The Senior Slam

The Senior Slam

Since freshman year, every student at Maggie Walker looks at the senior class and all the aspects that come with it, and can only dream of the day they will finally be able to be at the top of the school. I know I can speak for most of my peers when I say that senior year (post-college applications) has always been triumphed as the light at the end of the tunnel. But what if this light at the end of the tunnel – the light we’ve been striving to see for our entire scholastic career – is really a train, instead of an exit? What if the “senior slide” really is a “senior slam?”

I write this letter with my heart filled with resentment and contempt for certain people in this school, who have decided to take it upon themselves to change the meaning of “senioritis” from an enjoyment of our final days at Maggie Walker to the common fatigue and victimization felt by every senior in this school. There have been talks among students that teachers have been instructed to “not let up” on us as a student body, and to “keep the pressure on” us. What does this mean, exactly? It means science classes expecting students to complete four labs at once the same day as a quiz; it means math classes demanding students to spend hours on homework, scrutinizing every final problem until it is perfect; it means teachers acting as if seniors have no level of involvement in any other aspects of their lives.

We go to Maggie L. Walker Governor’s School, and we are all here because of testable intelligence and a solid work ethic. Seniors should not be slacking, but I know for a fact that we are not. We accept our rightful responsibilities, such as AP classes. It is understood that the AP year is far from over, but we do not object, because we have a vested interest in doing serious work for serious rewards. What we do object to though is our hard earned respect being stripped from us by non-AP courses, administrators, and teachers who do not seem to understand what the seniors of the Class of 2010 do on a daily basis. We run clubs, we have jobs, we have outside commitments (mentorships, internships, etc.), we are on Battle of the Brains, Math Modeling, and We the People. We are pursuing our passions outside of the classroom, and we have all paid our dues with sleepless nights and 12-hour days because of tests, projects, and homework in the past. The senior slide at Maggie Walker is unlike the senior slide at any other high school, for we are all still motivated as a class, but simply in other ways. It makes no sense to me why the pressure of schoolwork should still be so high when we have assumed responsibilities that are not only more meaningful, but are also more productive. To expound more on the list of what the class of 2010 is currently up to outside of class, we are running honor societies, we are involved in charities and non-profits, and we are even lobbying to get more money for the school. I used to think that the administration understood that the second semester for seniors at Maggie Walker has never been about schoolwork, but after experiencing almost two months of increased pressure and poor administrative decisions (for example, decisions regarding snow), I am beginning to lose faith that we will ever be allowed to go a week feeling well-rested. The second semester for seniors should not be about the same old load of schoolwork. It should be about the graduating class to enjoy their successes, look forward to their futures, and to work hard to give back to the school in ways that are truly unique to the student body.

This letter isn’t a plea for getting cut slack, and this isn’t merely a complaint from a worn out Maggie Walker student. This is a demand for respect that the senior class deserves. We have all put in our work, and we want to spend our time making this school a better place, not wasting our time on schoolwork that will only result in a final exam if we slip up once. We should not be feeling taken advantage of in return for what we give to the school environment on a daily basis. We should not be feeling beat down by teachers who once looked after us. We should not be feeling victimized by an administration that is beginning to seem more and more out of touch with reality. Most of all though, the senior classes of Maggie Walker, the current and those of the future, should not be forced to cope with a senior slam!

"The Lessons Learned from the 18th and 21st Amendments Should Be Anything but Sobering."

There has always been great argument over the magnitude of the federal government’s role in an individual’s life. At the turn of the 20^th century, the United States was going through a huge transformation of its society, economy, and politics. The US was on the verge of entering the biggest war the world had ever seen; the economy was booming, democracy was proving strong, and Progressivism was the new virtuous way of life. Everything seemed to be clicking in the right direction, but yet, during this time two amendments to the Constitution were passed that took away individual liberties, and then gave them right back. This was due to the methods the topic of the amendments, the way the amendments were brought to light, and the social climate of the time.

