Is America a 'Novus Ordo Seculorum'?

According to a Gallup Poll, 17% of Americans said they would never vote for a Mormon, even after Mitt Romney's religion speech. So why in a nation founded on principles of keeping religion and government separate exists such profound religious influences? Looking back at Mormonism's founding, many people do not want to elect a member of a "cult".
It is common knowledge that Romney is a practicing Mormon, but what negative influence comes from his faith? While originally involved in polygamy and other harmful beliefs, Mormonism has proved their validity as a Religion centered on the same principles as other Christian faiths. With their extensive missionary program, they help the impoverished across the world. There are extremists in the religion, but there are extremists in every religion.
Even if we lived in a society that was constitutionally meant to have religion influencing politics, Romney's religion has proved its good intentions. So why don't the polls reflect this?

Abortion in America - Another Solution

After writing a previous article on the subject, I realized that there is also a second way to eliminate it from our nation - education about safe sex as well as the problems with abortion.

With a ban looking hard to achieve, the possibility that the people themselves will act and try to end this act by preaching and education. Within past years, abortion has decreased as anti-abortion groups have seemed to pick up momentum. There were, for instance, approximately 1.37 million abortions in 1996* compared to 1.28 abortions in 2003** according to the Guttmacher institute. In a nation with an increasing population, this looks like a good sign, however, the amount of conceptions per year or even sexually active people might be the cause. Yet this decrease in a growing population is light in the dark to anti-abortion groups. So if writing your congressman about your particular stance isn't working, try making a contribution to groups like "Right to Life" and support safe sex education in schools.
*Guttmacher Institute, 1997; www.agi-usa.org
** "Estimates of US abortion incidents, 2001-2003"; Lawrence B. Finer, Staney K. Henshaw; Guttmacher institute; 3 August 2006; http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/08/03/ab_incidence.pdf

A New Perspective on Iraq

This past Tuesday, a speaker came to my school and retold of his experience serving in Iraq. There for approximately a year and half, he worked within the prison system at places like Abu Ghraib and Camp Bucca. His knowledge of the prison system from 2005 to 2006 has illuminated one of most intricate problems in Iraq for me: an end to this conflict is unable to be seen, yet the complexity of the prisons would collapse with immediate withdrawal.
While his explanation of the temporary detention centers and prisons was quite a long speech, I will try to condense it - To arrest a civilian in Iraq, a soldier does not need a warrant or police order. All they need is anything considered suspicious; the smell of gun powder, their location, being in the wrong place at the wrong time. After this, they are sent to a temporary detention center, which are usually just old buildings where they herded on to. The officers their have 13 days to interrogate and question them, with a possible 20 days in total with an extension. If they are found suspicious, they are sent to Abu Ghraib. Here they spend a minimum of 60 days while people investigate their files, take a retina scan, fingerprints, and a picture for records. About 42 arrived everyday back in 2005 and 2006 according to the officer, with around 3000 people in total. After the 60 days, the case is appealed by a case of 6 Americans and 6 Iraqis. If the detainees are proven free of guilt, they are released back into the general area of where they were caught. However, about 10%(this is a rough, ROUGH Number given by the officer) go on to Camp Bucca, the prison for the guilty. This camp had 5000 detainees, and were building new facilities as he left for home. With these overcrowded jails as well as a "guilty until proven innocent" laws, there are problems within this system.
Most of these prisoners have been arrested on charges of sectarian violence. While many Americans say to simply leave Iraq, Iraq is rebounding from a oppressive Sunni dictator and has been torn with sectarian violence. Because this is the reason for most of the country's instability, the US has been concentrated on simply stopping it by arresting these people. But with so many sent to Abu Ghraib, the officer said you can't put a timetable on Iraq. Thus many say we cannot leave Iraq because this delicate system of prisons and detentions centers would be in vain and be completely demolished. While some people believe that jailing these people and separating them must be done to stop the violence, this is really only sweeping it under the rug.
To end, this prison system is working, but not as effective as it could be. Instead, we should go to the root of problem, sectarian violence. This could be extremely difficult, but it is important that we use every possible diplomatic effort before resorting to this military prison system. Overcrowded and not to mention a large portion of the budget in Iraq, these prisons have no end in sight. It is similar to a weed: Sprouting from the roots of sectarian violence, branches of zealots have appeared. The US is cutting these branches down, but with them piling up and no knowledge of how fertile the soil still is, this unpredictable weed is becoming more of a problem. We cannot leave this weed alone to grow and block out the sun for other plants, but we also cannot simply cut it down to watch it regrow.

