to abolish the women’s opportunities in participating. The male and female sports were merged together in retrospect that the males would have another opportunity to repress females and lower their self-worth and take away their feel of empowerment. The Iranian women put together a rugby team in 2004 and had accumulated 1000 people by 2006. The women who were a part of this team endured much ridicule and harassment and the men were skeptical but were proven wrong. They have a national women’s soccer team but they suffer from lack of support, limited funds, poor equipment that is under par, and “gender restrictions” that don’t allow for male coaches or trainers.

One way for the women in Iran to regain their independence is to train in ninjutsu. 3,500 women in Iran have officially registered to train in becoming a ninja. Women that participate in this activity have a sense of independence and strength. This video on The Atlantic Website shows how seriously the women in Iran who take practicing ninjutsu. Instead of being treated like children, they feel like the adults they are. When women are torn down constantly in a society where males control everything and women have little say in what they do, being allowed this freedom to participate in ninjutsu is a liberty of self-expression and independence. It gives them back a feel of empowerment that the male dominated society tries so hard take control over. This is why ninjutsu and athletics in general have become so important to the Iranian women.

I believe that women should be treated more as equals to men and they should be given a fair chance for opportunities. In the U.S. it’s easy to forget the rights and opportunities we have as women and men. We don’t have a perfect government or society and not everything is equal between males and females but we are one of the most privileged countries in the world when it comes to freedoms and we don’t realize how other countries don’t have these same privileges.

Their Hands Were Tied

I don't know how many people out there reading this are familiar with what's been happening in the Anoka-Hennepin school district in Minnesota, so I recommend these three articles should that be the case (one two three). To summarize the situation, in less than two years, nine students in the public school system in that district committed suicide.

There are factors that combined to create a hostile environment for these nine kids and many, many more besides. The primary cause was the Sexual Orientation Curriculum Policy (eventually referred to as just the "neutrality" policy) passed in this school district. It said the following:

Anoka-Hennepin staff, in the course of their professional duties, shall remain neutral on matters regarding sexual orientation including but not limited to student-led discussions.

While this may seem like a practical way to ensure equality of opinion and belief, it's really a policy devised by the school district's legal department intended to help prevent any potential lawsuits. What it does is require all teachers remain outside of any situation where sexual orientation plays a part. So what seems to be the case here is that, with teachers and administrators with their hands tied behind their backs, students were allowed free rein on this one topic with no recourse whatsoever. There was horrible verbal and physical abuse going on but when brought to the attention of school officials, it was found to be in relation to perceived sexual orientation, and so no actions were taken to put a stop to it. This eventually led to nine student suicides—in less than two years.

Attendance in a public secondary school, in most states in this country, is mandatory at least until a student reaches the age of 16. In many places, it's 17 or 18. What this means is that by enacting this policy, this Minnesota school district (comprised of two counties) turned a blind eye to hateful speech and conduct that occurred in a place students were required to be (or else face certain consequences). The kids who were and are the targets of this horrid behavior couldn't just walk out of the building. They couldn't leave the grounds altogether. What's more, they had to either swallow the abuse or perhaps band together with other students going through the same thing. There was no help coming from the teachers or the school staff. They were on their own. It's like a modern day Lord of the Flies.

Even if your beliefs dictate that homosexuality is wrong, surely you can't advocate a policy, in a public school no less, that ignores and by doing so encourages verbal and physical abuse towards any subset of students, some of whom don't even identify as being in that group. Nine students, nine children, took their own lives, and this policy that forced teachers to look away while the pressure came down on these nine kids is, from all indications, what is to blame.

Children can be cruel. We all know that, have seen and most likely experienced it firsthand. A school is ideally, first and foremost, a place of learning, and a public school is one available to all. We put restrictions on what can be brought into a school in terms of physical weapons like knives and guns. There is to be no hitting in a school, on either the student's or teacher's part. But, words are capable of inflicting pain too, and here a certain kind was okay. Even physical abuse, bullying, was okay in this case, as long as the target of that abuse was perceived as being in any way connected to the LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning) community.

The point I'm trying to make is not about gay rights or freedom of speech in a public school. What I am taking issue with here is the policy passed that required teachers to remain silent or lose their jobs. Essentially, this policy forced teachers in the district to make a choice between their principles and their livelihood, and no one should have to make that decision. No one should have to suffer horrible abuse in a place intended for learning, either, and this neutrality policy required exactly that. Beliefs are not universal, but certainly human decency should be.

What kind of message has been sent to these kids?