The Son of Liberty

The Senior Slam

2010-03-04T00:19:00.002-05:00

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."

2009-10-22T23:00:00.003-04:00

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

2009-09-26T21:16:00.002-04:00

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

2009-08-19T17:02:00.012-04:00

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.

2009-07-29T18:11:00.005-04:00

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

2009-06-16T23:42:00.004-04:00

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

2009-05-29T09:42:00.006-04:00

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!

Extremism and Idealism: The Blights of Society

2009-05-26T22:48:00.004-04:00

A gift that almost all youth are blessed with is the ability to be passionate about literally anything they please. Yet, these passions are not always of the highest standards. For example, bad passions can result in detrimental results, as in a drug addiction or a murder. As for those kids whose passions are for positive things, such as politics or the environment, something hinders results as well. Theodore Roosevelt once said, "Keep your eyes on the stars, and your feet on the ground." Arguably one of the greatest Progressivist presidents, Roosevelt understood that unrealistic goals will nearly always result in failure. On that same note, along with unrealistic goals, if one has a set of values or beliefs that are so extreme, or even idealistic, they will surely never succeed in achieving their goals.

I see this every day at Maggie Walker. So many kids have become so passionate about a certain lifestyle, a certain viewpoint, or a certain cause, that when they choose to ignore different ideas, they become truly ignorant. It has always been said that it is an admirable trait to have an "open mind," but what happens when one does not? You come off as hard headed, ignorant, and generally condescending to any person who shares a different idea than yourself. Once again, this happens every day at Maggie Walker. Some students are so extreme in their viewpoints that they not only close out all other ideas, that they harass other students who do not agree with them. What is ignorance? Ignorance is extremist self-righteousness. To believe that your opinion has any validity whatsoever without understanding the different opinions is truly ignorance.

Do not twist this. I am not saying being passionate about a set of beliefs is bad. In fact, that is the exact opposite of what I'm saying. Be the most passionate you can about your beliefs, because that will cause you to take action, BUT, I warn you, if you choose to not understand every single angle that is in opposition to yours, you will be blindly (and ignorantly) following a cause you know much less about than you realize. One can truly never understand something until one looks at it from every angle possible.

Unrealistic goals have another partner other than extremism, and it is idealism. Again, I see this at Maggie Walker all the time, and when it is tied to extremism, oh, how terrible it can be. Going back to Roosevelt's quote, if your eyes are in the stars towards an idealistic goal, but your feet are not on the ground, you will travel nowhere. I am not saying be a cynical realist, for it is good to have high goals and high ideals, but when those goals and ideals outreach the stars themselves is when it becomes a detriment to yourself.

I want to keep this post short, because what I am saying is extremely important. If you do not approach issues from all sides, you will seem ignorant. If you are too extreme that you reject any such (and most likely very real) possibility of you being incorrect, you will alienate other people. If your beliefs are too idealistic, you will only disappoint yourself in the end. If you combine any of those three things, you will be surprised at how many people will not give any credit whatsoever to you or your beliefs.

I try to avoid hypocrisy as much as possible, but I contradict myself all the time. That being said, I hope that this post does not come off as hypocritical. All my posts previous to this one, I believe it is safe to say that I have thought of many different viewpoints to the issue before making my own. Also, the last thing I ever want to do is shut any other people or viewpoints out, and that is why I encourage people to respond to what I am saying at all times in this blog. Every belief in the world has equal importance, because all ideas begin and end in the same place.

Go through life consuming every idea and belief that you hear, because if you do not, do not expect your ideas and beliefs to be consumed by anybody except yourself.

Response to "Electoral Madness"

2009-05-26T21:37:00.001-04:00

This post is in response to an editorial that was written for Maggie Walker's newspaper (The MLWGS Jabberwock) on Friday, May 15, 2009. It was called "Electoral Madness," and was written by a freshman on the Jabberwock staff. Here is the link if would like to read the article first: http://www.gsgis.k12.va.us/whatsnew/Jabberwock/08-09/Issue18.pdf

Dear Editor,

Scott Yeudall, a freshman on the MLWGS Jabberwock, recently wrote an opinion piece a while ago concerning the electoral process here at Maggie Walker. Not only was I offended at 90% of what he said, I also flat out disagreed with him.

