We've all heard it, Ronald Reagan, the great savior and patron saint of the Republican Party. The major reason he is regarded as a great president is because of the security and safety he gave the country during the Cold War. A sense of strength. This part may be true, but the reality is the Reagan years were plagued by recession, high unemployment, skyrocketing debt, wasteful spending, questionable and shady foreign policy, and an ignorance of domestic issues, specifically AIDS, education, and the environment.
First I'm going to take a look at the economics of Reagan's presidency. The most common misconception is that Reagan saved our economy with his famous Reaganonmics. This of course included the modern trickle-down theory or supply-side economics, which included major tax decreases, specifically on the wealthy. These tax decreases, coupled with high military spending, created a massive debt and led the country into the worst depressions since the Great Depression.
When Reagan entered the presidency in 1981 the national debt was at $900 billion. By the time he left it had over tripled to $2.8 trillion. To top it off, many of the military projects the money was used to create went unused or incomplete. Remember Star Wars?
Skyrocketing debt was not the only problem. With the recession obviously came unemployment. After the Reaganomics policies were put in place unemployment steadily and quickly grew until it peaked at 11%, one of the highest unemployment rates on record. Also hit by the recession were businesses. Growth and sales stalled. This did not affect many major corporations, however. Reagan's policies were leniant, and in some cases even encouraging, when it came to outsourcing, and moving companies and jobs overseas. All of these elements created a recession which lasted about two years.
Reagan did however get the country out of the recession, but he did it by abandoning his beloved Reaganomics, and raising taxes 11 times in his last 6 years. The largest of these was the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibilty Act of 1982. It was written and proposed by the Democratic Congress, and was reluctantly signed in by Reagan. This was the turning point and boost the economy needed, and spurred economic growth. For some reason today's Republicans still cling to the failed policy that is trickle-down.
Reagan also struggled with domestic and foreign issues. Something not talked about a lot is Reagan's mishandling of the AIDS crisis, which killed tens of thousands. Little medical aid, money, or policies were set up to combat it. It was put on the back-burner, to be dealt with after military issues. Also ignored was the education system. He did nothing to stop the downhill slide of inner city schools, and crumbling systems. Reagan publicly denounced public education and tried, unsuccessfully, to privatize many schools. He continued his campaign against public education by halving federal aid for higher education. As stated before, the environment, an important issue for many preceding years, was ignored by Reagan. He famously removed the White House solar panels put in place by Carter. He didn't stop there however. Funding for clean energy projects was cut and he worked to privatize government land as well as clean energy facilities.
It's apparent that issues overseas took precedence. But even with all this focus, Reagan became misguided. He was so caught up with fighting communism and keeping the Soviets out of Afghanistan, that he failed to see he was aiding a western and U.S. hating militant group. The Taliban, the same group that attacked America on 9/11, and we were fighting for over ten years, were trained and supplied by the United States.
Sure, he kept the Soviets out of Afghanistan, but the whole idea that he brought the downfall of the Soviet Union and ended the Cold War is a myth. The Soviet Union collapsed under its own policies. Policies like perestroika and glasnost. These polices strengthened the individual Soviet states, allowing more independence and market-reform. These in turn brought more revolution amongst the states. Obviously Reagan had little to nothing to do with this.
Many also question his foreign policy regarding Latin America. Reagan sunk billions of dollars into small wars in countries like Nicaragua. These were done without consulting Congress and were done merely to protect our nation's business interests, or show strength during the Cold War, by combating that horrible thing called Communism. Unfortunately some of the dictators America backed and put in place were worse than those we overthrew.
All of these factors put together: the horrible recession and subsequent abandoning of his own policies, the ignorance of AIDS and our education system, and his shady foreign policy, prove how truly bad of a president he was. The glory given to him today is only advanced by myths and ignorance of facts. Reagan is not the great president he's made to be. Rather, he is probably the most overrated president in our history.
Monday, October 15, 2012
Sunday, September 30, 2012
The Bible: Best Selling Fiction
As a tie-in to the last essay regarding religion as a whole, this week's is about the basis of the Christian and Jewish faiths: The Bible. The most famous, most common book in history. And also the best selling fiction of all time.
