Today's People

People are boycotting tween heartthrob Justin Bieber because of his alleged pro-mosque comments about the mosque building on Ground Zero.

It's too bad that these people were sadly misinformed and were basing their anger on an article written by a satirical media website similar to the satirical news source, The Onion. That's typical society, today. They read something somewhere, not checking or scouting out other sources, and immediately believe it. Why? Because it's published, of course. Also, why boycott a young celebrity for their views? Bieber is 16. Even if he did say such a foolish thing, which he did NOT, what does boycotting do? It simply makes the die-hard Bieber fans even more supportive and cohesive as a fan group.

Don't take it so personally if someone is pro-mosque. I don't support the building of the mosque in this particular location so close to Ground Zero, but perhaps people weigh religious freedom over respecting lost lives. It's not a personal vendetta against the families of 9/11 victims.

Why has our society become so impulsive and ignorant? You can't believe everything you read. Even I could be lying to you this very minute. Better check your sources.

Affirmative Action

According to Wikipedia, "Affirmative action refers to policies that take factors including "race, color, religion, sex or national origin" into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group at the expense of a majority group, usually as a means to counter the effects of a history of discrimination."


Now that college decisions for early applicants are rolling out, I'm thinking about how many spots are available for each university and how many spots will be taken my students at my school, students of my ethnicity, students of my socioeconomic background, etc. My friends and I were discussing the concept of affirmative action in regards to college admissions today, and there was equal dissent on both sides of the argument. On one hand, I do think that admitting people of certain races such as African-Americans, those of Hispanic origin, and other under-represented minorities is essential and very beneficial to society. Every person deserves a chance to receive an education and to have the chance to do something with their lives. Yet, I wonder if there are people who might be undeserving of a spot at a top university, but because of their decent grades and race, they are admitted.


I've seen it happen at my own school. But, who am I to judge? All I care about are my own acceptance letters. And yet, I can't help but feel frustrated that a spot well-deserved by a friend who has straight A+'s and perfect extracurricular activities, as well as passion, might be filled by someone due to affirmative action. I know that the college admissions process is really a gamble. Sometimes, it's just not your day or the reader just didn't click with your essays. But when it comes to affirmative action, I have to say I am against it.


If a student, REGARDLESS of his/her race has worked hard to get good grades, even when having to support a family and work long hours to earn money, like my own parents did, then they should have no problem getting into a top university. Hard work pays off, no? Those people deserve that chance just like everyone else. But, if my parents could do it, and if millions of other people can do it, so can they. You can't use the "Well, I come from a bad background" excuse forever. At some point, you have to break the cycle. Don't always just blame it on your race. If you work hard, you'll be rewarded. You can't expect things because of your race.

Really Now?

I've talked about WikiLeaks before, but it frustrates me that the founder Julian Assange says that he doesn't feel guilty for what he did, and that the law isn't simply what "Hillary Clinton says it is." No, the law is not to be manipulated by those in power. The law is to protect the people and establish equality and balance in the country. The law is not to abused. But neither are our rights.

We have a responsibility to the people to inform them of the truth, yes, but to also protect them. The world is not a perfect and honest place, Mr. Assange, and just because you publish these documents isn't going to make the world a better place. If anything, more chaos will ensue. Some things are meant to be kept secret. All the horrible things revealed about the United States government and espionage are revolting and disappointing. But, though this is no justification, other countries are doing it, too. What do you plan to do about it? It's easy to reveal all this information and point fingers, but if you don't have your own method of rectifying the status quo, don't bother criticizing. It's annoying.

Thar She Blows

North Korea bombs South Korea. Why is that not surprising? With South Korea continuing its naval drills and North Korea continuing its nuclear tests without authorization from the UN, it was bound to happen. But, my question is: What will the world do about it? i.e. What will the U.S. do about it?

My father and I agree that the United States probably won't directly intervene, as usual. It isn't our place to just go around fixing other people's problems and fighting people's battles. However, South Korea is our ally. North Korea is a threat to the Korean peninsula, and perhaps more importantly, Japan. Scary.

I wonder what would happen if North Korea bombed Japan? I think the United States might get a tad bit angrier. Will the United Nations really do anything? North Korea isn't going to listen to the UN. They want to break free of an international peacekeeping organization because they don't exactly want peace. They want to dominate South Korea and unify it to make one GIANT DPRK.

The United Nations today doesn't strike me as a very powerful organization...in times of crisis, people look to the United States. Funny.

In the Shadows

I read an article called "The Shadow Scholar" today. It was a full confession/report from a man who assumes the name Ed Dante for the purposes of this article. Dante earns money by writing papers for students all over the United States. He writes term papers, research papers, homework assignments, you name it, for his paying undergraduates, graduates, and sometimes, as he claims, those who are working towards their Ph.D.

Yes, it seems like Dante thinks very highly of himself as he boasts of his capability to write 75-page papers in ridiculous amounts of times, but the gist of the article is so disturbing. Dante takes no responsibility for his contributions to these ever-growing now-commercialized cheating rings, but he acknowledges that what he does is wrong. He simply reports the truth of the matter; he isn't slapping anybody on the wrists. But he brings up a valid point. Who is to blame?

It is our society. Like I have mentioned before, people use the excuse that the ends justify the means. We do what it takes to "succeed." But how do we define success? By the A+s we get on a report card? Or by how much we learn? By how much money we make? Or by how much love and support we have amongst family and friends. What is success?

By today's standards, success means winning, earning money, and getting good grades, depending on what age you are. Even teachers use Dante and other people like him, which just goes to show you that the apple doesn't fall very far from the tree.

So how do we stop cheating?

Well, that's the million-dollar question.

What's More Important?

I was reading an article about how in American high school football, even when the opposing team may have a 50 point lead, that team will not knee down in recognition of the fact that they have won. They keep going until they have a 70 point lead instead.

It makes me wonder...in today's society, what is really important? The end product? Or the lessons learned and the way in which we achieve that end product?

Do we care about the A+ instead of the rich knowledge presented to us? Do we care so much about that A that we cheat to boost our GPA in hopes of pleasing parents and getting into a "top college"?

Coincidentally, I also read an article about a cheating scandal at UCF. Some students who were interviewed claimed that everybody cheats, so why make a big deal that about 200 students cheated on a midterm exam? That's right, people. Everyone does it, so it makes it okay. If everybody jumped off a bridge, would we all do that, too? I wouldn't.

I know that our society is all about innovation and more importantly, goals achieved at a ridiculously fast rate. But what are we losing along the way? Our morals? Dignity? Pride in our work?

It's sad. All I know is that if someone took my place a university because he/she cheated along the way and achieved much higher grades than I did, I would feel a bit angry.

Oh, Keith

Keith Olbermann. I think it is rather hilarious that he was temporarily "suspended" by MSNBC, simply because he donated to campaigns of Democratic party candidates in the election this past week.

We all know Olbermann is a liberal, just as we recognize that Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck are more of what we call conservatives. Sean Hannity has been known to donate to his fellow Republican party candidates' campaigns, but Fox News has not suspended him. Interesting that MSNBC (and NBC) are attempting to maintain some kind of "we are neutral" facade by "suspending" Olbermann.

...Yeah, I don't think MSNBC is neutral. So, this little stunt was probably unnecessary and ridiculous.
It's not like we didn't know Keith over there was a liberal.

Elections

YAY FOR ELECTIONS.

I can't wait til I can vote. Really. It'll be quite the exciting process!!!!

I just wanted to see how the elections were going, and I come upon THIS as one of the number one hits for "Meg Whitman" on Google News. I did not know that there was a "Queen Meg" comedic actress, Elaine Burn, tailing Meg Whitman around to all her talks and throughout her travels in order to mock Whitman's campaign.

Really. Please, Elaine Burn, get a life. You left your 3-year old son and husband for the duration of the campaign to participate in something as demeaning and useless as this? Perhaps you were rejected from Saturday Night Live.

Why do adults act like children?

Well, on another note, I'm not surprised Christine O'Donnell did not win her seat. Oh the Tea Party...or the Tea BAGS as my dad calls them.

Don't Do That

I know this happened two weeks ago, but I really can't get over the fact that Joy and Whoopi decided to walk off the View when they hosted Bill O'Reilly.