His first point of tweaking the electoral system dealt with (what he saw as a problem) the runoffs between non majority winners. I wasn't aware that a First Past the Post with run-offs electoral system (also known as a two-round system) was a bad thing. If that is indeed true, somebody should really tell France, Argentina, Finland, Poland, and Portugal that their electoral systems are flawed. May I remind Yeudall that the two party system (and therefore two candidate) dominated system of the United States is nowhere near the best, nor perfect.

What Yuedall identified as a problem I would identify as a huge advantage to our electoral system. By having runoffs for the top leaders of the election, the election automatically becomes more democratic and open. It encourages more people to run, and therefore, it allows for students to have more choice in choosing the next leaders of their class and entire school.

Again, what Yeudall identified as a problem, I identify as an advantage. The more students running, the better the chance each student will have to vote for somebody who they can identify with. Instead of Yeudall's proposition to lower the number the number of candidates running. I propose to take away all restrictions and to increase the number of candidates, because much like cream in milk, the best will always rise to the top.

Yet another flaw in Yeudall's argument is his proposition to not only have a strict enforcement of "one-student-one-signature," but to increase the number of signatures would simply yield terrible results. What happens if simply the student infatuated with obtaining signatures achieves a somewhat monopoly on the position to run? Surely that would cause more problems than fix any.

The final flaw with Yeudall's argument is how he proposed to move voting to an online set-up. Not only does that spoil a long time tradition, but it is unrealistic. I guarantee that voter turnout would be much lower if students had to stand in line for their entire lunch period just to vote.

Yeudall seems to be very concerned with wasting time in our electoral process. Are elections not worthy of the time they receive? Is Yuedall suggesting that elections should take less time than it does to zap fry a poptart or to send a text message? Democracy takes time. One must not rush perfection, in fear that it will only upset a very balanced and efficient system. It is a system so important that I feel obliged to remind Yeudall that it has been in place long before he even had any idea what Maggie L. Walker Governor's School is.

Yeudall considers our elections and electoral process to be a "waste of time and paper." Now, I ask the student body, which is a bigger waste of your time and the school's paper: electing leaders of our school, or a benighted editorial from one of the many know-it-all freshmen at our school?

Webnonsense

2009-05-07T21:54:00.007-04:00

It is the closing of the year again, and with a senior class leaving and a freshmen class slowly coming of age, there is an experience that we all have in common...

You log onto your school account in Lab 121. It's 8:00 AM, and you came to school early to put the finishing touches on your project. All you have left to do is print out some pictures so you can glue them onto your poster. You would have done this at home, but you don't have a printer (and even if you did, you didn't have enough ink or paper to print it out). So you say, "It's no big deal, I'll just finish it up at school; it won't take more then 10 minutes."

You proceed. You go to google, and you type in the exact wording for what you need (you even researched it last night and barely found the picture you're looking for). Perhaps the project is for your health class, and you're doing a project on basketball. You find the link on google, but when you click on it... You find the dreaded "Websense" label on your screen denying access to the website. This time, you cannot access it because of "entertainment." Distressed, you go to class, and fail at trying to explain to your teacher why you could not fulfill the requirement of having pictures on your poster.

This, or a similar form of the story, has happened to all of us before. We have all been plagued by the annoying, dare I say unnecessary, blocks of Websense. Personally, I believe there is a problem with our network blocking service when civil liberties groups condemn the program for assisting repressive regimes for restricting freedom of speech. I didn't believe I could find an even more ironic example of the truth behind programs like Websense.

I thought that was the case until I came across this fact: In 2005, the Rhode Island branch of the American Civil Liberties Union called Websense a "deeply flawed technology." When I saw this, I was- to say the least- excited to see that some other people other than my classmates agreed with my opinion on the matter.

Websense aside, the idea of censorship in school- especially Maggie Walker- is an issue that is outrageous to me. We are some of the most elite high schoolers in the entire United States, and we have been punished by an Internet content filter that repressive regimes use to limit inalienable rights of its citizens?! Even if Websense wasn't being used as a tool to limit the rights of global citizens, the idea of restricting virtually every website from students is just a preposterous idea. I am offended by the fact that we have Websense, or any content filter for that matter. I am offended that some administrators in this school do not think we as a student body are not mature enough to use the Internet for appropriate things. It is one thing to restrict "obscene" materials (even though in my opinion, there is no such thing as "obscene," but that is a post for another day), but when things are restricted because of reasons such as "Entertainment" or "Shopping," it has gone too far.