Prohibition did not belong solely to the early 20^th century. There had been countless movements for temperance in the United States before progressivism struck the United States at the dawn of the 1900’s. The idea itself was not that progressive, having been seen in the American Colonies as early as the 17^th century, specifically in the colony of Massachusetts.[i] The one difference between the early temperance movements and the most recent was the practice and manner by which it was carried out. In the early 1800’s there was a moderately organized group of farmers who voluntarily practiced abstinence of liquor. By the 1850’s, thirteen northern and western states had enacted prohibition laws, but before the decade had ended, the sense of reform had been subdued into individual practice.[ii] Again, there was another surge for temperance in the United States that came in the 1870’s, but by the 1890’s, most of the states that had enacted legislation had repealed their prohibition laws. Around that time though, in 1893, Howard Russell founded one of the most important players in creating the Eighteenth Amendment- the Anti-Saloon League. Russell’s organization was one of the first political pressure groups to lobby upon one single issue in the United States.[iii] The push for National Prohibition in the United States was popular mostly in the South and rural-North, with the majority being Protestant. The tactics of the Anti-Saloon League proved to be extremely effective, and because of the League and a strong support base, by 1913, a majority of states in the United States had adopted prohibition laws, and Congress had even passed legislation that eased the enforcement of those laws. In 1917, the Anti-Saloon League had been searching for an opportunity to cap off their victories, the cherry on top of their abstinent ice cream, and they found it. Combined with the rabid patriotism of the time (due to World War I) and the League’s pressure politics, the Anti-Saloon League easily pushed their prohibitionist views into the lives of every American with the passing of the Eighteenth Amendment on December 19, 1917.

The Eighteenth Amendment was obviously a single-issue amendment to the Constitution, but it was not one dimensional in the sense of its supporters. The biggest pool of support clearly came from the religious argument for prohibition. The moral argument made by Protestants was not one of new; rather, it had been used for hundreds of years preceding the amendment. To the religious of America, intemperance lowered the moral standards of people, which in turn affected all other areas of life negatively. This religious argument was the flaw behind early and unsuccessful movements of prohibition in the United States. The Anti-Saloon League realized this, and to overcome that fault, they pushed their issue through with more concrete arguments. Even with religion, they did not argue on the basis of the evils of alcohol; instead, they argued that the vendors of liquor and the liquor trafficking business were corrupt and evil.[iv] This was a very skilled approach, because it did not alienate those who believed in prohibition but were not religious.

At the dawn of the 20^th century, the US and its society was changing rapidly, having just come out of an industrial revolution. Along with these new inventions came a new age of science. Doctors were beginning to notice many new things about alcohol’s affect on the body. For instance, a scientist of the early 1900’s discovered that alcohol was, in fact, a depressant, rather than a stimulant.[v] Further studies went on to prove the other numerous side effects of alcohol on the body, such as heart disease, birth dysfunctions, and cirrhosis of the liver. These newly discovered characteristics of alcohol slowly but surely manifested fear into the minds of middle-class Americans. Science and research had perfect timing in helping the passing of the Eighteenth Amendment.

Another important factor in the creation of the Eighteenth Amendment was the Progressive Movement of the early 1900’s. The Progressive Era was marked by a wide range of reforms, everywhere from prohibition to trust-busting. This mood of social and moral reform obviously created the perfect atmosphere to foster the temperance movement in the United States. A lot of social ills that were identified in the Progressive Era were thought to be caused by the abuse of alcohol, which only magnified the movement for National Prohibition. The theme of helping the poor and unfortunate of the Progressive Era was the most apparent in the political arena of the time period. The ideology that government could use its power as a positive instrument of reform was the chief, common belief of the all politicians in power. The people of America were obsessed with two things during this time: to preserve democracy at home, and to make the world safe for democracy.[vi] In order to achieve those goals, they felt the best way would be to “democratize the machinery of government in order to take politics out of the hands of the special interests and restore it to the people.”[vii] The people felt like one necessary step to preserve democracy was through National Prohibition. They proved so through the Eighteenth Amendment.

The Twenty-First Amendment was the answer to democracy through democracy. The logical argument against the Eighteenth Amendment was obvious- it infringed on personal liberties. Government does not have the right to delegate people’s lives, they argued. The suspension of individual rights was not the main argument against the Eighteenth Amendment, though. The real line of reasoning lay among the social climate at the time the amendment was appealed. The Great Depression was in full swing, and so was the general view of the public. In a time where the main concern for many families was how to simply get the next meal, the idea of prohibition seemed rather absurd to be a concern. Not only was it not a premier moral concern, it made sense fiscally for the government. If the state governments were granted the right to govern legally over alcohol once again, it would increase tax revenues for the state without financially hurting people. A well-known stigma of the 1920’s was the great wave of organized crime. The supporters of the Twenty-First Amendment attributed that to the Eighteenth Amendment, claiming that the amendment was useless because it made breaking the law a common thing for many people. The tide had truly changed, and all the logic that was once behind the Eighteenth Amendment were now shifting towards the Twenty-First Amendment. Congress passed the amendment on February 20, 1933.