Really. Whether you're independent, conservative, liberal, or communist, you can't walk away. That shows that you just don't have anything to defend yourself with. Is that why they walked off? Did they realize that they have no facts to back their arguments up so they walked up and left off their own show? GOOD GOOD. Typical democrats, as the Youtuber Phil says.

And then, as I continue to watch this horrid little clip, the young blonde host asks something along the lines of, "Couldn't this entire issue have been prevented if we were allowed to say TERRORISTS instead of radical Muslims?". She says that this mistake of saying radical Muslims associated the religion with terrorism too much, and we should just call them terrorists.
...
...
That is the most absurd thing I have heard thus far.

BUT THEN, Joy and Whoopi come back! I bet someone told them they looked like immature fools and they needed to grow up and come back and argue their way back in. Ha. Ha.

I am amused.

People

Today, my International Issues & Public Policy teacher brought up an interesting point in class. He posed the question, "Is California a place where we're too concerned with being afraid to offend that we don't deal with the real issues?"

My answer to this interesting question is YES. People these days want to sue and be offended at the slightest things. Thus, nobody really speaks out against what they don't believe in if the cause isn't supported by the masses. Why are people afraid to be a lone wolf? For example, what if I was offended by the "coming out" videos on National Coming Out Day? Does that mean I can go and bash all gay people and complain to the school? Yes. But why would I do that? It's okay to have different opinions; why do people need to be so sensitive to these issues?

It is similar to those people who were offended that the Pledge of Allegiance says "under God"; it's ridiculous. It's similar to people complaining about the dollar bill because it says "In God We Trust." I'm sorry, should we reprint dollar bills all over again because you're offended? I'm sorry, no thank you.

People in California are very accepting, perhaps more so than other states. Here, we accept gay marriage, legalized pot, etc. But does that mean we can't believe in things that are different from what a majority of society thinks? I'm not afraid.

I encourage you all to speak up for what you believe in - whether you are supported by many or not. If people are so accepting, they should accept different opinions wholeheartedly, no?

Pro-Life

Hello all.

Tomorrow is Pro-Life Day of Silent Solidarity in remembrance of babies who have been silenced.

If you want to support this cause, you can wear red tape on your arm tomorrow!!!

Go HERE for more information.

=] Thanks, everyone. Speak for those without voices!

Warning: Non-Political Blog Post: Big Boys

I was browsing through the New York Times, and I laughed when I saw there was an article about how people are reacting the NBA rule that says that referees are allowed to call technical fouls on players who are just a bit too overreactive.

Really, now. I don't think that this issue is so important that people need to argue about it. Yes, basketball is a very emotional game. Athletes and sporting events tend to get pretty tense, but these people are adults. Get over it? Yes, when I see the Indianapolis Colts getting called for penalties, I get upset. But, you can't just go up to the referee and complain. If it's legitimately wrong, okay. But, if the referee calls it, just accept it and let it go. I don't need to watch a basketball game to see players and referees argue. It want to see people running up and down the court playing a good game of b-ball.

It's just amusing to see people get riled up over things like this. Sometimes, you have to know when to just accept things.

Freedom of the Press

The press is a large part of the media. It's my main source for current events.

So, my question is...does the press, with all its freedom and rights, have a responsibility to the government and national security? Or does it have a responsibility to expose all truth to the public. How far can they go? Where is the line drawn?

Defense Secretary Gates says that those documents revealed by WikiLeaks thankfully didn't result in much endangerment of national security. But, the names of the Afghanistan civilians involved with the United States military were revealed. So, who's at fault? Isn't it the government's fault for not being able to keep a better handle on such secrets? The government is responsible for protection of such top-secret information, but it somehow was released to WikiLeaks, and thus to the public.

But when you think about it, is WikiLeaks also at fault? Knowing that what they published could potentially halt the progress of national security in the Middle East and perhaps knowing that this information was classified, did they have a responsibility to the greater good - the protection of the people? Freedom is great. Laws are enforced to ensure equal rights. But at what point does freedom have to be regulated?

National Coming Out Day

Yesterday was National Coming Out Day, and the GSA at my school made a video where two people "came out". It was brave of those girls and everything...but I have to say that I was slightly...disgruntled?

I didn't feel uncomfortable, I have gay friends and I wouldn't change them for anything. But, why do I have to witness someone's "coming out"? Does that mean that when people realize they're straight, they should make videos to say "I'm straight"? I don't understand why it's a huge deal to come out National Coming Out Day...does it mean that if you come out on this day that it's more symbolic and means more than if you came out on another day? If there is a National Coming Out Day, why can't there be a National Being Straight Day? Because being straight is the "norm"? I thought that gay people wanted to just be accepted, but if they keep making a huge deal out of being gay, it makes them seem different, no?

I just don't think that a school is a place to make these kinds of videos. It should be optional, not at a school meeting for everyone to hear. My school has not allowed a Christian club (where Christians and non-Christians meet possibly for 20-30 minutes once per week before school) because it "upsets" some faculty members, board members, and students. But what if being gay offended someone? THEN, the parents of the gay student would complain and bring up issues and whatnot.

Double standards. They stink.

Powerful Women

In my room, I have a bulletin board hung up. I have pictures, calendars, college brochures, and all kinds of trinkets tacked on. A couple of years ago, I was reading a Fortune magazine, and there were the top 50 most influential women in the world (financially). I have some of their pictures that I cut out from that issue. Some of these women are CEOs and executives of companies; you can see why they have been listed as powerful females.

How on earth does Michelle Obama become listed as the most powerful woman in the world? Really. Honestly. What makes her so powerful? Besides the fact that she is married to the president.

This was just a little rant.

We Need Help

My generation. We need help. We need advice from our parents and adults. It seems that our values and ability to discern good from bad are becoming muddled in today's society where everything goes and it's cool to be chill - go with the flow.

Like I've said before, my generation accepts differences and diversity; it's pretty fantastic. But, at what point do we stop and say, "That's wrong. We need to do something to stop it." We're great at speaking out against pollution and environmental destruction, but how good are we at speaking out against social issues? Not as much.

The suicide of the Rutgers' student is just another reminder to how hurtful our words can be. Sticks and stones break bones, and words break our hearts. Great. The Internet is free to all. Technology is available to the public. We know it's illegal to hack and whatnot, but how much are we going to abuse our freedom to abuse others? As a member of the public, we should be more responsible. Just because we CAN do something, doesn't mean we should.

It's really none of your business if a male student wants to have sex with another male student. It's not your problem? So, he might be gay. Leave him alone. To each his own. Who are we to publish information like that to the whole world?

Hypocrisy?

What is this?!

Npr.org reports that one 19-year-old female African-American student said, "Just when I think about politics, get a mental picture — I see old white men," she says. "I'm a young black female, so it's like I have no relationship to it. It's like they make the laws and I just have to deal with it." What I don't understand is how this statement is not being blown up as a racist statement. Old white men?

So, the Democrats are trying to rally support among African-Americans again, especially since they appeared to really relate to President Obama. Yet, they feel that they don't really have an urge to vote for Congress members because the president and his campaign have not come and attempted to really influence the black voters. I didn't think it was the president's DUTY to come and CONVINCE anybody to participate in anything. Because this young female thinks of old white men when she thinks about Congress, she doesn't really care because she's young and black. How is that NOT racist?

They make the laws and she deals with it. True. But, if she's not very please with the laws being passed then why not vote and rally up support for African-American Congressmen and Congresswomen?

Where is the news media freaking out about racism, now? What, because it's not a "white supremacist", we're not all going to freak out about it? Double standard, much.

Suicide

Today, a young man took his own life at the University of Texas, at Austin. On the way to school, I heard on the news that there was a gunman at the University of Texas at Austin, only to discover later that his goal was to commit suicide.

Suicide is a topic that isn't really talked about that often in schools like drugs, alcohol, and sexual education. My school offers "wellness" classes in order to provide lifestyle advice for us high-schoolers; often, there are topics of stress and time management. But, I really think that depression and suicide itself need to be addressed more in teen environments where suicides are more prone to occur.

At a local school, Henry M. Gunn High School, there have been several suicides on the Caltrain tracks. I never really thought about the impact of depression and suicide, but with this suicide at the University of Tecas at Austin, I can't help but wonder why people commit suicide.