I honestly see no point in having a content filter at this school for more than the bare minimum of common decency. Students are in labs under two circumstances. One, they are in the lab on their own personal time, and therefore should be able to use the computers for personal needs. If a student wants to spend their study hall playing video games on the computer, then they should have the right to do that. The only time a content filter should be applicable in that situation is for blocking websites that could possibly have trojans, but that could also be avoided for keeping a block up restricting all downloads, which would be a logical and very practical idea. The second situation is when a student is in the lab in class. Virtually every computer in every lab is situated in a manner where a teacher has full view of what they are doing. If they are not doing the assignment by instead playing video games or surfing the net, it is the teacher's responsibility, not Websense's, to make sure the student stays on task. The two instances which students would be in a computer lab, logically, would require almost no content filter.

Are we not trusted? If not, what did we ever do to lose this trust? Even if we had the trust, what would we even be feared of doing on the computers with full internet access? Websense serves no logical purpose at this school. It is a source of power, and it is completely unnecessary. It is a restriction of freedom of speech, and not only that, it is a restriction on every student's ability to use the Internet to their full ACADEMIC potential.

Too long have we been tyrannized by this evil program. Too many times have we been unnecessarily blocked from websites that have 100% academic value. Too many students have been undeservingly punished for a crime that was never committed by any person at Maggie Walker. It is time for a change; we must open our eyes! Websense is indeed a "deeply flawed technology." We have gone through too many years of being hassled by a content filter that stands for much, much more than a simple program that specializes in "Web security gateway software."

It stands for power that has been unjustly assumed at this school, and in the world. It stands for restrictions placed on students at MLWGS and citizens of the world without their consent and without logical reason. It stands for all of the nonsense that creates roadblocks for academic and civil progression! It is indeed nonsense, nothing more! We must rid ourselves of this Webnonsense.

Pardon the Procrastination

2009-05-05T18:29:00.003-04:00

Hey guys sorry I only got up one post last week. From AP tests to SATII's, I was busy to say the least. I'm working on a post right now, and hopefully I'll get it up by later tonight. Anyway, thanks for tuning in!

The Death Penalty

2009-04-28T20:42:00.004-04:00

The use of capital punishment, or the killing of a person by a judiciary for retribution for a certain crime, has become a very prevalent issue in America's society. In most cases, the death penalty is typically instituted in situations of aggravated murder, for example, when the sole purpose of the crime is to murder; it is typically associated with use of a deadly weapon. Some arguments for capital punishment are that it deters crimes from happening, makes sure criminals do not repeat the offense, and it is closure for loved ones. On the other hand, opponents of the death penalty argue that it does not prevent crimes from happening, it cheapens human life, and it puts the government on the same moral level as the criminals it kills. All of these arguments, either for or against, should have no leverage in the decision of whether or not the death penalty should or should not be legal. They all have to do with emotion and contentious logic, and when the matter has to do with something as precious as human life, there can be no room for debatable conclusions.

When one looks at the Constitution and its relationship to the laws of our country, the main point where people's opinions differ is how strict it should be interpreted. On top of that, the Founding Fathers in some instances used very, very vague language. I believe they did this on purpose, and it has resulted in a Constitution that can be interpreted to fit the times of a forever changing society and country. With that being said, in the circumstance of capital punishment, one must look at several tiers of interpretation.

On the most basic level, in the preamble to the Constitution, the Founding Fathers strongly insisted on the importance of the right to life for all of its citizens. They considered this right to life inherent, and in no circumstances could the government take away this right away from its citizens. This is an important concept regarding capital punishment. Does the government have the right to take away the right to life of a citizen for extreme crimes? Another element to the argument is of course the 8th Amendment, under which, it states that there will be no "cruel and unusual punishment inflicted" upon any citizens convicted of a crime. This vague wording leaves interpretation of what "cruel and unusual punishment" really means. Over the years, the courts have generally decided that capital punishment is not cruel and/or unusual, therefore, mainly because of stare decisis, the death penalty has never been outlawed by the Supreme Court. As far as the state level goes, Nebraska and New York are the only two states that have passed legislation making the death penalty illegal. Because of the lack of clarity and the general subjective nature of the 8th Amendment, it should not be considered in deciding if capital punishment should be legal in the United States.