The Constitutional value these amendments had was significantly more substantial than the amendments themselves ever had in any other sense. Initially, the two amendments were considered complete failures, but the tide changed when the Constitutional and political legacies were uncovered. The most obvious trait of the Eighteenth Amendment was that it was the only amendment to the Constitution to have been official only to be repealed by a later amendment. This was a great accomplishment, proving that the United States Constitution truly was a living document. The Eighteenth Amendment was also unique in the fact that it was unlike any previous amendment to the Constitution, for it did not grant rights or changed the structure of the government, rather, it took rights away from the individual citizen. The Twenty-First Amendment, on the other hand, was the only amendment when Congress had ever and will ever call for special state conventions for ratification, which was done for speed and efficiency’s sake. The Twenty-First Amendment is also unique in the aspect of its second section, where the federal government grants the majority of power concerning alcohol back to the states, except in a few choice circumstances, such as the drinking age. The aesthetical and functional legacy of the Eighteenth and Twenty-First Amendments will be similar to that of the Vietnam War- they began with high aspirations and ended with dismal consequences, but the Constitutional legacy will be much more prevalent than the actual amendments will ever be.[viii]

The Eighteenth and Twenty-First Amendments did a better job showing many things, not including the moral standard of the average American in the 1920’s. Prohibition was again a failed movement, and the only reason it did not fail immediately was because it couldn’t have been luckier with the surrounding events of the country. The Eighteenth Amendment never would have happened without the help of World War I and the Progressive Era, and the Twenty-First Amendment never would have happened without the Great Depression. With hindsight 20/20, it occurs to one that the objective of the two amendments would have been much easier to achieve and initiate if Congress were to simply have passed legislation, not amend our Constitution. Even though the two amendments set several very important precedents Constitutionally, they were virtually useless in today’s society economically, politically, and socially. The one aspect of these two amendments that should frighten the American people is the fact that in the United States, when the circumstances become perfect, and with a malleable and ever-changing Constitution, anything can happen.

The Growth and Decay of America

Democracy – a form of government that Aristotle referred to as a corrupt government ruled by the whims of a majority. In modern times, democracy carries a different type of connotation; rather, it refers to a form of government that implies participation of the people in the decisions and actions of the state. The United States of America, after it has been watered down to its very essence, could be argued a democracy, but in reality, one of the largest empires that mankind has ever seen is a republic; it’s not the Roman Republic, either. The United States has grown, to put it lightly, into a state that has had unprecedented effects on other country’s governments, economies, and social values.

When the Founding Fathers signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776, little did they know about a decade later they would be debating the parameters of a republican form of government that the world had never seen before. If they could not project ten years into the future, to imagine they had any grasp of what the United States of America would become is entirely farfetched. The growth, nay, explosion, of America’s size, population, and sheer power has been unpredictable and, at times, extremely volatile. Now that it seems we will almost never stop growing as a state or nation, the question is whether or not the government that the Founding Fathers ratified in 1789 was built to withstand the political, economic, and social beating it has taken and will continue to take if left unchecked.

The fall of the Roman Empire in, what scholars “believe,” was in 476 AD, has still to this day been left unexplained. Although this almost unforeseen collapse has left historians in the dark, there is one root of the decay that is agreed upon by most everybody, and that is the size of the Empire became too big for it to maintain its stability. One can see this correlation to the nature of a balloon; the rate of its expansion can change rapidly and it can sometimes even decrease in size smoothly, but if pushed too far, it will unexpectedly pop, leaving little behind. There are clear parallels that can be drawn from the republic of the Roman Empire to the empire of the American Republic, but the two have existed in two extremely different times, so these parities must be taken as an essence rather than as specifics.

We grew from thirteen colonies to 52 states in roughly two centuries, and to list the other details of the American upswing would be not only time consuming but nearly impossible. The ramifications of this growth could be argued as a positive aspect of our country. After all, we saved the world from two world wars, pushed the rise of human rights further than it has ever gone before, and have dominated the world’s economical and political spectrum for more than a century. Indeed, great things have come from our actions, but can our system of government handle the amount of power, responsibility, and influence it has accrued over time? Rather, how much of these things was our government built for? My answer is we have long passed the capacity of our government’s ability, and it has distorted the face of American politics into something that will eventually become a detriment to the American people.