In my opinion, teen suicides appear to happen due to depression and specifically - bullying/harassment. I think this gives more perspective to the idea that people need to treat others nicely and with respect. You never know how much impact you may have on a stranger.

STOP TEXTING

People. Stop texting while you're driving. Stop talking on the phone sans Bluetooth while you're driving.

I assume that many of you would not like to get into an accident or lose your life because you choose to rebel against the laws of society and do illegal things with your precious cellphones while you drive an automobile, endangering not only yourself, but also the possibly-innocent people around you.

As you're driving, it's not all about you. In a way, yes, you want to keep yourself safe, but in order to do that, you might want to look out for those other cars in neighboring lanes. Today, my friend was driving somewhere to get frozen yogurt, and she needed directions. I received a text message from her, asking me where the frozen yogurt store was located. I was scared to text back - SHE WAS DRIVING.

That statistics prove it. Texting/talking on the phone (with or without Bluetooth) while you're driving is "equivalent to a major airliner going down every week in this country" according to a member of FocusDriven (Yahoo! News).

Score for Congress!

The United States is slowly beginning to understand and now, reinforce, the idea that using the word "mentally retarded" is not politically correct. It's just an excuse for people to use "retarded" as a synonym for other words meaning stupid, idiotic, etc.

Congress has passed legislation to change the phrase "mentally retarded" to "an individual with intellectual disability" in all kinds of laws, such as health and labor laws.

As many of you may know, I am very much against using words such as "retarded" and "gay" as substitutes for insults, suggesting that being mentally retarded (as it used to be called) and gay are negative things in society. Words are hurtful. That old saying of "sticks and bones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me" does not stand true. Words hurt. A lot.

I applaud Congress for taking this step in support of quite literally banning the "r-word"!

Real Secret Agents?

When I think of spies, I think of James Bond and ninjas. It's hard for me to imagine real spies.

If you live in America, shouldn't you be loyal to this country? P. Leonardo Mascheroni, a physicist, and Marjorie Mascheroni, his wife, have been accused by the F.B.I. of trading nuclear secrets to Venezuela to aid them in their quest for nuclear weapons.

How did the F.B.I. track them? Well, allegedly, they were promised almost $800,000. I'm just wondering how on earth they suspected this particular couple? Is the United States simply paranoid now that so many countries are seeking to gain access to nuclear weapons, or are we always just on the look out for suspicious activity?

If this accusation is eventually proven to be true, I will personally feel insulted. I feel like people aren't proud of the United States. Whether or not it be in regards to spies or even criticism of the country, if you live here, you're choosing to live here.

Protect the Pope

The papacy and clergy have been influential in Western society for over several centuries, now. The fact that the Vatican still exists today, along with the Pope as a symbol for Catholics all over the world. The Pope is exulted to be a highly religious and moral figure who stands as a leader of the Catholic world.

But why? Since the 11th century, those in control of the papacy have shown traces of corruption. To be honest, I don't think often of the Vatican, save for the fictional stories brewed by Dan Brown. But, hearing about the public confession of the molestation and sexual abuse of children by priests of Catholic church really bothered me. Just as radical Muslims are antagonized and stereotypes all over the world, perhaps the Catholics and Christians are also being tainted by the simple actions of others. Although I may not appreciate the Pope and his influence in the grand scheme of things, I do see his frustration and the difficult position he has been placed in, since he stands as the international representative of the Catholic church.

I just hope that the angry people don't succeed in terrorizing or killing him.

One for All? All for None.

There's lots of talk going on about the GOP nominee for Delaware, Christine O'Donnell. She gets steamrolled by Rove on Fox, and her credentials are sketch, or so they say.

So, when she suddenly upsets veteran Mike Castle, it's a big deal. The GOP doesn't look too happy. But, will they rally behind her and help her win the seat in the Senate? Maybe she's not their favorite nominee, but will they support her? Romney makes a point that the GOP needs Senate majority in this upcoming election, so he's going to write a $5,000 check for O'Donnell. Will other GOP members do the same and contribute to her campaign?

At the end of the day, is it about each person's individual take on things and position in politics? Does one stay loyal to his/her party or his/her beliefs? One's beliefs and the belief of the party you support may not always be the same. I know it's not for me, 100% of the time.

Isn't it weird that O'Donnell looks like Sarah Palin? Very strange.

On a side note, Meg Whitman is spending $119 Million of her own money on her campaign for CA governor. Maybe I should go help out with the campaign, again.

International or National Citizen

In the 21st century, we have several international organizations: the UN, WHO, ICC, and much more.

Why are a majority of these organizations based in the United States or Europe? Though we all strive to be a multi-national community, where each citizen is, in fact, an international citizen, the world will most likely continue to be dominated by Western forces. For now.

Perhaps, one day, Asians will rule the world! Just kidding. No, but really, you have to ask yourself, if we are trying to bring third world countries to a higher status, be that economically, politically or socially, why do the powers of the West resound throughout everything? I don’t know. I see it’s fitting, seeing that Western society has been dominating world politics for a while now. But, is it fair?

Extremist

Extremists. Definition? Over-enthusiasts that reflect poorly on the rest of the population. We have extreme Christians. We have extreme Muslims. Extreme anything never seems to be the answer. This would be the case with Pastor Terry who decided it would be okay to burn Qur’ans. False.

It is unjustified to stereotype all people of Islamic faith as extremists who want to kill people in the name of Allah. That, too, is false. So, why would this Christian pastor want to burn hundreds of holy books? I don’t know. It’s true that American flags are burned, not because they are old and deteriorated, but because America is loathed in places throughout the world. It’s true that people burn Christian bibles. It doesn’t make it right to add Qur’ans to the list of sacred things being burned.

But, I’m more concerned with the potential consequences of his actions – the death of more Americans. On top of that? I don’t want to be made to look like a fool because I’m Christian or because I’m an American.

The Role of the First Wife

What's the role of the American President's wife? Is she an adviser to the president and politically active? Or is she the welcoming First Lady of the house to guests and a public figure? Or is she both?

I remember Laura Bush blending into the background, but also still giving an impression of being active politically and socially. She had her causes to advocate, just as Michelle Obama does now. However, when I read that Michelle Obama said, "“I’m his wife, not his senior adviser.” (NY Times) I quite agreed. The wife of the President of the United States does not have necessarily be his sole source of advice not should she be butting into situations she shouldn't be. However, to an extent, being the president's wife, you have an obligation to be a public figure/role model to millions of citizens across the United States. Also, when it's time for you to be serious and support/assist your husband (whether or not that be staying at home and being supportive) you shouldn't be flying around the world. No matter what the reason. President Obama isn't exactly #1 Mr. Popular right now, is he?


When I think of famous First Ladies, I think of Jackie Kennedy - so beautiful and welcoming as the hostess of the White House, or Eleanor Roosevelt - so tactful and helpful in multiple aspects during her husband's term in office. When I think of Michelle Obama, her Harvard degree makes me think that she might be more politically active, as in not simply becoming known for her shopping sprees and jet plane rides. I guess I was wrong.

Starting Fresh

The start of a new school year feels more like a fresh start than the beginning of the calendar year. There is more excitement and anxiety over the first day back to school for me. And apparently, President Obama is feeling the "fresh start" vibe.

As I'm slowly, but surely, maturing, I'm realizing that I need to be more objective and critical of my opinions and the facts that support them. I suppose I'll start with President Obama's speech earlier tonight. I didn't watch it, myself, but in the car ride home I heard plenty of news radio stations commenting on it. But, after looking at the actual content of the speech, I realize that I want to be out of the war and fighting just as much as the next person. Yet, even though people may agree that most Iraqi people resent the United States for interfering and ruining their lives, etc., I think that the Iraqi people might also be fearful of the day when the U.S. will no longer be there to physically protect them and directly oversee all the matters. For Iraq to stand on its own, one of the most important things that they need is a stable military for defense and protection. As of now, I'm not sure that they're ready to stand on their own. I don't think one year is going to be enough for them to get it all together, either.