NBA Update

A quarter of this NBA season has already passed so I've decided to give an update on my predictions about this season.

1. The Cavs - not doing so good. I still believe they are good team and will go far in the play-offs, but their record isn't showing it. Without Lebron, they've been terrible. My Update: Off to a rocky start, but with Lebron they'll still make it far in the playoffs.

2. Chicago - one of my honorable mentions; right now they're making me look like an idiot. I still have faith; Ben(edict) Wallace is looking up and they shown tenacity especially against their rivals.

3. Orlando - Also one of my honorable mentions, they are doing great. An 8th seed team last year, they are playing like a first seed. Dwight Howard, who's on my fantasy team, has exceeded all expectations, making Grant Hill look stupid for leaving a play-off material team.

4. Phoenix, Spurs, and Detroit - All doing solid. We know how the season's gonna go, can't we fast forward to the play-offs?

5. Boston - I admit, I was a skeptic. They're too selfish, too old, they've never played before. I'm eating my own words. While they've had a relatively easy schedule, they still are showing their ability and a definite lock for the second round of the NBA play-offs, we just need to see how they do against a good team.

6. The Hornets?!?!? - Who saw this? With all their players healthy, Chris Paul playing like an all-star, and Peja knocking down treys, this team is Hot. We'll see how they do against some veteran teams, but they're going to the playoffs.

Human Nature and Religion

Blaming Human Nature, many people believe the possibility of a Utopia does not exist. Man's selfishness cannot exist in a pure society, for the system would not work. Supposedly derived from evolution, this flaw can be explained as mechanism for survival - just look out for yourself and pass on your DNA. However, while it is evident that evil and greed dwells among men, a desire to be part of the better and to do what it is right seems to coexist as well. With nearly all major religions founded on laws such as the 10 Commandments, the Beatitudes, and the Five Pillars of Islam, it reveals that within the hearts of billions, there lies a struggle: personal greed and evil vs. community acceptance and love.
Human selfishness has proven to be fatal in many instances of history. In government, it has led to corruption when officials realize their power. A common complaint of citizens of any nation, corruption, has found its way into nearly every government. Our in-bred desire for success and survival has led many people to take advantage of power. However, this merely leads towards ineffective governing as well as bad leaders. In addition, the selfishness embedded within people also leads them to attempt obtaining power. Through crime and money, greed has made its mark in society. Focusing on their own personal wants, people can disregard and even hurt their communities in order to reach power.
Conversely, the social nature of humans also results in communal acceptance, sympathy, and love. Since government has been around, it has indicated that a group of people who want to work for the good of each other exists. While it may be violent, this group shows that people want acceptance and have mutual relationships with fellow neighbors. On the other hand, when one discusses the few corrupt or bad people in a society that causes it to go wrong, one must also remember the majority of other industrious and good-natured people living in that world. Furthermore, the want mutual relationships has created a desire to work for the greater good as seen in Religion, the strongest argument in this case. With nearly all major religions, the focus equates to doing good to others, because it will inevitably do good for you. Alongside human nature's social aspect, the desire for mutual relationship has thus risen which has then caused man's longing to help their fellow man, or sympathy.
While it has been known that evil is born with man, religion has illuminated the idea that love and sympathy have developed through one's life in their response to their own social nature. Not neccsarily directly placed within human nature, love and sympathy are a part of humans, like hate and greed, and thrive alongside the negative within humans.

My Utopia

Since humans have come into existence some form of organization of people under a common rule, or government, has also existed. America currently employs the system of Democracy where citizens vote upon major decisions. For a long time though, countries had an Aristocracy, a system where an elite group rules over the people. While corruption soon ended these governments’ reign, many of the core beliefs of an Aristocracy would evade the problems endured by America today, such as opposing political parties and the excessively intricate three branch government. Therefore, a modified version of Aristocracy, Voluntary Aristocracy, ruled by an intellectually and morally elite group of people, would make a more efficient and practical government in America.