What is the root of our problems? Yes, of course, the problem is the growth, but what contortions have resulted from the expansion? I draw the line all the way back to the executive branch of the United States. If the Founding Fathers had really understood the nature of man and the nature of government, they would have understood that the only time a single, powerful leader is beneficial is in times where a quick decision is the only way to avoid disaster. The American presidency, beginning with Thomas Jefferson’s purchase from Napoleon, the Louisiana Purchase, has grown too powerful and too influential, which has in turn distorted the rest of the American political system.

One of the most important governmental values that came from the Constitutional Convention was that of limited government. But, instead of a pure institution of that value, what resulted was a living contradiction. There is always constant tension between an executive whose power casts a shadow over the other two branches of government and a theory of government that was meant to be an underlying principle of the country. To put it simply enough, how can a government be limited in nature when it has the power to put Japanese descendants in internment camps or to eavesdrop on the wireless conversations of its citizens? A powerful executive only leads to, as history tells, a growth in power, and, as we’ve established, this growth was never meant to happen.

This energy of the executive has also lead to a distorted devolution of responsibility among the government. Another underlying principle of the American government was meant to be that the people who are directly involved in government are directly responsible to the citizenry. With a president that is expanding his power more and more, from the realm of the economy to public policy, not only do the people put more of their trust and expectations with one man, but also this shift in concentration and expectation of the delivery of power has left the body of Congress withered and consistent of faceless politicians. It should be obvious which branch of government the Founding Fathers intended to be the most powerful – the legislative branch. The article regarding the Congress in the Constitution is the longest, most specific, and first of the entire document. It is clear that the Founding Fathers anticipated this branch to be the most powerful, because they assumed that the people would, by the concept of vested interest, be the most interested in the actions of the legislative branch. And rightly so, too, for the Founding Fathers never intended for the executive branch’s power to expand as far as it has today. Unfortunately, the individuals who have consumed the executive branch have used the vagueness of wording and taken the advantage of the reactive checks (as opposed to active) provided by the Constitution to unjustly expand their power.

Naturally, the expansion of population and geographic size of a country results in an equal proliferation of power in its government. The not so natural part of this expansion can be directly tied to the executive branch of the United States government. Now that we understand the roots of the detrimental growth, we can understand the nature of what condition our country’s government is in. It has become detached – no longer do the people talk about the government as “our” government, rather, it is like a big brother who doesn’t even live at home anymore. Citizens have become consumers, and the government has become a company with a stranglehold monopoly over all of us. The Founding Fathers blew life and power into the balloon of our government, but they forgot to tie the end. In turn, individuals of the executive branch have continued to stuff this balloon with unconstitutional and detrimental power. Unfortunately, I don’t believe we have the power to let out any air in the balloon, rather, the two questions we will sooner or later be forced to face are: What will cause our balloon to pop, and what will come of us when it finally does?

Maggie Walker's Critics' Ignorance Complex

Recently there was an article posted in Style Weekly about Maggie Walker's so-called "Diversity Complex." A subjectively biased argument, smartly laced with useless percentages and speculative suggestions. As a student at Maggie Walker, reading this article, I felt accused, and most of all, I felt that the school I have learned to love so much was being accused for problems that it did not cause. The point of this post is to show that the people who wrote this article are the last ones to trust on this issue, because they prove themselves to be immature as well as ignorant through their logic and manipulation of truth. I am not arguing that their concern is not a legitimate one, but I am arguing that their argument is. Diversity is something to strive for, but it should never come at the cost of oppressive foolishness.

The authors of the article claim that the acceptance rate of African American students to MLW is a fourth of the number that apply. This percentage is useless because they fail to recognize that the number of all other students accepted rate is much less than four times the number that apply. In other words, if they claim that 1 black student is accepted for every 4 students that apply, that statistic is completely taken out of context when, in general, 10% out of every 2,000 applicants are accepted to Maggie Walker. Now, tell me this: what percentage is greater... 25% of African American students that are accepted (according to the author's of the article), or 10% of all students accepted? This outrageous statistic is the perfect example to show how out-of-context the basis for their argument is. They claim that African American students make up 20% of applicants at Maggie Walker, and they act like they are all denied. They fail to mention the percentage of black students who are accepted, but choose not to attend Maggie Walker. Yes, this happens, and yes, it happens frequently. Is that the fault of Maggie Walker? No. Is that the fault of the students and faculty of Maggie Walker? No. Is that the fault of the admissions process? No. Is that the fault of a political and educational system that expands much further beyond the simple realm of Maggie Walker? Yes.