Though President Obama opposed this war in Iraq when former President Bush was in office, the President admits now that this war was a way to protect the people of Iraq. A bit of a concession, but not really. My AP English teacher says concessions are quite important; it shows you can criticize yourself. So, why didn't Mr. President just simply come out and say, perhaps I didn't agree with ____, but now looking back retrospectively, I understand we did it for _______. Oh well. I did enjoy the fact that President Obama acknowledge former President Bush's commitment and love of his country. See, we can be civil!

And yes, let's all move on from the anti-war and pro-war groups. That was so four years ago, people.

Women in the Military

Women can vote. Women can run marathons. Women can run for public office. We've come a pretty long way in the last century. So why do so many people believe that women shouldn't be allowed to be in the front lines of the army?

After having a debate today in my International Issues/Public Policy class, I couldn't stop thinking about it. Why is rape such a huge issue in the military for women? Why is it that it's not okay for women to join the military and be in combat, even though they know the risk they take when signing up for the army. They understand that there is a chance they might die, get captured, and get tortured - they also realize that they could be raped. If an adult understands the consequences before partaking in something, shouldn't he/she be responsible for whatever happens? If you understand something, even though you may not like the idea of it, you still accept that it's a possibility and you enter the situation knowing that you take this risk. Women know they could get raped. They accept it. They move on. They join the army and want to serve their country.

What's wrong with that? The negative spouted some psychological nonsense about how women are needed more in the home for children to learn to read and develop. Perhaps that's true. Maybe it's not. Regardless, so are you saying that children who grow up with two male homosexual parents are going to be dumb and have a hard time reading? False. I think not.

Women want to fight in the military. They want to prove that they're just as capable of serving their country to their best ability. Let them do it. It's not even a discussion to be had anymore. Hello 21st century~

It Strikes Again

People who know me, know that I'm quite the advocate against the usage of "retarded" as a negative or derogatory comment. We call it the "r-word".

I remember seeing some pictures of Jennifer Aniston in a photo shoot, dressing up like Barbara Streisand. But, I was sent an article by my dad regarding her comment on the "Live with Regis & Kelly" show. She jokingly calls herself a "retard". Well, no direct harm done, right? She's just got a good sense of humor and can make fun of herself. Wrong.

Yes, she's not going and calling anybody a retard, but she is insinuating that being a "retard" is something bad/negative. I can't believe that people are still using "retard" as a substitute for "stupid". I hear it all the time in the hallways, even though it's only been 2 days of school!

Retarded does NOT mean stupid, people. Really. It doesn't.

So stop using it. Thanks.

Journalism v. Media

Just a short question for all of you out there: do you think there is a growing gap between journalism and media? A teacher mentioned that today in one of my classes only briefly, but it stuck with me all day. Now that I think about it, I think there really is a bigger difference between media and journalism nowadays.

Journalism makes me think of something more legitimately scholarly or fact-based, with a style of writing meant for readers who aren't simply interested to know about the latest scandal. Some types of media, on the other hand, like tabloids and celebrity magazines are hard to call journalism. I can't say that those gossip columns are real journalistic work, right?

It's sad that the media is so warped that there now is such a large distinction between the two: journalism vs. the media.

Place Your Bets

First off, I just wanted to mention one thing.

When I walk around the neighborhood and see houses with flags or see cars that have American flag bumper stickers, I've got to say, I feel quite patriotic.

I know the entire plan for the community center and mosque being built on Ground Zero is a huge debate that might be becoming a little annoying with the constant talk about it. But, I'm really happy that the construction workers don't want to be a part of this awful plan. It's a weird and unnecessary plan, but to see people actually take a stand against the mosque-building is invigorating. To be honest, I'm not really sure if it'll be built or not, but someone will have to build the mosque...eventually. I just don't know who's going to do it.

Okay, onto the piece of news I read about yesterday. The Wall Street Journal had an article about a website where students place bets, either against each other or against themselves, on how high of a grade they'll receive. I suppose if it's against themselves, it's a type of...self-motivation? Even though it'd be great for people to always be motivated to try their best and get good grades/high GPAs, money shouldn't be the motivation. The whole point of going to school is to learn. The learning process is entirely up to you, you can choose to cheat and not pay attention, or you can choose to learn and really take it to heart. This entire idea of "betting" is ridiculous.

Sure, it's motivation, but it's the wrong message to be sent to students. Study so you can win a bet! Not really the message I'd be promoting at my school. Is that what our society has come to? Kids hating school and studying so much that they need money to motivate them?

Emergency Drills

In school, we always have to go through emergency drills, in case there comes a day when there really is an earthquake or fire, or acid chemical spill. But, we never really take it seriously, because we know it's a drill - we expect it.

But, when I found out about the Zimbabwe plane crash being a false alarm, I wasn't really sure what to think. To be quite honest, I didn't think it was such a bad idea. People, as I've observed as of late, have become too comfortable. The threat of terrorism isn't looming over citizens of the world, as it did right after 9/11. I'm glad that the panic is gone and lives are slowly returning to normal, but 9/11 did happen. Terrorism is still there - large and active. People still want to kill and hurt Americans. Tensions haven't dissipated. And I think this plane crash drill was a small jolt to the people, possibly reminding them that anything could happen at any time.

Yes, it was a bit frightening and perhaps more officials involved could have been notified beforehand, but ultimately, the drill did its job. It tested the readiness of emergency crews and troops. The only worry I have is this: the boy who cried wolf. I just hope that these drills don't occur so often, that when something truly terrible happens, we all don't just shrug it off, thinking it's another drill.

Bottom line: wake up, people. It's not over yet.

Change

Our world is constantly changing. New technology. New babies being born. New books being written. New laws being passed.

Some people accept change, and some reject it. In 7th grade, my school required us to read Ray Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451". I can't remember 100% all the details, but I did remember that I quite enjoyed the book. That and Orwell's "Animal Farm" were both about challenging society's norms. There was a Los Angeles Times' article on Ray Bradbury and his infamous vendetta against large government and systems meant to control and regulate people; he also criticizes technology.

In a way, I agree that technology is essentially an all-too-large part of our lives; I'm no exception. I love my laptop, my iPhone, my digital camera, my iPod...television (maybe). But, a few weeks ago, my dad brought up the idea that in several decades, even all books would go electronic - like the Kindle. I don't really have a Kindle, though my mother has one she never uses, but I'm not a huge fan of it. I love reading, don't get me wrong, but I like the feel of pages. And, I absolutely adore collecting books on my bookshelf...it completes my room. I love my technology as much as the next person, but just like anything else, too much of anything is never a good thing.

But, that's when I started thinking about the overall theme of change. Is it good? Is it bad?
Gay marriage. It's going to be a part of everyone's lives and it's going to be legal everywhere, soon enough. So, we have to just accept it, as my dad says. I guess as I keep thinking about it, the more I'm okay with it. It's not interrupting my life, and it's not ruining my life either. Gay marriages are just kind of...there, like any other heterosexual marriage. I realized that there are much bigger things to worry about than trying to stand up to huge waves of change that are going to come whether we like it or not.

So, as I become a senior this year in high school, and as I write all my college applications, I really ask myself who I am. Who am I becoming? What do I stand for? What do I fight for?
And, these past few months of summer, I've become more accepting of things that are different from what I believe in.

I know what's right and wrong, but I also know that it's okay to just accept people - you can't control people. A smart old man of mine once said that.

Back to School

In less than 14 days, I will once again be sitting in a classroom for a majority of the day and doing homework every night - exciting. Actually, it will be, since most of the classes I'm taking are subjects I'm interested in...AND I am finally a senior. Go Class of 2011!

But speaking of schools, there's two things that bothered me today.

One would be this picture:

Source: Yahoo! News 

I never knew that this is how you spelled school. S.H.C.O.O.L.

Great. Our society today at its finest, folks.

Second thing that I heard about today is the raping of a high school girl.

A high school male has been raping girls, especially freshmen Special ED girls, repeatedly - and the school did nothing. Oh, I stand corrected.

Someone wanted to walk this particular girl to the bus stop, to ensure that she wouldn't be raped again. NOTICE: She has already been raped. Instead, the principal of the school interferes. The principal doesn't contact the victim's parents or even contact the state police. Instead, the poor girl is used as BAIT to lure the creeper sexual offender and catch him. But MY OH MY, something goes wrong and they can't find the girl! They lose track of her! And she gets raped...again.

Another weird thing? The school never reported the earlier reports of rape at their school to the authorities. Fishy.