The final and most important level of elucidation of the correct role of capital punishment lies within the government theory that the Founding Fathers subscribed to. One of the most important aspects of their political theory was the idea that one of the federal government's prime jobs was to help limit the passions of its people. For example, in terms of capital punishment, when a citizen kills another citizen in cold blood, the family or close friends of that victim are drastically affected emotionally, in other words, by passion. A loved one has cruelly been taken away from them, and there is no wonder that they want to see the convicted criminal punished, typically killed by means of the penalty of death. But, the government cannot succumb to the emotional elements of crime, especially when it deals with human life, the most precious of human elements. The government has the responsibility to limit the passions of the people in order to protect themselves as well as other citizens.

So, by looking at the major facets of this complicated problem, we are left with the government's business in limiting the passions of its citizens combined with the correct role of the right of life in the sense of extreme crimes. Yet, one part of the relationship between the government and its citizens is the social contract that all citizens enter in by actually being a citizen. This contract, known as the social contract, is an important part of John Locke's theory of government, who happened to be one of the chief influencers on political thought of the Founding Fathers. What this social contract protects is that if the government violates any of the enumerated rights of its citizens, then the citizens have the right to overthrow that government. BUT, the contract goes both ways. If the citizen breaks that contract, as if he or she violates the rights of another citizen, the government has the right to take away some rights of that citizen in order to promote the greater good for society.

What we have here is a paradox. If a citizen kills another citizen, then that citizen has broken the social contract with our government, and therefore the government has the right to suspend some of his or her rights, in the case of capital punishment, the right to life. But, the government's chief responsibility is to protect every single citizen's right to life, no matter what. Now, through in the concept of the government's responsibility to restrict the passions of its citizens, we are left with all sorts of contradicting logic.

What do we do? We choose the most logical of all three ingredients of government, and that is the governments protection to the right to life of all citizens, no matter what. Capital punishment should play no part in our society. All decisions made by our government should begin with our Constitution and they should end with them as well, regardless of any political theory. There are other means of punishing criminals in society, but if they are citizens, they should not be devoid of any rights.

An important and final example I have is the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11th, 2001. Out of the 19 plane hijackers that staged the attacks, none of them were citizens, and most of them only had visas. These men, and the men who organized the attacks, had no right to life to be protected by the United States government. They were not citizens, and therefore, our Constitution does not apply to them. Every single person who was involved with those illegal and terrible attacks should be captured and immediately disposed of. They took away rights of our very own citizens, and because they have none in the United States, they should be treated like they treated the United States. But perhaps, I am speaking in subjective passion, something that has no role in political and legal thought in the United States. After all, passions are dangerous, almost as dangerous as a government who does not respect the rights of all of its citizens.

It's the Environment, Stupid!

2009-04-24T16:30:00.003-04:00

In honor of Wednesday's status as Earth Day, I suppose I'll keep with the spirit and write about the environment.

Among the multitude of causes and ideas pushed forward in the 21st Century, perhaps the one with the most momentum, clout, and popularity is the push for the protection, healing, and general promotion of the health of the world environment. There are several levels of this issue, which include the role of the government in the issue, the role of the world in the issue, the role of society, the individual, industrial companies, etc. This push for good treatment of the environment is part of a large movement for reform in the United States, very similar to the Progressive Movement of the early 20th Century, characterized by figures like Howard Taft and Theodore Roosevelt. Started under Richard Nixon, Earth Day was created in the 1970's, and has only gained more and more clout each year it has been in existence. With certain issues of today such as global warming, this wave of environmental awareness is gaining more and more daily relativity and momentum.

Now let me make my intentions clear... we can no longer ignore the health of the world. From all sides, our effort has been poor. Businesses are reluctant to spend money in order to help the environment. Individuals take general apathy for the topic, even worse than their general apathy to most political topics. Pro-environment groups consist mostly of left-wing extremists that alienate the average person, which eventually results in a low number of participants involved with the movement. Overall, nobody seems to want to give up any ground on the issue.

There are no longer any logical reasons to not be pro-environment in today's world. We are on this Earth together, and so we might as well take care of it, whether it be for the future or your own personal health. Of course, like most of anything, this movement will never work unless we are all participants. We are one big chain that consists of many links, and if one link is broken, we will lose our grip on our goal. Businesses must go green- all businesses. Manufacturers must go green- all manufacturers. And most importantly, individuals must go green- all of us.