Often times in medical situations, negative things that happen to a person's foot can cause pain and problems in the back. Usually, without a doctor pointing out the problem, the back pain and the feet will seem totally unrelated. It isn't until the patient gets new shoes to serve as a better foundation do their back problems become better. This example can be directly tied to the situation that the author's of the article point out. First of all, I will say that I am most likely not qualified to claim that my suggestions on how to fix the problem are correct, but I will say that most of them are formed off of common sense. Now, I say we start at the bottom; we need to fix Richmond City Public Schools. Guidance counselors are discouraging students to attend Maggie Walker and leave their home school, fellow students do the same, and, when it comes down to it, the simple fact is that Richmond public schools are not up to par with the schools of Chesterfield and Henrico. I will be honest and say that I do not have any solutions to this issue, but I have a feeling it's the result of property taxes that result in the disparity of the quality of education. The issue of having a predominately non-diverse student population at Maggie Walker is one worth ameliorating, but I am confident that the issue is merely the result of a much more severe problem that the city of Richmond faces today and will face in the future.

Another fallacy of logic the author's use is a reference to one of the "founding principles of our government." Not only was their reference ignorant in the assumption of truth, but also of their assumption of the clarity of the "buzz" word they throw out. Although a miniscule portion of their argument, I was greatly offended by the statement. Not only does it show their ignorance of the situation at Maggie Walker, but also of our government. Anyway- the statement was this: "Maggie Walker ... has sidestepped one of our government's founding principles: equality." To most, this may seem like an obvious conclusion, but to me, it represents all that is wrong with their argument. They ignore the tension between these two ideas: equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome. They assume our government was "founded" on the latter, when in fact, the opposite of this is true. I'm not saying that it's right, but I'm saying that's how it was.

Maggie Walker, in my opinion, may be better off with larger diversity of not only race, but also of ideology. Unlike the people who claim that Maggie Walker is the problem, though, I am proud to have an opinion that comes from the experience of being a student at Maggie Walker. In turn, I am confident in saying that my high school, its admissions process, its faculty, and its students are not the problem. In fact, I would say that it is people like Siegel-Hawley and Fleisher who are the true problem - people who think they understand the dynamics of a unique situation, when in reality, they walk a line of hypocrisy. My suggestion to them is to quit manipulating statistics and blaming a system of which they have no real knowledge, and to fix a problem that relates to thousands of kids rather than a handful.

This is the article in Style Weekly:

http://www.styleweekly.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=7FE9D88A2D98407BB3706D71D4ACB039

Dear Mike Harris, You're wrong.

I attended Virginia Boys State this year, and, well, my opinion of the people running the camp and the camp itself is one thing, but the letter to the editor that I wrote is another. I wrote this letter in response to a speech Mike Harris gave at the opening ceremonies, and it was published a few days later in the newspaper. I had to suck up a little bit, because if I didn't, it probably wouldn't have been published. Anyway, here goes...

On the opening day here at Boys State, a speech was given by Mike Harris, a past National Vice Commander at the American Legion. Overall, it was a respectable speech, and he made some very key points as to how we should all receive our Boys State experience.

At the end of his speech though (along with similar mentionings from Rear Admiral William Cobb, retired, US Navy), gave a small piece on his support for the addition of an amendment to the US Constitution that would make it illegal to burn the American flag (of course disregarding the ceremonial burnings of the flag). He repeatedly said that everyone should be encouraged and is entitled to have his own opinion, and that is indeed very true. But, I believe that there is a difference between subjective opinion and objective reasoning, the latter of the two being the only thing that belongs in our Constitution. In the two court cases that have dealt with burning of the American flag, Texas v. Johnson (1984) and US v. Eichman (1990), the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the party who burned the flag in protest of two different government actions. They declared that the flag is a symbol that means different things to different people. Clearly it represented something extremely different to Johnson and Eichman, than, say, Mr. Harris.