Maybe it's because I'm a female, but I can't STAND sex offenders - I feel more anathema towards them than murderers. But only slightly. This really is a great example we set for society. Really.

Can We Fix It?

Do you know that really annoying show called "Bob the Builder"? It's targeted towards young children under the age of 5 or 6. He always chants, "CAN WE FIX IT?", while his buddies say, "YES, WE CAN!". Well, building a mosque where Islamic extremist terrorists killed thousands of innocent Americans isn't going to fix the tension built up from 9/11.

It's kind of insulting, really. How does it help the families of the victims of 9/11 if this "Cordoba Initiative" builds this huge mosque two blocks away from ground zero? How does that make these poor people who have lost their loved ones feel better? All they'd remember is how much pain and suffering they endured - plus, they'd probably feel more angst and bitterness towards people of Islamic faith. I'm not saying EVERYONE would feel this way, I'm just thinking that maybe building a mosque - a place where the followers of Islam worship and pray, ONLY people who are Muslims, mind you - is kind of like a slap in the face.

After the Vietnam War and the Korean War, memorials and walls were built to remember the honorable people who list their lives. They didn't go and build a giant statue of Ho Chi Minh and put a United States flag and say, "We are remembering the people of the Vietnam War by building this statue."

Wake up, people. Who is this mosque really helping? It's not going to make anyone accept Muslims any more than we already do. It is inevitable that people are grouped into that category and associated, though unfairly, with the terrorist groups who claim to kill in the name of Allah. It's not right to stereotype, but it happens. Building a mosque isn't going to fix it.

Sorry, folks. We can't fix it by building a mosque.

Congratulations, Elena Kagan

Today, the Senate confirmed Elena Kagan as the 112th Justice of the United States Supreme Court; she's also only the fourth woman in the history of the U.S. to be a Supreme Court Justice. Apparently, the votes were casted as "ayes" and "nayes" - something that happens on special occasions when the Senate believes that this is a historical moment. I'm excited for soon-to-be Justice Kagan, and I wish her well in her endeavors. Woot! My feminist side shines right about now.

I can't help but notice that other people are noticing the Obamas' spending. In Spain, it's $2,500 a night for the First Lady, and there are about 70 secret service agents who have to be house, too. I laugh when Drudge Report calls Michelle Obama the next Marie Antoinette. The difference? Marie Antoinette was a style icon, and Michelle Obama is known for her ugly toes. On nydailnews.com's article regarding this matter, there's a poll that asks the readers: "Do you think Michelle Obama should ditch high life for more down-to-Earth image?"


64% of readers say, "No, she promotes positive living and the American dream of prosperity."
36% of readers say, "Yes, they tell people to save, yet they spend, spend, spend."

I don't understand how the majority of this poll's participants, even after (assuming) they have had read this article about Michelle Obama's lavish spending, can say that she represents the American dream. The American dream isn't all about superficiality and spending nights at lavish hotels/resorts, spending money that isn't yours, and still demanding respect. You have to earn that kind of respect.

Marie Antoinette and her husband were imprisoned and then beheaded for acting like complete political failures and spending all the money.

I don't think the Obamas will suffer that fate, but nevertheless - don't spend what's not really yours.

Happy Birthday

On Twitter, all I could see were people updating their statuses to say something along the lines of "YAY. PROP 8 IS GONE!" Yes, Proposition 8 - the proposition outlawing gay marriages - has been reversed by the San Francisco judge. In a way, I'm happy for the LGBT community, but overall, I can't say that I'm glad that Prop 8 doesn't stand.

But we all knew that no matter which way the decision went, this case would go up to a higher court - first the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals, then perhaps the Supreme Court. I don't think this conflict of accepting the LGBT community will ever end. I don't think I'll go into my views on homosexuality since I've done so before. In addition, I wouldn't want to ruin the fact that today is..

President Obama's birthday! Yay. Really. I'm ecstatic. Can't you tell?
But yes, Happy 49th Birthday, Mr. President. I'm glad to see that he could escape to Chicago for what Politico.com calls a "low-key" birthday celebration. My 11-year-old sister's friend texted her in the morning to say, "Happy bday obama!" My sister and I just rolled our eyes.

I wonder how President Obama feels about this step forward for homosexuals in California?

This article seems to say it all: NyMAG.

On My Mind...

People need to stop talking on their phones sans Bluetooth. Talking on the phone is so obviously distracting and it annoys me that these people think it's okay to talk on their phones while driving and swerving in their lanes. I don't want to die because of some other person's failure to comply with the law. Thanks.

But, besides seeing people lobbying for the legalization of pot (i.e. Marijuana) this weekend, I hope Chelsea Clinton had a fantastic wedding - it was indeed her special day.

On another note, I'm happy to hear that President Obama is bringing our troops home within his new 19-month (as opposed to the original 16-month) timeline. The troop withdrawal will minimize the numbers from approximately 170,000 troops to about 30,000. These remaining 30,000 troops of brave men and women will be responsible for aiding in the continuing project of rebuilding Iraq and dealing with terrorist groups. All American troops will be out of there by the end of 2011, according to the agreement between former President George W. Bush and the Iraqis. After a long war, if you can really call it that, I'm glad these people are allowed to finally come home.

But, then of course I had to be reminded of the fact that President Obama has increased the number of troops by 30,000 in Afghanistan - it's a 9-year project over there, folks. I suppose the fighting never ends in this world, but I wish that the United States didn't have to so often be a part of it.

Nevertheless, I hope people don't continue to disrespect the troops fighting overseas by saying this fighting is futile - each man and woman is sacrificing his/her time and putting his/her life on the line for the United States of America.

I'm grateful....are you, America?

A Lot to Say

There are always outspoken celebrities and media stars who like to voice their political opinions. Not that I really think that they should be advocates for any political party, but that's not the point. Let's look at who's saying what.

Most recently, Jersey Shore star "Snooki" (the one that Obama claims to know nothing about) says, "I don't go tanning anymore because Obama put a 10 percent tax on tanning. [Sen. John] McCain would never put a 10 percent tax on tanning. Because he's pale and would probably want to be tan." [According to Politico.] Wise, wise words, Snookie. But don't worry, I think President Obama probably watches Jersey Shore in his spare time. He seems to show the public that he has A LOT of spare time.

Angelina Jolie isn't a big fan of President Obama either. In an article release several months ago on an online celebrity tabloid, a source said that Jolie thinks actions speak louder than words.

Wise, WISE words. So, does this mean that President Obama's failure to own up to his promises during his campaign reflects on him as a person? Yes. Yes it does.

But, of course, there are Obama-lovers, too. In a recent YouTube interview, Katy Perry talks about her life before becoming a pop-star sensation. To the ever-brilliant (sarcasm intended) Lisa Nova, she says awkwardly that she didn't get to buy things because she was...poor. To that, Lisa Nova awkwardly laughed. (Horrible interview.) But, when talking about her inability to pay for health care due to her financial circumstances prior to her rise to fame, Katy Perry of course had to interject her little "yay!" for health care, adding "Thank you, Obama."

Yes, thank you, Mr. President, for raising our taxes and not improving our economy with your stimulus plan.

Oh, the Places You'll Go

I don't watch too much television, let alone The View.

So, how does the ever-busy President of the United States have time to make his way onto this "fluffy daytime TV show" as Rosie O'Donnell, herself, calls it. It's not a news channel. It's obvious that the show targets mainly a female audience. They talk about the latest celebrity news and other media-related things, I suppose.

But, just as our favorite Sarah Palin says, "President w/no time to visit porous US/Mexican border to offer help to those risking life to secure us,but lotso' time to chat on The View?" This comment was posted on her Twitter. I know that if President Bush had gone to an interview on such a show, he'd be under massive fire by all kinds of media outlets for wasting time. President Obama seems to be really good at wasting time, don't you think? From golfing, to randomly traveling to Manhattan for romantic excursions - paid for by yours truly -, he must have some sort of checklist where he has certain things he wants to do while he's president.


Is this some type of event to reach out to the people? Or is it to win back popular support? Because I don't think either of those things worked. Great, instead of working on the problems of the country, he's telling worldwide viewers of The View that he doesn't know who Snooky is. To be honest, I don't really know who that is either, save for the fact that she's on a reality show called Jersey Shore, but I don't think the country needed to know that.