Differing from other governments, Voluntary Aristocracy is run by a select group of rulers and does not require voting, due to its small and nearly permanent ruling class. Seeming problematic at first, no voting actually eliminates many minutiae of government that can slow it. Creating contention for seats in government, elections can result in rivalries between factions and takes time from leaders’ duties. Attempting to collect the opinions of approximately 200 million eligible citizens, elections are long and tedious as well as difficult to arrange. In addition, this system eliminates Political Parties, which can divide a country between opposing loyalties. Subsequently, because this government does not have elections as a means to hear the people’s opinion, this system would rely on income taxes as a no-confidence vote similar to a veto power. Occurring numerous times a year, income taxes, while not enforced, would discontinue services such as public schools for the citizen if not paid, but if the government was truly corrupt or inept, a lack of taxpayers would lead to its downfall. However, many specific rules would be needed to make using the veto power of refusing taxation practical for people who might need services like public schools. In families, for instance, it can be detrimental for a child to miss a month of school. In order to avoid these consequences, a citizen can indicate on their taxes their intentions of not paying taxes again to give the government warning without experiencing the backlash of renouncing your government. In addition, the small governing body with only one branch of government makes this system simple and effective. Consisting of less than a handful of people, they all would be educated, morally grounded, and focused on advancing America. Interpreting laws, making federal decisions, and passing laws according to unanimous decisions, these busy leaders could never accomplish all the government’s duties and consequently would makes councils; councils for judiciary purposes, law enforcement, taxes, infrastructure and so on. Making even more subordinate councils, the councils designated by the leaders would create a hierarchy of power where at any moment all the levels of this government could be destroyed and rebuilt if an inadequate government causes citizens to not pay their taxes. Plato, one of the great Greek Philosophers, outlines a government ruled by a similar group of leaders which revolves around the idea of the “ideal state, in which only philosophers are fit to rule”( Garth Kemerling, page 1). Keeping the government filled with only the most qualified people and having them pick their successors ensures that government will always be capable and concerned with the public’s needs. Also, if some leak of corruption taints this group of leaders, they can be removed at any time. So while it may appear that this aristocracy could be easily corrupted, citizens power to refuse taxes checks this system from going awry.

Democracy in America, on the other hand, varies from Voluntary Aristocracy mainly by its dependency on voters and the government’s three branch system. Differing with term limits, elections for most positions occur every few years, with politicians jockeying for votes. This struggle for office has led to particular stances formed by candidates, which eventually forms an entire faction based upon this idea, called a party. Parties in America, warned against by George Washington, have now transformed a group of people once brought together by a common view point into a group of people working collectively to have their fellow party members elected. Thus, parties act against other parties in order to retain dominance, which has split the nation and misconstrued ideas from the faction’s original formation to receive more votes. Moreover, America’s three branch system also presents a distinct quality of the government in America. The Legislative Branch writes laws, the Executive Branch enforces laws, and the Judicial Branch interprets the laws. All of these branches of government have the power to veto each other, in a system of checks and balances. This system truly epitomizes the American view of Democracy, in that Democracy in America was formed in response to the English Monarchy, where one king ruled. Protecting the nation from any branch becoming too powerful or corrupt, it symbolizes the fear of another monarchy that founders of the country felt and illustrates their answer for a system where all equally share in power. Undoubtedly, this system gives the common man more equality than previously received, but political parties attempting for political dominance can defeat the purpose of Democracy.

As seen in the aforementioned paragraphs, while these governments are based on the idea of representing the common man and his rights, many other characteristics other than the branches of government separate the two. Their plans for preventing corruption in government, a common cause of a country’s failure, take very different approaches as one relies on the public’s veto power and the other relies on citizens’ voting. In History, the main factor in many Aristocracies’ failure, corruption, could not be checked because the rulers had supreme power. Yet in a Voluntary Aristocracy, the government cannot make strides in accomplishing anything against the public’s will because their citizenship and more importantly their tax dollars remain tentative. This property can be likened to a building - a building must be built with a solid foundation or else it will fall. In a Voluntary Aristocracy, if corrupted officials form the base of the hierarchy of government, then the people will refuse to pay taxes, abolishing the government. In effect, its citizens should never have to suffer less than the best leaders at any time. Conversely, Democracy requires its citizens to elect the best candidate from a non-biased population on a regular basis to ensure corruption does not come within government. Unfortunately, because of political parties, many voters favor one party over another, sometimes blinding a voter of the bad characteristics of a candidate. Also, these parties power mustered behind candidates often leaves only two candidates from either party in the election, forcing voters to choose the lesser of two evils. Furthermore, how the citizens participate in their governments also differentiates the two. Without elections as in a Voluntary Aristocracy, the only way the average citizen can show his disapproval with leadership lies in his or her option to pay taxes. Its simplicity, though, proves an attribute because it accomplishes the same as elections do: they indicate that either the current leader fulfills their responsibilities or changes need to be made. Also, people need to pay their taxes to remain a citizen on a regular basis, meaning that every time taxes are due the nation receives a 100% voter turnout on whether the government is running effectively and efficiently. While “122 million people voted in the November (2004, presidential) election, a number that translates into the highest turnout -- 60.7 percent -- since 1968”, this statistic only highlights a grim point of democracy(Brian Faler, January 15, 2005; Page A05). With little more than half of American citizens actively involved in politics, 80 million more votes could have been cast, which is more than were cast for either major candidate. Taxation always is a necessary part of government, but voting is not enforced and many people remain uninvolved in the Democratic process. Despite not having elections, Voluntary Aristocracy will always have a solution to corruption and be able to fully understand its efficiency and general status upon tax returns, while Democracy relies on the three fifths of its population voting in an election wrapped in political parties to maintain a stable government.