To Mr. Harris, along with many other Americans, the flag represents all of the men and women who have died in the act of serving in our country's armed forces. Because that is the case, there is no end-all be-all meaning of the symbolism of the American flag, which has a meaning as diverse as our country. That being said, the first amendment right of freedom of speech must be protected. The United States Constitution, which Mike Harris, yourself, and myself have all pledged to "uphold and defend," gives every citizen of the United States the irrevocable right of free speech and expression as long as that expression does not cause any harm to other citizens and is not forcefully imposed upon other citizens.

Am I causing any harm to other citizens when I burn our flag? Am I forcing anything upon anybody when I burn our flag? The answer is no. If you disagree, you have the right to ignore me. If you wish not to see me burn the flag, you may look away. You may not put my fire out, and you never will. When one burns a flag, it is a statement. Indeed, actions speak much louder than words and indeed, a burning flag symbolizes a protest against something that our government has done wrong: an unjust war, a self-conflicting policy, a corruption in office. As citizens of this country, we were given a responsibility to express our views, to participate in government, and to correct the wrongs of our government. After all, it is our government: of the people, for the people, and by the people. It transcends merely burning a flag; if we relinquish that one single right of expression, all precedents set by our founding fathers and our Constitution will be completely invalidated. I am not disrespecting any veteran groups, any person in the armed forces, or our government when I burn our flag. No, I am honoring every person that has died for and served this country by exercising my rights to express my views and use the rights that so many people have died to protect. I will not allow subjective opinions to control my life. We have lived under a legitimate government and under a constitution for over 200 years, and the second we relinquish one right, we will become one step closer to losing all of our most basic rights. Without the first amendment, Boys State, or even our country, would not exist today.

Treasure your rights and exercise the gifts you have been given. Do not be told what to do without logical reason - always question authority.

Iranian Elections

As Joseph Stalin, the infamous Communist dictator of the belated USSR, once said, "Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything." In the case of the past Iranian presidential elections, that quote seems to serve as a very perceptive insight. Perhaps the first and most obvious problem with the recently held elections in Iran is how they were counted. Every single vote that is cast is counted by the Guardian Council, which consists of 12 members, 6 of whom are directly appointed by the Supreme Leader, and 6 of whom are appointed by the Majlis from among the Muslim jurists by the Head of the Judicial Power, who is, in turn, appointed by the Supreme Leader. I do not understand how 12 men could possibly count "two-thirds" of 42 million votes (about 28 million votes) in less than two days. Even in the United States, election results are not "finalized" for days. Where the power lies in Iran is clearly in "those who count the votes," and there is no question as to who those people support in the election: incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

That being said, virtually every component of the Islamic Republic of Iran, except of course the economy, is controlled by the Supreme Leader. Because of that, there is no question as to why or how Ahmadinejad won this past election, not to mention his first election. I personally do not understand how the protests that have been going on recently in Iran have not happened before. Four years ago, when Ahmadinjad came into power, the unemployment rate in Iran was about 10.5%. Right now, as of May 2009, the unemployment rate in the United States is 9.4%. We are in the midst of an economic crisis, and our unemployment rate now is better than what Iran's was four years ago. Anyway, the CURRENT unemployment rate in Iran is 17%. Ahmadinejad is no more qualified to run a nation's economy than he is to lead one politically. I could hit you all with facts and figures even more, showing Ahmadinjad's incompetence, but I believe my point is clear.

The final results of the election, in my opinion, will inevitably be in favor of the incumbent, the Supreme Leader, and the conservative hardliners of Iran. He will be declared the official victor in the days to come, and the riots will die down due to police force and lack of a realistic goal, the lack of which is what the real problem in Iran is today. Iran is an authoritarian regime ruled by a Supreme Leader, who has literally complete control over the entire government, media, and country. Although the rioters in Iran have a great cause, their goals are completely unrealistic. As soon as the Supreme Leader relinquishes even an inch of power, his control over the entire country will slowly deteriorate, and that is why he will never give up power as long as he is alive.

The situation in Iran is an interesting one. The last time there was significant political change in Iran, it was a radical revolution that spun Iran into what it has become today. At that time, there was great political, social, and economic unrest. Ironically, those people were rejecting the Western influences on their economy and government, and now, people are rejecting this theocratic, authoritarian type government combined with general economic ignorance. Will the situation in Iran ever escalate to the violence and energy that existed in 1979? My guess is that it will. By 2025, Iran's economy will have reached such a standstill and decline due to the incompetence of its leaders mixed with its heavy dependence on oil exports, that unless the citizens of Iran want to starve to death, they will have no other choice but to change their government once again. The question is what form will the new government in Iran take?