On top of that, when asked about being invited to Chelsea Clinton's multi-million dollar wedding, he simply said that he wasn't invited because it was a private event between Chelsea and her beau. Aw. How sweet. Oh, but then he ruins the moment saying it's already difficult with one president present at the wedding - it'd be too complicated with two. You know you're just disappointed that they didn't invite you to their shindig, Mr. President. It's okay! You'll probably just hold a huge party yourself with your wife. Why? Because you can. With the taxpayers' money.

Let's all go back to doing our jobs now, shall we?

I Remember...

I remember when the media was going crazy about how vice presidential running mate Sarah Palin had a $150,000 dress. HOW COULD SHE DARE TO SPEND ALL THAT MONEY?

Where is all the mass media, *ahem* CNN, MSNBC, to cover Michelle Obama's splurges? Are you bored? Well, go to Spain with your daughter, and while you're at it, take her to the set of a Harry Potter movie set! The First Lady and the entire White House family, no matter what party, should be role models for the rest of the country. So, why are they acting like celebrities? President Obama tells the country and the whole world that we all need to be fiscally responsible and live with what we have. So...why are they spending $600+ on shoes and going to Spain, and spending $4,000 a night at Hawaiian vacation homes? Little trips to Manhattan? No PROBLEM. The taxpayers will pay for it.

Speaking of taxes. John Kerry. Where are all your taxes, sir? One moment, he says he promises he'll pay back all the money. The next moment, he's claiming that he's always payed his taxes. Which one is it? This is why he couldn't become president - he was always a flipflopper.

Where Are You Now?

The NAACP stands for equal right and equal treatment of "colored" people. They bring together African-American leaders and people for their common cause. Though I also believe in equality and eradicating racism (especially violence resulting from racism), I don't think the NAACP practices what they preach. To attain peace and ameliorate situations in which racism against blacks is an issue, one must set examples and demonstrate this peaceful nature. Yet when I listen and watch one of their large conferences on national television, several people simply continue to antagonize white people and "play the race card." Yes, there are people who continue to treat blacks in a derogatory manner, but by adhering to the stereotypes of racist white people, the cycle will always continue.

Recently, a man was killed while his friend was setting up the car GPS. By whom? Two unknown African-Americans. They attempted to rob him, but he admitted he only had $17. So, they shot him. As some people on online forums have stated why do people take human lives so lightly? Killing someone seems to be no big deal for a growing number of people. Scary.

But, back to the shooting - over a mere $17, an innocent man, a father of 3, had to give up his life? Why does the NAACP not step out into the public to reprimand such criminal actions. They constantly emphasize black "brotherhood", but only when blacks are the victims. What about all the times when blacks are the antagonists? Where is the unity, then?

Double standards strike again.

Above the Influence

When I watch television, there are often ads to advocate being "Above the Influence" in order to steer teenagers, especially, in a non-drug/non-alcohol direction.

I know that some teens these days will do anything to get a quick high after a stressful day. I also know that the internet is probably the place where we all spend most of our free time. Now people are combining the internet and high? "I-dosing"?

Is that real. Supposedly, on Youtube, people (particularly teenagers) are shown violently shaking and getting "high" off high-frequency music available by download on the internet. I know that our bodies can respond uniquely to sounds and smells and whatnot, but for people to get high off these sounds is just bizarre. I can't even believe if it's real or not; is it all psychological - they simply will themselves to become high? Is that even possible...

Anyways, the internet has become a fantastic source for sharing information, research, learning, communicating, etc. But it's also a place where a lot of dangerous things happen. For example, there is a "viral" video going around about a young girl who is simply bawling her eyes out on camera, while her hillbilly father rants and screams, cussing at all the people who have left hateful comments on her Myspace. He sounds like a completely uneducated fool as he says that the "cyber police" is going to hunt down these cruel viewers, etc. etc. Ridiculous. You can find the entire story online, but apparently, this young preteen girl had an online account where she displayed provocative, and quite inappropriate, information about herself - claiming she was quite the sexual tigress. Well, of course people are going to leave rude comments and ridicule her for being so inappropriate at such a young age - she probably had no idea what she was really talking about.

To the raging parents, if you don't want people to leave hateful comments of your child and make them feel emotionally abused on the internet, maybe you should teach them that they shouldn't be participating in such age-inappropriate things in the first place. Just a thought.

Speak English.

Iota of a Cracka! I believe the term is "Iota of a Cracker." Ha. Ha.

Just kidding. What on earth is that, anyways? Here in America, we speak proper English.

To be honest, I'm not really surprised that such violent racist anger is arising - even though this whole new Black Panther movement is a bit unsettling. Everyone has a right to defend their rights and fight the racism that sadly exists today. But, I think it's another thing to go and say that you need to kill "cracka babies." Really? Because you feel like the whole world (well, world meaning everyone who isn't a black Democrat) is against you, you really need to bring in little innocent children into it? Interesting. Very interesting.

So tell me this - why is it more acceptable for African-Americans to so publicly threaten white people and antagonize anyone who doesn't support them, especially people who ARE NOT BLACK, but oh no. If a white person said ANYTHING negative about a black person, it'd be all over the news for the next several weeks. Do you disagree? I laughed as I saw someone post on Yahoo! Answers, "they should build giant ovens to bake the crackers." Why is it not as offensive to the public for a black person to say "cracker" which is a derogatory name for a white person, as it is for a white person to say the "n-word"? Double standards.

Another disturbing issue is how the Black Panther movement folks are saying they're "ready for the right-wingers". What does that even mean? So all the Republican people who might be supportive of blacks are also going to be antagonized because they're Republican? Once again, I ask - why is it more acceptable for black people to discriminate others for political opinions, but any mention of anti-African-Americanism brings all kind of heat to the table.

Oh, and another thing. I don't think it's wise for the Black Panther movement leader to go around calling news anchorwomen "political prostitutes" on national television. Ahem. Khalil Muhammad. Aren't you supposed to be an icon of good will for the African-Americans? Representing them as the Black Panther movement leader? 

We learn a lot about leadership in school, and I'm pretty sure we're not taught to be that kind of a leader. A leader must respect all sides of the issue, regardless of his/her opinion.

Pictures

Here are some pictures I took in the past month:

Lady. Stop talking on the phone while you're driving. Thanks.
At least use a bluetooth headset or something. Funny how people still do things that could endanger their lives...and is against the law, here in California.

I know it's hard to see, but I was surprised to see a substantial group of Tea Party-ers in Monterey, CA last weekend! Sorry for the bad shot; I didn't realize they were political protesters.

Also, I apologize for the bad quality - these pictures are usually taken from my iPhone!

It's always fun to talk about politics, but to see it in action is a whole another story.

Like a Fat Kid Loves McDonald's

Sometimes, I hear funny sayings like..."I love you like a fat kid loves ice cream". What does that even mean? "I love you like a fat kid loves McDonald's".

Does that mean McDonald's is making all these kids fat? ON PURPOSE? What evil plot is this? Just kidding. No, but really, it's absurd that The Center for Science in the Public Interest blames the little toys in Happy Meals for the increasing number of child obesity.

I remember as a kid, I liked those cool little toys in Happy Meals. It didn't call to me and say, "ASHTYN. COME GET ME. AND EAT THESE LITTLE CHICKEN MCNUGGETS, TOO." I just wanted the toys. It just happened to come with my lunch. I'm pretty sure that even without those little toys, kids would be eating just as many hamburgers, french fries, and chicken nuggets as they do now. The toys? Now that I'm seventeen - they're just advertisement for movies and t.v. shows and games. Yes, after watching "How to Train Your Dragon," it's cool to have all the matching dragon toys from McDonald's, but it's the parents' faults if they take their child to McDonald's and buy them the meal, that happens to come with the toy.

Nobody is forcing people to eat junk/fast food. People are free to make a choice. No matter how much psychology you analyze or habits of mankind you study, it really just comes down to the person who is making the choice to eat a giant hamburger.

So, let's all stop blaming the cool toys. We all know that those McDonald's chicken McNuggets are pretty dang good.

Hallelujah?

Rev. Garrett. 50 states. One truck. Bibles all around.