Undoubtedly, Democracy has given the common man equality through the vote and protection from any persons becoming too powerful with its three branches and system of checks and balances. However, the ability to manipulate these factors and the nation’s falling participation has shone light upon the fallacies on the system. Voluntary Aristocracy, in reality, is just a stepping stone towards the perfect Utopia, finding the errors in our government and correcting them. Similar to how Democracy in America was a response to the unfair Monarchy in England, Voluntary Aristocracy also advances the efficiency and productivity of government by focusing on the errors past, learning from them, and forming a ‘novus ordo seculorum’.

Bibliography
Garth Kemerling, 9 August 2006, Philosophy Pages, “Plato” http://www.philosophypages.com/ph/plat.htm
Brian Faler, 15 January 2005, Washington Post - page A05, “Election Turnout in 2004 Was Highest Since 1968”, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10492-2005Jan14.html

Affirmative Action in Colleges - Continued

I would just like to make a small note about college admissions:
While denouncing Affirmative Action in Colleges which I believe is unfair, I cannot ignore how many prominent schools such as Harvard or Yale are also unfair. Many expensive prestigious Universities are more likely to accept students if they have alumni relatives and almost always will accept students if these relatives are donors. Not only does this deny deserving and hardworking students of the finest education available, but donors, who are often well-off, can write this off their taxes and thus cheating the US overall. Universities need to something for at least these unfair admissions.

NBA Preview

My Count Down of NBA Championship Threats:
1. The Spurs - No one ever pays much attention to solid playing Spurs. Most people excitedly talk about the Sun's and Maverick's offense. However, when the Suns, a quick paced team that tries to bury their opponents in a points hole, took on the hard nosed Spurs in the playoffs last year, the Spurs slowed down the game with tight Defense and won(note: Donaghy was the official in some of those games). Now a word or so about their coach Gregg: The Pistons and Spurs are similar teams, but their is one main reason the Spurs are better than the Pistons. Detroit Coach Flip Saunders has good plays, but Gregg puts the team together. For instance, the Pistons overconfidence and nonchalant attitude crumpled under the Cavalier's "this could be our last game" mentality, but when the Spurs took on the Suns, who have an attitude similar to the Cavaliers, the Spurs matched their intensity along with having some confidence. About the players: Tim Duncan - Center - Solid on both ends of the court; Consistent; not old; but a veteran. He is the nucleus of this team his dominating presence makes him possibly the most formidable center in the league. Bruce Bowen - One of defensive factors; made all-defensive team last year; valuable asset for teams such as Phoenix and Mavericks, who are the Spurs biggest rivals. Tony Parker - the offense of the team; last year's final's MVP; not half bad on defense either. Because they are bringing nearly the same crew back, only a year older, they are the biggest threat in the league.
2. Phoenix Suns - After acquiring the aging but still powerful forward Grant Hill, they have become an even greater offensive machine. With quick play led by Steve Nash, the team has also developed strong in the paint with Amare Stoudemare and Shawn Marion. A wiry team that loves pick-and-rolls, they have only one main obstacle in the league: The Spurs. In addition, if they make it to the finals they might play the Pistons, another defensive team they don't match up well with. While Phoenix has no trouble blowing through other teams, the Spurs loom ominously over them. Once they make it past the Spurs though, they can championship. A closing statement: the Suns have been building over these past few years, adding a new element to the team each season. This seems like if any season is THE season, then this is THE season.
3. TIE - Cavaliers - Last year's east conference champs were swept by the Spurs. While the spurs are an all around better team, the Eastern conference will be easily beaten this year by the Cavs except possibly the Pistons. Revolving around a talented shooter and dunker and blocker and passer, King Lebron, they are a scrappy team that keeps on getting better and better. While most people call this team the the Cleaveland Lebron's, the team over-all is not bad. Most teams double team Lebron, but this allows him to pass to a man with plenty of time to shoot. Last year against the Nets, they beat them handily because they left several people open trying to cover James. Lebron really brings the entire team up to their full potential. My final word: just not good enough.
3. TIE - Pistons - Finally my true love. A team that is now considered too old, they are clamoring to make another play-off run. However, without Ben(edict Arnold), they lack a strong center. My opinion: Saunders has to inspire his team. Maxiell should be put at center, but has to step up and do what we've seen him do before for more than 10 minutes. Tayshaun's still pretty young and is a definite keeper. The other three(Rip, Chauncey, and 'Sheed) are not old timers and are still some of the best players in the league. A critical point - Chauncey and Rip cannot play like they did in the off season last year. The two most consistent players folded like a tent. - They have the potential, they just need to put it all together.