From beginning to end, the Bible is riddled with contradictions, ridiculous stories, and lies. Now, I could list and go into detail about every little contradiction but I don't have the time or space. Besides you can go to any reputable website to look those up. I'm going to discuss the major conflicts, stories, and lies that are in the supposed Word of God.
If the Bible is the word of God and the writers were divinely inspired, meaning that God himself was working through them, then why are there errors, impossible and fake stories, and contradictions. Why would God inspire two conflicting things, or allow errors. Many stories even conflict about the very being of God, who is suppose to be a part of the writing. Some stories say God knows our sins, others say he doesn't always. Some say he is omniscient, others say he is not. (The fact that it's impossible to be both omniscient and omnipotent is beside the point.) Some stories dispute whether he is peaceful and merciful or venegeful. Others disagree on whether God changes.
What are most important of these are the last two. The God of the Old Testament is a God who leads the Jews into battle and orders them to destroy cities, and kill the inhabitants, taking the land for themselves. This God shows little mercy for those who disobey him, while showing jealousy,even admittedly, for false idols, like Baal. He instructs robbery, murder, and sacrifice. The laws he gave to Moses, as the Ten Commandments, only applied to within the Jewish tribe. This is quite apparent after reading everything God does, and instructs the Jews to do. Let's not forget the mass genocide that took place as a result of the Genesis Flood. Not very forgiving of God, was it?
The God of the New Testament does a complete 180. He tells us to never, no matter what, kill, sacrifice, or rob. He tells us to love our friends and pray for our enemies. Apparently God decided that praying for someone he didn't like was better than killing them, or having the Jews kill them for him. How could anyone say this is the same God?
It's no wonder the violent Jewish zealots rejected Jesus as the Messiah. They expected a warlike God who would lead them in battle against the Romans. They believed this because that's what their scripture, the Old Testament, told them. Jesus was a man of peace, not war. But of course, Jesus' life would have to true in order to support this, and the reality is, we know nothing about the real Jesus. We don't even know if their was a real Jesus. There is no historical evidence of his existence. The Bible doesn't count. That would be circular reasoning, besides, we've learned from experience that it is quite unreliable. There are no actual recordings of his birth of life. The only thing we have is the Bible. Just to humour you I'll use it anyways, and even then you will see how fake that story is.
The birth of Jesus is completely false in itself. The story goes that Mary and Joseph traveled to Bethlehem, the city of Joseph's ancestors, to take a census. The thing is, none of King Herod's records show any census. Even if there was, it doesn't make sense to make citizens travel to the city of an ancestor who lived hundreds of years before. What about those that weren't born in, or whose ancestors weren't born in Herod's kingdom? What if the city no longer existed? Wouldn't it be easier to simply take it at their current residence so it's done faster? All these questions are hypothetical of course and would only apply if there was actually a census that took place.
So how did the birth of Jesus actually happen? We'll never know, but we do know it certainly didn't happen how the Bible describes it. Every aspect: the star, the wisemen and gifts, the shepherds, and the humble birth, were all stolen from other stories from around the Medittereanan. This can be seen in his life story as well.
Many aspects of the Gospels are stolen from famous epics and mythology. Many gods before Jesus were born from a god and mortal mother. Hercules is a good example. Even his dying words were "It is finished." Another god, Osiris, was was born from a virgin, died and rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. The most interesting case however is that of the son of the god Zeus, Dionysus. He too was on December 25th to a virgin mother, and he also healed the sick, turned water to wine, and rose from the dead to save humanity. Sounds familiar. The only difference is that the story of Dionysus was written two hundred years before the story of Jesus.