I can't believe that someone really wants to go to all fifty states to "spiritually revive" the country.

Technically speaking, it's true that America was founded on several Christian principals. Many of the founding fathers were Christian at one point. It was, after all, the colonial times - Christianity, church, it was all a big deal in the community.

Sure, I don't like it when people in the United States say things like we shouldn't say the Pledge of Allegiance in school because it says "under God". Next thing you know, they're going to burn all the dollars and make new ones because it says, "In God We Trust". Fail.

But, as I've said before, I don't really like the idea of evangelicals. I believe that people will come to a religion when they are ready and willing. It's nice to invite someone to church or talk to them a little about the religion if they are interested, but to insist that you are going to "spiritually revive" the country is a big job. Though a majority of the world is Christian, the United States is a melting pot of many cultures and diverse ethnic backgrounds - each with its own religion or philosophy.

It's not like the country is "spiritually dead" simply because not everyone is a Christian.

It's a great idea, but I'm not sure how successful this endeavor will be for the reverend.

Maybe they could all help the poor...fight cancer...fundraise for AIDS...etc.?

Checks & Balances

When we're taught American history in school, one of the first things we learn about the government is the system of checks and balances. That's what supposedly makes us a democracy - constant regulation of the amount of power that each branch of the government has, thus the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Supreme Court exist. The President is also a part of this system, as head of the executive branch. Every formality and process is essential to keeping the peace and making sure nobody gets some kind of unfair advantage over the other.

We all know that there will always be a "butting of heads" between the Republican and Democratic party. But, when the two parties agree - something is sincerely wrong. It's all over the news...Obama's decision to bypass the Senate and appoint officials to handle the new health care system. Articles say that presidents of both political parties are able to use this kind of bypass, but GOP and Democratic leaders alike are concerned.

The House of Representatives and the Senate are there by vote of the people. In turn, these represented officials vote and make decisions with the people's general well-being in mind. If President Obama would like to spurn the legislative branch and simply romp around making his own decisions...is he spurning the people, too?

Obama says that he doesn't want political parties to be so critical, because what's most important right now are people's needs. Thus, we badly need someone to head the Medicare system and just get things back on track so change can be implemented immediately. But how do you know what's good for the people when you've just ignored the very representatives who the PEOPLE selected to represent THEM where they cannot be represented otherwise?

So we have checks and balances...minus the "checks" part...minus the "balances" part...
So now what do we have?

Jumping on the Bandwagon

Everywhere I look, all the news I read is talking about Obama's failure to take a firm stance on immigration - another unfulfilled promise of the Obama administration.

I've already talked about immigration several times, but this issue is just never going to go away. Obama can't seem to make up his mind. Whether it's because he doesn't want to upset some groups who have remained his loyal supporters or not, I don't know. But one thing is clear: Obama has got to get his act together. The Republican governor of Arizona says that the only reason why Arizona took such severe action in regards to its illegal immigrants is he was left with no other choice. If the President of the United States (Obama) would "do his job" and secure our borders, maybe such extreme measures would have had to be taken. Who knows?

Right now, at this time, President Obama needs to make a decision. He can't have it both ways - be nice to the illegal immigrants who snuck in here illegally AND secure the borders. He says he doesn't want to be too harsh on the illegal immigrants and instead wants to find a compromise where these immigrants understand that they have done wrong, but let them stay. I'm sorry, what does that solve? So you're going to give them a little slap on the wrist and say, "Okay, don't do it again!" Well, no DUH they won't do it again - they're already HERE IN THE COUNTRY.

Am I right, or am I right? The borders need to be secured. These illegal immigrants...it's obvious that we can't simply gather them all and evict them. But they do need to be dealt with harshly. Obama claims that doing that is illogical and would "tear at the fabric of the nation", but in reality, it's these people who break the law and are allowed to stay here that are tearing this nation apart. They don't deserve to be here; what makes them better than everyone else who follows the rules?

You can't just cut in line. We learned that in 1st grade, people.

Let the Games Begin

Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan's hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee began today -as broadcasted by several television news stations across the United States. I happened to tune in for 30 minutes, and it was actually pretty exciting.

Every day, we are witnesses to history in the making - though we probably don't think of it that way. Someone in 50 years will look back and say, "Hm. I wonder what happened on this day in 2010?" We will all silently, though anonymously, be remembered throughout time. Witnessing something like a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing with what could be possibly the fourth female Supreme Court Justice in the history of the United States is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

Elena Kagan, with her superb legal qualifications, could very well be a Supreme Court Justice. Someone who will defend the constitution, interpret the laws, fight for the rights of the people...or so we hope, ay? I've never seen one of these hearings before, and I was a bit surprised to see how blunt everyone is. In the opening statements, both Republican and Democrat senators openly gave their opinion respectfully and politely, but also honestly. I think I will always remember Senator Jeff Sessions' (AL) words: "It's not a coronation, but a confirmation process." Sometimes, I wonder if the Republican party is going to ask many difficult questions and continue to emphasize her lack of irreplaceable "judicial experience", as they say, to ensure she is a qualified, good fit for the position of a Supreme Court Justice or if people are concerned with the addition of yet another Democrat Justice on the court.

As Elena Kagan will be questioned and essentially grilled in the coming days, I hope she stays strong. I wish her all the best, and will keep you all posted on my opinions on the hearing.

Plus One for Kagan

Well, Elena Kagan has earned herself a point in my book (not that it means anything to earn a point in my book, but who cares).

Of course, I was skeptical of the Democrat nominee for the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan. Was it biased of me to be immediately unsupportive of someone, simply due to the fact that he/she was a registered Democrat? Yes. But I'm seventeen, what can I say.

When I read that Elena Kagan has consistently demonstrated anti-pornography sentiments, I said to myself, "Plus ONE for Elena Kagan!" Socially, I think that pornography is destructive; no, I may not believe it to be a "social evil", but I do think that it adds anything positive to society. A lot of people may argue that you cannot simply dismiss pornography or the pornography industry, simply because our ethical beliefs lead us to believe that it is wrong. After all, this is the United States of America, where we all have our right to free speech and yada yada yada. I hate it when people constantly use the argument that because we are American citizens, we have the RIGHT to do whatever we want. It's an INFRINGEMENT upon our rights if we can't do this, or can't do that. I'm quite defensive about my rights as a U.S. citizen, but I don't think that I would use my rights as a fallback argument of some sorts.

Bottom line: This round goes to Elena Kagan! Crack your whip of justice.

Second Chances

Do you believe in second chances? A lot of my peers constantly say, "That person deserves a second chance." What does that mean, exactly? I've heard people say that such people as former dictator Saddam Hussein or Adolf Hitler all deserved second chances to repay their debt to society, as some would call it. Death was an unfair punishment for Hussein and Hitler should have been reassured that he would have another chance to be a member of society. Is this a "humane" side of society coming into play, or what?

It's hard to think that I would feel safe knowing Adolf Hitler was walking the streets in my country, or Osama Bin Laden, or some other terrorist figure such as these. But I must admit I do like the idea of social justice and giving chances to people to start their lives again - only to a certain extent, though. As always, one can't simply draw the line when it comes to moral/ethical beliefs.

When I read about people such as Jack Abramoff working at a pizza shop after being released from prison - I can only think that this demotion alone in society is punishment enough. Then again, when I think about people like child molesters and child rapists who are allowed to walk free among us after being released from prison, I shudder. I could be that next victim, no? So, how do officials, judges, or the government, decide what infractions of the law are more severe than other?

When it comes to that critical point for a judge to make a sentence, does one go by the book, verbatim to every last word of the law, or does one's own ethical beliefs come into question, too?

It seems like there's never an easy answer for anything these days.

Old Flames Never Die

Old flames never die. Or so it seems in politics - old issues are always resurrected.
Proposition 8 would be one of those hot topics that still has a lot of fuel burning, as I read an article in the Los Angeles Times concerning the Proposition 8 trial in California. I have to admit that a lot of what the anti-Prop 8 people are saying makes sense. On one hand, some people worry about how gay marriage will affect the home and society because "proper" marriages are what makes society stable, providing a safe environment for children to grow up in. And yet, District Judge Walker makes a good point: “But the state doesn’t withhold marriage from people who cannot have children.” So how does the argument work out now?