Honorable Mentions: the Bulls, the Magic, the Wizards, the Jazz - They are all solid teams, they just aren't good enough.

Note: I am forming a deep contempt for Oden. First you leave college early, even though you would have led them to at least 1 NCAA championship and now, after being drafted first, can't play the entire season - you're really grinding my bones

How much truth is there in Global Warming?

Global warming is an increasingly eminent issue in the Nation as a threat to the world. With its backers speaking morbid consequences, many people are now questioning the validity of these claims.

1. Global Warming - Global Warming is the increase in temperature of the atmosphere, resulting from the greenhouse effect. Some gases that aid in the greenhouse effect have become much more present in today's atmosphere than ever before, such as carbon dioxide. Al Gore, a front-runner in the debate, points to a trend in CO2 and temperature over hundreds of thousands of years. The two trends mirror each other until recent years, when the CO2 levels skyrocketed, leading some scientists to believe that temperatures will soon follow*. However, many people also point out the climate changes the earth constantly endures, such as the medieval ice age and the heat of the dust bowl. At this point time, we are experiencing an increase in heat and sea-levels, but nothing that has not come outside the level of extremity.

2. What do we do? - While no definite proof for global warming exists, greenhouse gases produce many other problems. People around the Los Angeles and San Fransisco valley do not come out of their homes because pollution is so bad. In addition, greenhouse gases cause acid rain which destroys crops. Subsequently, the byproducts that are made alongside greenhouse gases(a.k.a., industrial waste) also hurt our environment. Thus, while Global warming is not yet confirmed, greenhouse gases present many more problems than commonly seen

3. What's being done? - Automakers, who are receiving a push from the government, are building more efficient cars, such as the Toyota Prius or the Ford Escape. Additionally, people are planting trees to equalize their carbon emissions. However, these programs merely sweep the problem under the rug. If America truly wants to "go green" we must look away from coal burning plants, which emit large quantities of CO2, to renewable energy, such as wind, solar, or even nuclear. We must also abandon petrochemicals which decompose ridiculously slow and produce greenhouse gases in the making.

4. What needs to be done?- For America to sever its shackles with oil and coal, the government could place restrictions or taxes on such products and tax-breaks to companies who support these restrictions.

5. What can you do? - For a person to live entirely petrochemical, gasoline, or coal-powered electricity free is nearly impossible. Walking places helps, but to truly reduce your carbon footprint, write your congressman or local power supplier and voice your dissidence with greenhouse emission.

*http://www.architecture2030.org/images/current_situation/CS02-CO2-Temperature.gif

Affirmative Action in College Admission: Ineffective and Unfair

Last year, Michiganders voted to amend their constitution and ban affirmative action in college admissions. Affirmative action is a set of policies to help minorities and women receive education or employment*. Used in some government jobs, these policies encourage hiring and promoting people in jobs like law enforcement to better represent the people of the area. However, much focus lately has been on College admissions.
Most people in Michigan now look at Affirmative Action in colleges as a way to help lower class inner-city minorities, such as African Americans in Detroit get out of a vicious cycle of poverty. Yet a financially wealthy minority could be receiving this help. It is plausible that these students could give back to the community, but this method is indirect and not effective.
In addition, a study done by Richard Sander, a UCLA law professor states 43% black students attending law schools do not graduate**. While unclear whether these students were aided by affirmative action that number still looms overhead. Trying to balance out equality, these Colleges may be just handing these students debt. Also, how fair is it that a poor Caucasian is declined from a college because a rich minority usurps his place but fails out?
Instead of using affirmative action in University admission to have a class who represents the ethnic background of the area, colleges could give scholarships to minorities who need financial aid or the government could work on inner city projects, where an uneducated, unemployed, and lower-class minority tends to exist. Affirmative action in college admissions is ineffective and unfair to both the majority and minority. As mentioned before, there many other more equitable systems.
In order to fully document such systems, I will publish a second article about the inner city, affirmative action, and poverty.
* wikipedia.org - keyword "affirmative action"
** http://www.law.ucla.edu/sander/Systemic/final/SanderFINAL.pdf

Are your phonelines safe?