After establishing the fact that participation is the key, let me turn this around a little bit. What role should the government play in all of this? The bare minimal. Yes, go green in the sense of business, another link to the chain. But, the government should not do much more than play on the same level as its citizens and businesses in the country. The bare minimal, in other words, does not include making the environment a chief priority in the government's budget. We have a great deal of poverty in this country, and I'd like to see you try and convince somebody who cannot provide food for his family that finding an alternative energy source is more important than having a functioning welfare program. We have a great deal of crime in this country, and I'd like to see you try and convince the mother of a son who was murdered over drugs that using recycled material is more important than finding the criminals who have killed her son. On September 11, 2001, this country was sucker punched by a group of terrorists that did not act on just cause, and you are willing to tell me that protecting polar bears is more important than protecting American citizens' (yours, too) lives? I am not saying that the government should not follow good environmental practices, rather, I am saying that that is all they should do. I am tired of pro-environment extremists trying to make the protection of the environment the chief priority of the government. Yes, it is important, but, the real power in the situation remains in the hands of people. If we are organized and committed, we will not need a government telling us what to do and spending our money on a cause that we are fully capable of handling ourselves. I am fully trusting in the people of the United States, of the world even, to attack this problem of protecting the environment without the governments of the world being the main role players.

Down to our cores, we are all moral people. (Well, the majority of us.) None of us like being told what to do, especially if we think we can do a better job at handling a problem. I believe that we can do a better job at protecting the environment that any government could do. We have the power to organize, so let us do it. We have the power to spend our money, so let us do it. We have the power and capability to make the best decisions on a matter such as the environment, so let us do it. It's not complicated; know your role, and assume it. It's the environment, stupid!

An Undeserving Nation, I Challenge You.

2009-04-19T20:34:00.001-04:00

A phrase that I have been heard a lot of recently is, "Obama is messing up America," or "Obama did this today; he's never going to fix this economic problem." Even something simple as "Obama's stimulus package" is tossed into arguments that seem to fight against the president. What I see happening in the American political system disgusts me. Our original delegation of powers and responsibilities to the three branches of government has become grossly distorted. I credit this to a number of things, which includes the media, America's foreign relations, and the American people's regard to the government. The United States presidency has assumed a role in our government today that not only is inappropriate, but one of the biggest problems that faces our country today.

As for the causes, I stress that the group who is mainly at fault for this is none other than ourselves, the American people. What we live in is a Republic, which is a form of Democracy. Literally, a Republic is a government that is run by people who are elected by the citizens of the country. Even down to its most fundamental basics, our form of government cannot work without the participation of its citizens. What our society has become is a healthy mix between heavy apathy and lack of responsibility. We continually take for granted this brilliant system of government, and continually do things that will ultimately send it to its demise.

If you were born in the United States, or have gone through the naturalization process, you are a citizen of the US. But, the vast majority of citizens of the United States do not even know what it means to be a citizen. Coupled with our responsibilities as citizens, we have a tremendous amount of benefits that are direct consequences of our citizenship. We have a huge deal of freedom in this country, and if there is any country that is more fair to live in in the world, I dare you to show it to me. We must never take for granted the huge amount of rights, freedoms, and liberties we have been given in this country. Along with these advantages, there are things we must in return give back to our government. Yes of course, there are what some call "civic responsibilities" such as voting, petitioning, joining a political party, etc., but there is a part of citizenship that goes typically unnoticed. It is so obvious, that the Founding Fathers failed to make it a requirement because they felt that it could never go unnoticed. This missing part is simply the mindset one must have to be an actual citizen. We as a society-- as Americans-- have lost this mindset, and in turn, we have lost our identities as citizens of the United States. We have reached rock bottom; we can no longer assume responsibility for what our government does for us. We have forgotten that this is OUR government, not Barack Obama's. It was OUR government, not George W. Bush's, that invaded Iraq. It was OUR government, that WE elected. We cannot forget that our government is truly of the people, by the people, and for the people, and we cannot let our government be anything other than that.