Hopefully it will not be a pure democracy. Yes, this may sound strange, but the political climate in the Middle East is so constantly changing and hostile to the West, that if there is a sudden surge of conservatism in Iran, we will have a new type of enemy in the world: a hostile democracy, and one that is legitimate, too. Hopefully what will emerge from the rubble of the future revolution will be a stable, perhaps a mild (and not oppressive) theocracy, government that does not favor radical change in one single election.

Will we someday see an Iran that is stable socially, politically, and economically? Nobody seems to know the answer to this question. From the old political precedents that set the mood in Iran to the intricate mesh of relationships between countries that exists in the Middle East, to say that the situation is complicated would be an understatement. There are an infinite number of angles one can speculate on the situation, but until we see the circumstances right before the storm of change erupts, nobody will have seen what is going to happen in the near future of Iran.

The Absurdity of Obscenity

The society that we live in has rapidly changed since the turn of the 21st century. With a technology boom making the world a smaller place every day, social problems in the world, the United States included, have become extremely relevant to the governments around the world and their citizens. In the United States, a breeding ground for controversial media and ideas, censorship of "obscene" material has been dealt with on several occasions. As I addressed in my second most recent post, censorship is an issue all its own. Obscenity, on the other hand, carries its own stigma in the political world in the United States, and its definition is forever changing. The most recent legal ruling on the issue of obscenity was in the Supreme Court case Miller v. California (1973), which defined obscenity as: "Obscene materials are defined as those that the average person, applying contemporary community standards, find, taken as a whole, appeal to the prurient interest; that depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law; and that, taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." It was indeed a brilliant case as well as decision, in the sense that the court avoided making an unnecesarily controversial decision. By avoiding such a decision, it allowed for a more case-by-case approach in dealing with what may be deemed as "obscene" material. Although some may see that decision as sufficient in both protecting freedom of speech as well as protecting citizens from being exposed to obscene material, I disagree to the utmost of my ability. I do not disagree with the actual decision of the court, rather, with the actual substance of the case. The fact that something so subjective as obscenity could ever make its way into the highest court of our country appalls me. Since when is the responsibility of our government to "protect" its citizens from things they do not wish to see? The concept of obscenity, originally, is a very logical and beneficial idea. The idea of protecting citizens from things that are obviously offensive seems to be an obviously benign thing. Like many issues that exist in America today, an idea that originally would be good has been perverted by a group of people that resist change. This group of people, who are the foils of the people who stress "political correctness," continually keeps the concept of obscenity relevant, resulting in the hindering of the development of social ideas. In short, the more we try to define the line between tolerable and obscene, the more time we will waste and the more freedom of speech we will suppress. 

At the same time, one may argue that just because one has the ability to express something, doesn't mean that it is beneficial to the community to do so. Well I argue this: as soon as we begin deeming what things are beneficial and what things are detrimental to our country and society, we will be dangerously close to falling into a maelstrom of government censorship. Again, I am not saying that I support groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, which I wouldn't say necessarily helps anything other than white supremacy, but if we were to abolish the KKK for simply their beliefs, we will only have mere opinion protecting very important groups such as the ACLU. If, say, a KKK member were elected a powerful position in government, and he could delegate his opinion on society, he would be able to ban the NAACP under the same logic that most people would want to ban the KKK. The logic is labyrinthine, yes, but my point is paramount. We cannot risk our rights simply in the name of being "politically correct." We cannot worry about such matters as obscenity if they will only bring uncertainty to how we make our decisions in the government.

Obscenity is nothing. It is too subjective. Yes, there is harmful, and, yes, there is detrimental, but there should be no such thing as obscenity in our government. Yes, there are mere social values which should always be present in running a country, because, no, I do not want to see Nancy Pelosi operating in Congress topless. 

If you think something is obscene, do not go whining to your government about it. Take care of it yourself by convincing people that your opinion is right. After all, you have the right to do it. It is not the responsibility of the government to control social values. It is the responsibility of the people who actually live in everyday society to create the appropriate social climate. Please, do not go complaining to your government to fix the problems that the government has nothing to do with. Stop with the "obscenity" nonsense, and stop with the "political correctness" balderdash!