Another topic that I'm thinking about is abortion, once again. Of course I've been avid in my support of pro-life, defending the lives of unborn children who don't necessarily have that voice yet. But when I think about it again...If I were irresponsible enough to get myself into a situation where I needed to make a choice between having a child now and becoming a teenage mother OR having an abortion and living the life I want? I have to say that honestly - it's a pretty tough decision. Yet, I wouldn't want anyone to take that right to actually decide away from me. I don't think it's right for people to kill what I believe to be unborn, real babies, being a female, I also don't like the idea of that right to decide disappearing.


I guess it's all a part of being 17. I don't know exactly where I stand yet on everything.

Things on My Mind

1) YAY FOR MEG WHITMAN'S FIRST VICTORY!

2) The oil spill. Someone needs to go put a plug in it. Literally. But we all know that the aftermath of this broken oil well will take years and years to be cleaned up.

3) Watching the show Whale Wars, a trivia question asked the TV audience by how much the ice in Antarctica expands at the beginning of the winter - the answer was by 40,000 square miles. If the ice is ever-expanding, then why is the melting ice that much of a large problem; isn't the net gain/loss zero? I'm confused.

4) I realize that I'll be able to vote in the next presidential election - 2012!

5) I wonder what will truly happen to North Korea and South Korea. Many younger generations (late teens to young adults) of South Korea are completely against the current state of things. They resent the separation of the two Koreas and the intervention of the United States. In fact, there are often strikes, etc. featured on Korean satellite television where these young people are striking the presence of American military and personnel in South Korea. Instead, they insist that the two Koreas must be reunited!!!

What are they thinking. I'm not so sure they know what they'd be getting into if North Korea took over South Korea. I know I wouldn't be able to visit my relatives anymore, that's for sure. And yet, it still surprises me that North Korea, as isolationist and secluded as it is from the rest of the world (the international community), has a soccer team participating in the FIFA World Cup.

Go USA! (And Korea!)

Smack Talk

Lately, I've been hearing a lot of advertisements for people who are running for local government positions. A major government office that people are noticing is the position of Governor of California. Right now, Meg Whitman (former CEO of eBay) and Steven Poizner are two quite prominent people running for this very position. Even though I can't vote, it still bothers me that in the advertisements there is always so much "smack talk".

I'm not saying that Whitman and Poizner are the only ones - politicians are infamous for the advertisement battles on the television and the radio. Why has our politics been reduced to this? Hmm. I realize we're all human beings and this is also a competition of sorts, but really. Is it really coming down to a "my horse is bigger than yours" type of deal?

Even though I'd like to say that people always vote purely on what each candidate stands for and all the changes he/she could bring, etc., I know it's not true. At the end of the day, each voter will vote for the person who is the most attractive politically/socially - someone we can all relate to.

It's kind of sad, isn't it?

The Status Quo

Lately, I've been thinking.

Why are the things the way they are? People always want change - like the grass will be greener on that other side. But will it really be greener? Someone today asked me, "Why not just get rid of the electoral college? Let's have popular vote." And to be really honest, I can't even fully answer that question. Why is there always a huge discrepancy between the "elite", the middle class, and the low-income class? To this day, the very same tensions still exist here in the United States - the struggle to gain financial stability and wealth in the superficial manner existing since colonial times.

Every argument, every subject that is called into question usually has to do about change. What's the best way to improve something or create something to improve a lifestyle. These are the challenges our generations face today in the 21st century. But how do we ever determine what's really best for the people, or our country? Nothing will ever benefit everyone, will it? There will be people who lose some, and people who win some. It's a never ending cycle. And yet, people still persist to create that utopia - to make the world a better place. I suppose it's really admirable that we, as a species, never give up.

Maybe we are a "key stone" species. Ha ha. Ha ha. That would be a Biology joke, seeing that I just took a Biology final yesterday.

The First Golfer

President Obama likes his golf. According to CNN, the president has played golf more times than former President Bush in his entire 8 years in office. That's pathetic.

The position of presidency is not one of mere celebrity status and leisure, President Obama. Please stop playing golf! People still need jobs. There is a massive oil spill off the southern coast. North Korea wants to duke it out with South Korea (potentially). Why are you playing your 18 holes at Martha's Vineyard, yet again? You are not made of money. You are using taxpayer's money to travel back and forth and waste hundreds of minutes playing a round, two rounds, three rounds of golf.

One interesting note is that President Obama likes to take his time when he plays. President Bush was noted to be quite quick in his golf games, but oh no - not Barack Obama. He takes his time sizing up the distance, finding lost balls, licking his finger and putting it to the wind to see what direction it's blowing, etc. I was kidding about the last one. It's interesting when the New York Times, not exactly the most conservative paper around, reports on Obama's love of golf. They may not mean to put him in a bad light, but it does. Oh yes. It does indeed.

Same Treatment

It's interesting to see that the American people always seem to do the same thing in a time of crisis. Point fingers at whoever is in charge.

This time, it's not President Bush who takes the heat, but President Obama. I'm referring to the Gulf oil spill. It's been going on for over a month now, and like I said before, the most we've done is put a cement block around it. President Obama claims he is open to suggestions and ideas, but he hasn't acted on any. Many agree that the United States has lost its opportunity to be the hero and save the day, but we still ought to try our best to clean up this huge mess. Literally.

This oil spill is affecting ecosystems, coastlines, fishing industries, oil prices, etc. You would think that being as advanced technologically as the world is - especially the United States - that we would have some kind of emergency back up plan to deal with potential disasters such as this. And yet. Here we are.

So, President Obama, I'm not sure I feel any sympathy for you for all the pointed fingers. President Bush had to deal with that for 8 years. Now it's your turn. Good luck with that, sir.

Really Now

When I read about people stealing things, cheating on things, etc. I shake my head in disappointment, "tut tut" a little, and move on. But when I read articles about people stealing wheelchairs of a young, disabled child, I have to say - I get a little irked.

Pardon my language, but what kind of eejit would do something as petty as steal an 8-year-old child's wheelchair when that child is disabled and needs the oxygen tank attached to the wheelchair and all the other special attributes that was specifically designed for this child on this wheelchair. Why. Why?

Why are there people in the world who do such lame things? It's just like my questions I pose to you, reader, about issues like child molestation, child rape, murder, etc. I know I'll never have substantial answers to these questions but I still wonder.

Which gets me thinking about my school. This year, there have been a number of incidences of what one may call "immoral" actions - theft, vandalism. I must say, my school has never had an issue like this in the past 5 years I have been here, but suddenly students think it's amusing to pull pranks like this. I don't really find these pranks to be pranks - who's laughing? It frustrates me that justice isn't always served to those who have done the crime, but what can we do? Why do some demonstrate integrity and common courtesy, while others seem to be oblivious to it?

What is the world coming to...


Click HERE for more information on the wheelchair article.

New and Fresh

In the 21st century, things such as iPads, iPhones, iPods, laptops, webcams, and vaccinations are part of what most people have come to recognize as the "norm".


In policy debate at the high school level, this year's past topic was: "The United States federal government should substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty in the United States." One of the "impacts" that was discussed during the debate was the fear of nanotechnology and bioterrorism. Those are always hot topics in policy debate, no matter what the resolution is. Though these topics and debates are essentially theoretical and purely for the benefit of education and experience, one of the greatest impacts most often discussed, in my opinion, is the outcome of a "nuclear war".


There are several articles published right now online about the new discovery of being able to control an organism with artificial genome (or DNA). To inject a synthetic DNA into a foreign organism and still have the organism function is astounding to me; I suppose I am in awe. And yet, I'm worried. These new creations and discoveries always bring about more arguments over ethics vs. science, along with worries about the future usage of these discoveries if placed in the wrong hands. How does anyone know if something is beneficial or not to human kind? At this point, I think that all discoveries, no matter how "morally sound" the initial motive might be, can be abused in some way. This new ability sparks interest because the potential use of this experiment could bring a revolution of weaponry, energy, or medicine.


How are we ever supposed to know when science should stop pushing the boundaries or limits of knowledge? Are there any limits? There are so many pieces of literature that always caution those who seek to reach too far beyond what is safe, and the outcome is death or some other dire consequence. But do these words of wisdom from literature stand true?


Click HERE for more information about the artificial genome.