Being a citizen of the United States is a huge responsibility, one that cannot be ignored. Because it is a government of us, by us, and for us, wouldn't it be logical that we must assume responsibility for what the government does? And wouldn't it also be logical that it is also our fault if the government becomes too powerful, and does things that we do not necessarily agree with? Of course, there is never complete accordance, but once the dii have been cast, and once a decision has been made, what right do we have to back away from it and blame our government for a decision that we let be made? For those of you who have condemned George W. Bush for invading Iraq, may I remind you what the mood in our country was after we were attacked on September 11, 2001? May I remind you how scared we were, and how angry we were people had come in and ruthlessly killed innocent people? We wanted blood! We did not care whose it was, but we had been sucker punched by a weak force, and we were going to show the world that we are not the sorts of people to lay down and die after being hit with our backs turned! If you can remember that feeling, and how much freedom we GAVE our government, I dare you to blame our involvement in Iraq on one man, and still think you are right. And for those of you who think Barack Obama is at fault for being president while a stimulus package is being passed, of which you do not agree, I remind you that it is not his government. Barack Obama has no stimulus package. Barack Obama is one man. I urge you to look beyond our national symbol of a president into what really has passed these pieces of legislation that are filled with pork-- Congress. This faceless body is hard to blame, but before you try to put the blame on them, I urge you to put the blame on yourself and your neighbors. You voted, and if your candidate did not win, do not give up. In America, in case you did not know, your voice can be heard, so SPEAK! Let your opinions be heard, and perhaps you will accomplish more than you think you can.

I say it again and again, that it is OUR government, now we must act like it is! We have elected this government, and we trust in our Constitution, so when something goes wrong, the only way the finger should be pointing is right back at yourself. A Democracy should eliminate all complaints of the people, because the people are the government. We are not controlled by an evil, authoritarian dictator, who will kill you if you speak out. In fact, we are not controlled by any person. We control ourselves, and the way we have been acting in recent years proves that we do not deserve to control ourselves; we are not capable.

Consider this a challenge. I challenge the American people to take responsibility. Take charge of your government, because it is truly the only thing you have. We have all been given the great gift of citizenship, so now it is time to educate ourselves and truly learn what it means. Step up to the plate and assume liability for what goes on in this country and government. We can eliminate the negative aspects of our country if we truly take the potential of our government to its fullest. Some say perfection is impossible to achieve, yet, there is no achievement without striving, without trying.

Roe v. Wade

2009-04-14T19:30:00.000-04:00

The Constitution of the United States is a living document that has blessed the United States with its first ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights. This legal doctrine is a guide to the protection of inalienable rights naturally given to all American citizens. The Founding Fathers were well read in the fields of the nature of a republican government, and they agreed that the role of government should be to protect the basic rights of its citizens, as well as to control the passions of the people to limit tyranny of the majority. These basic rights embody what the United States is as a republic of individual freedoms. The right to property- what all the Founding Fathers believed was one of the most important basic rights, and the government needed to protect it. The right to liberty- the ability to be free on an individual level, not being restricted or oppressed by society or a government, and the government needed to protect it. And finally, the right to life- to live, to succeed, to achieve the other basic rights- is perhaps the most paramount basic right given to all citizens, and the right that government must protect. We live in a country where these rights indeed are protected by our government. We have established things such as a police force to protect our rights (the right to life). Abortion, the aborting of a fetus from a woman’s body, is an act that is said to be the equivalent to murder. With this previous knowledge of the role of government in our lives, the decision must come down to the distinction between having citizenship and being alive. As established in Roe v. Wade, a fetus is not a citizen of the United States until it is “viable,” or able to sustain life outside its mother’s womb. In addition to that, a child becomes viable in the window of 24 to 28 weeks inside the mother’s womb. The only circumstance in which a woman may have an abortion after that allotted time is when giving birth would be hazardous to the mother’s health. This distinction between life and citizenship is not spelled out anywhere in the Constitution of the United States. To what government institution does this power to delegate this distinction go to? Some may say it is the Judicial Branch of the United States- the power of knowledge and logic. What people do not realize is that the Supreme Court really had no right in declaring abortion legal or illegal. In fact, the power should lie within the states. The Tenth Amendment says that all powers not given to the federal government belong to the people and the states. Abortion is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. Neither is abortion a personal “right.” People forget that all rights that should be protected by the federal government are in the first ten amendments of the Constitution. Because of this, Roe v. Wade in of itself is an unconstitutional ruling, and the issue of abortion should be left to the state legislatures. The States is where the majority of power should lie. The United States of America is a republic. We elect people that represent us on many levels of government, but where our lives are affected the most lies in the level of State governments. Education is the best example of that- a power given solely to the State governments. Abortion is a modern day issue, and the only way to tackle it is to break it down by the most democratic means available. We can make laws personal again by utilizing the small instances of direct democracy that are available in the US. We must use the power to compromise and democracy to insure that the laws that affect many of us daily are unique to where we live and what we believe. I call for the nullification of Roe v. Wade and holding general elections across the United States to make sure that what we have established as law is truly relevant to our society today.