Paranoid people had a field day when congress legalized warrant less phone tapping of suspected terrorists to the National Security Agency. An agency made for cryptology, the NSA was secretly authorized to phone tap by the president after 9/11. Many people are wondering "how much should the government know?"

Bush has once again run into the alley on the bad side of the town as many clamor angrily against him for his authorization without the project's legalization. Unfortunately, most have already been subdued by the seemingly omnipotent question "What can we do?". This is truly a tragedy where the man on top remains unscathed for his wrong actions, such as Clinton's last day pardons. We need laws against such actions, but I cannot stray from the subject.

While its authorization was wrong, the warrant less wiretapping of the NSA has made substantial findings. In 2003, using satellites to identify his position, the NSA nabbed Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the 9/11 mastermind*. Utilizing a huge computer system called Echelon, they look for "phrases, names, phone numbers, and addresses"* trying to draw connections between them. In addition, this surveillance is a two-sided economic issue as well. Since 9/11 the estimated budget of the NSA has doubled to $9 billion, yet people doubt the proper management of the money as the NSA struggles keeping up with today's technologically advanced world*. On the other hand, it employs 30,000 to 40,000 people, pumping money back into the tax-payers*.

All in all, it comes down to how much we wants the government to know. I feel that there is no problem with the wiretapping. They wiretap only suspected terrorists and I myself have nothing to hide. As long as we treat these suspected terrorists innocent until proven guilty as well as with dignity and respect, and if the NSA program uses its budget effectively, no one should have a complaint. Hopefully, America can someday be a beacon of peace in foreign relations and the NSA will no longer be necessary, but until we resolve our conflicts this program only adds to our security.



* "America's most secret agency"; The Week; August 31, 2007; http://www.theweekmagazine.com/

Abortion in America

Every year America votes for politicians who claim to be anti-abortion, yet very few ever act on these stances and many do not grasp this problem in its entirety. Abortion is the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus to end a pregnancy*. The reason for abortion varies among the medical implications put on the mother, the trouble and inconveniences that bearing a child brings, and more. In the year 2003 alone, the Guttmacher Institute estimates there were 1,287,000 abortions performed and 23.8% of pregnancies ended in abortions**. However, the debate whether the fetus constitutes a person rages on. Instead of arguing about the time of a fetus becomes a human, I believe we should look into the potential for life. While a married man and woman are a possible source of new life, the fetus already passes the stage of possible into likely. While occurring less often in a more medically knowledgeable world, women who are in danger during pregnancy should not be forced to continue with the birth. Regardless, the sanctity of life should be protected and can be if the proper steps are taken. However, while many people argue about the safe birth of the child, its safe survival must also be taken into account. In a situation where the couple is not married and does not marry, the mother commonly takes custody of the child instead of the father. The mom, who already had to endure the strenuous task of childbirth, the time leading up to, and the work she missed, deserves compensation from the father. In addition, receiving a good education and earning good wages is a challenging pursuit for a young single parent. The mother must receive support from the father for bearing the child and the parent who does not take custody of the child must provide sufficient yet fair funds in accordance with his/her abilities and the child and other parent's needs until the end of the child's education whether it lasts through college or junior high.Thus, while the responsibility of the child lies in the hands of the couple, the most harm comes to the child who must now live in possibly an emotionally incomplete and financially unstable home. Rashly banning abortion without taking proper steps will create more problems and leave those deserving of justice, without it. Politicians need a plan to make any advance toward the end of abortion. But where do 1,287,000 babies go? In 2000 and 2001, 127,000 children were adopted annually and 15% of adoptions were out of the country adoptions (19,050 a year) ***. These adoptions could be replaced by adoptions within the country to help alleviate a surge of children in orphanages caused by a ban. However 1,267,950 babies still remain. Hence, the US could work with orphanages, whether Church or independent to help support unwanted children. Next, some children will remain with their parent/s. In order to help the example family above, children born out of wedlock to young parents could receive financial help from the government for college tuition bills as an incentive to succeed in life. This also depends on whether the couple remains together, the income of the parent, and other variables. In addition, public awareness needs to be raised at least 3 years in advance. In sex-ed and morality classrooms in high schools, teenagers need to realize that abortion will not be an option. Finally, law enforcement on illegal abortions would be required. For these precautions to occur though, the government needs funds which might force a tax increase. Hopefully, through these actions the implications of rash ban, such as a flood of children in orphanages, children growing up in financially and emotionally troubled homes, and other trickle-down effects, can be averted. Nevertheless, the first year of the ban will 'break the ice' and not long after people will understand that a child is their responsibility and births out-of-wedlock and among young couples (15-20) will decrease. In conclusion, abortion stops life in a very probable stage, but a quick ban cannot fix this enormous problem. Nonetheless, with proper procedures, it can be reduced and halted with minimal backlash.
Works Cited*American Psychological Association (APA):abortion. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved August 19, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abortion** "Estimates of US abortion incidents, 2001-2003"; Lawrence B. Finer, Staney K. Henshaw; Guttmacher institute; 3 August 2006; http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/08/03/ab_incidence.pdf***"How many children were adopted in 2000-2001?"; Child Welfare information gateway; August 2004; http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/s_adopted/s_adopted.pdf

Homosexuality in America (Continued)

Shortly after publishing Homosexuality in America, I realized that I had taken a simple argument of a Man's right to his own life and turned it into a zealous front on sex. While the aforementioned article may be jumbled I would like to correct it. This article is really not much on Homosexuality, but sex itself.
This second article came into mind when a friend of mine mentioned that she felt sex was also an expression of one's deep love for another(hopefully after marriage) and thus found gay sex acceptable. Overlooking this expression of love in my article, I stated sex should be for reproduction and consequently I thought gay sex was not pious. Comparing and contrasting these opposing ideas, I progress onward to an answer. Both of these arguments promote that the act of intercourse mentioned is not just sex for fun, but rather sex out of love or sex for children.
Subsequently, modern culture, advertisers, network producers, and the people who endorse them(you and me) blur the line of sex's acceptance in culture. 'Sex sells' is now advertising slang. The immense pressure of sex trickles down. While being not nearly as serious or harmful, it is portrayed in other places, such as scantily clad dolls to MTV reality shows. With girls overly conscious about their weight and boys doubting their masculinity, the public view of what is right and what is wrong is questioned daily.
Americans need to remember the two points I mentioned earlier and set their own guidelines for life. However, the moral dilemma is not the only problem at hand. Children out of wedlock, STD's, and eating disorders are effects of our perception on what's appropriate.
--- As for gay sex - despite my friend's point, I still feel that homosexuals should remain celibate because gay sex doesn't carry the same responsibility of children that a man and woman having sex does. While in our world most couples overlook this, the two points I mentioned coincide. Hopefully the couple that believes they are strong enough in their bond to have sex also gladly acknowledge the responsibility.

My Sources

I just wanted to credit my sources here because I realized if I wanted to be taken seriously as a website, I can't just pull stastics and dates out of the air.
For Scooter Libby article-

• msn news keyword scooter Libby
• Wikipedia keyword presidential pardon

For hot-botton issue article

• Guttmacher Institue (I got through wikipedia)
• Wikipedia keyword Abortion

I mainly use general knowledge and I do not use statitics or dates or anything factual that I don't fully believe is true. If you can find evidence I am wrong please write for I don't want to be posting lies.

The Simpson's Movie

My Critique has waited for nearly a week and a half now. I have avoided contact or even being near my computer in attempts to not write this lump-in-my-throat review. Well, I can't hide from my computer. If you haven't guessed yet, I am a huge Simpson's fan. I have the first five seasons of the Simpson, I watch the show whenever I can, I own Homer Simpson Slippers. I'm even wearing a Simpson's T-shirt as I write this.
3 out of 5 stars - I could stop right there. I probably should, seeing that every heart wrenching, mentally conflicting, truly confusing, life shortening word I write for this unsure review well as may be for my obituary. For being a huge Simpson's fan, this life defining event either justifies my hours spent pouring over this show, or rips my beliefs to shreds. However it did neither of these.
I was prepared. While it would seem I still ride the nearly impossible crest of the wave of obsession and phenomena with the show, as the show did with general public shortly after it's creation, I had passed that stage of love a long time ago. Yet I have been revitalized by the thunderous fall of this wave on the beach. At this current point in my affair with the Simpson's, I am floating back to open ocean on the receding water. It sounds depressing, but everyone knows the water will come back.
These past seasons have warned me. They have been markers for the evolving show. Competing with more low-brow cartoons like Family Guy, The Simpson's were not "simpson-esque". It was the first prime time cartoon satire to add humor to plots and stories that would coincide with and remind viewers of their family. While the movie contained an epic journey of Homer discovering true happiness through others enjoyment as well as his, many scenes cheapened the overall story, like Bart's genitals and the numerous times the writer's chose a sophomoric laugh over truly genuine moment. I am not saying the movie shouldn't have been funny, but it should have been the culmination of everything the Simpson's stand for and represent.
All in all, a great movie, but a bad Simpson's installment.

Homosexuality in America

Gay marriage is an increasingly prominent issue as some states accept it and others remain steadfast and reject it. The acceptance of gays in our society is also a large issued shown through movies and culture. I have 2 arguments, one religious(Christian)* and the other ethical, that are in favor of gays being accepted in America.

1. Nowhere in the bible* does it condemn those with attractions to the same sex. In Leviticus, it states the law that intercourse between two of the same sex is forbidden. I find this an acceptable law, because sex is a gift from God and is to be used only for the sake of reproduction, hence no pre-marital sex is allowed either in the laws of Leviticus. However, disgracing this gift God gave to us, sex between two people of the same sex is a problem.
2. Also, if we were to attack gays for being unethical, why don't attack other issues, such as pre-marital sex, which causes more problems with abortions and STD's. It is not right to only attack certain issues that can be easily targeted.

Conclusion: While I believe Gay sex is wrong, I also think that gays should be allowed the same freedom as straights and should be allowed to marry. Americans, especially Christians, should follow Jesus's example and compassionately reach out to the gay community and explain why celibacy is an important part of Gay life, instead of trying to force our way and alienate them. This misuse of God's gift is the true tragedy here, not whether gays marry or not.

Note: Many people believe that homosexuality is a product of nurture. While I believe some people, especially in those in the limelight, experiment and are bisexual, I think nearly all of homosexuality is nature.
*Also, anyone who can find any more passages from the bible or any other religious book that might shine light on the issue, please comment and let it be known.

How Politicians take advantage of 'hot-button' issues

In the last election, religious and moral issues, like abortion and gay-marriage, played an important role in how many people voted. Abortion especially had split the public. While I am against abortion and believe it is wrong in nearly all circumstances, I did not support George Bush, the pro-life candidate. Although anti-abortion was one of his platforms, the only anti-abortion action of his presidency came in 2003 when he signed the partial-birth abortion ban after it was passed by the senate and representatives. According to an Alan Guttmacher Institute Voluntary Poll, .17%(2,232 of 1,313,000) of abortions in 2000 were partial-birth, however, being a voluntary poll, their numbers may be close, but not exact. In addition, 28 states had already banned partial-birth abortion, making this bill not very important.
I am not trying to tear President Bush down, but instead show how politicians take advantage of 'hot button' issues. He did not outline any plan for eliminating abortion. If abortion was illegal, there would be huge surge in births and/or illegal abortions that the nation would be unprepared for. Many politicians do not have solid plans for issues and simply state their opinion for them. Americans need to recognize this problem and not waste their vote on somebody with empty promises.

"Scooter" Libby's 'Get out of Jail free' Card

President George Bush recently partially commuted Scooter Libby's 30 month jail sentence for 5 felony counts. A former White House Aide, Libby leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame, whose husband, diplomat Joseph Wilson, had denounced the war.
The Editorial Sections of newspapers around the country were filled with columns either calling for Libby's imprisonment or justifying the president's actions. The argument soon swelled into democrats struggling to declare victory over republicans and republicans clamoring to hold them off. Stuck in between party lines, the average American should be outraged. This commutation of Libby's sentence illustrates how the pardon has been misconstrued and misused.
Introduced in the Constitution, the original intent was to forgive people who had acted against the U.S. and subsequently quell those angry about the event, like Washington's pardon of those in the whiskey rebellion. In the present era, Ford's pardon of Nixon and Clinton's many last day pardons of supporters show how this nation has forgotten why there is a pardon. The pardon of today is simply another example of corruption in politics and the special privileges the politically elite receive. So neither the democrats nor the republicans should be angry. The American man and woman should be angry.
In conclusion, the presidential pardon should be amended to enforce its original intent or it should be eliminated

The Forum

This is the first posting for the forum. The forum is an exchange of ideas, opinions, and insight of cultural, political, religous, and moral origin that relates to the international audience and your next-door neighbors. Anyone can comment on the forum, because even bad ideas spur on the creation of newer and better ideas. I will start slow and then take it from there, making a post every couple of days.