{An interesting side note about "virgin" is that the word itself was mistranslated. The Hebrew word "almah", from which virgin was taken, simply means "a marriageable woman." The whole idea that Mary was a virgin is a sham, which is extremely detrimental to Catholic doctrine.}
Even if Jesus was real, he wasn't even the first, or last, "Messiah." There were others who claimed to be messiah as well. The most famous of these was a man named Apollonius of Tyana. In fact, there is more historical evidence of his life than there is of Jesus. His disciples claimed the same things Jesus did like heal the sick, raise the dead, and walk through walls. The thing is Apollonius and his disciples couldn't have been aware of Jesus. Jesus would have been just one of many. If he even did claim to be the Messiah, he was either a con artist or delusional. The entire life and story of Jesus is pure and simple plagiarism.
The Old Testament is filled with even more ridiculous stories, and is riddled with contradictions and story holes. Some attribute these holes to events or pieces being left out, but why is something important enough to reference not included in the actual narrative.
Today Christians use the excuse of 'symbolism' to explain these ridiculous stories, which have no proof or fact behind them. First of all, how far can symbolism go? As more evidence and historical facts come out we are finding out that a lot of what the Bible says happened, didn't really happen. If you say the whole thing is symbolic then your entire reliance on the Bible, the core of your faith, is pointless.
Secondly, the whole idea of symbolism is false. These stories were written literally. The writers wholly believed in what they were writing and what they had heard through oral tradition. Many theologians say the writers wrote these stories to explain to ancient people who couldn't understand the science of it. But how could these writers know any more than those listening. Answer: once again, it's simply because they were written literally.
Most of these stories were written literally, but some were pure lies. Stories like Noah's Ark and the Exodus. Noah's Ark was based on a real flood, but it happened only in the Tigris-Euphrates basin. The story goes that a rich king named Gilgamesh had a large boat he used to take his family across the basin where he landed on the base of a mount. The Exodus on the other hand has no historical record. Nothing in the Egyptian records talks of Jewish slaves, let alone an exodus of them. There is also no archaeological evidence found of the Jews journey in the desert. Nothing was left behind in those 40 years?
These are just larger examples of stories and excerpts that just don't make sense in the Bible. Of corse this makes sense for a book written hundreds, to almost a thousand years after these stories supposedly took place, by writers whose goal is religious persuasion. But of course, we have to give them some credit. They did create the best selling fiction book of all time.
What are most important of these are the last two. The God of the Old Testament is a God who leads the Jews into battle and orders them to destroy cities, and kill the inhabitants, taking the land for themselves. This God shows little mercy for those who disobey him, while showing jealousy,even admittedly, for false idols, like Baal. He instructs robbery, murder, and sacrifice. The laws he gave to Moses, as the Ten Commandments, only applied to within the Jewish tribe. This is quite apparent after reading everything God does, and instructs the Jews to do. Let's not forget the mass genocide that took place as a result of the Genesis Flood. Not very forgiving of God, was it?
The God of the New Testament does a complete 180. He tells us to never, no matter what, kill, sacrifice, or rob. He tells us to love our friends and pray for our enemies. Apparently God decided that praying for someone he didn't like was better than killing them, or having the Jews kill them for him. How could anyone say this is the same God?
It's no wonder the violent Jewish zealots rejected Jesus as the Messiah. They expected a warlike God who would lead them in battle against the Romans. They believed this because that's what their scripture, the Old Testament, told them. Jesus was a man of peace, not war. But of course, Jesus' life would have to true in order to support this, and the reality is, we know nothing about the real Jesus. We don't even know if their was a real Jesus. There is no historical evidence of his existence. The Bible doesn't count. That would be circular reasoning, besides, we've learned from experience that it is quite unreliable. There are no actual recordings of his birth of life. The only thing we have is the Bible. Just to humour you I'll use it anyways, and even then you will see how fake that story is.
The birth of Jesus is completely false in itself. The story goes that Mary and Joseph traveled to Bethlehem, the city of Joseph's ancestors, to take a census. The thing is, none of King Herod's records show any census. Even if there was, it doesn't make sense to make citizens travel to the city of an ancestor who lived hundreds of years before. What about those that weren't born in, or whose ancestors weren't born in Herod's kingdom? What if the city no longer existed? Wouldn't it be easier to simply take it at their current residence so it's done faster? All these questions are hypothetical of course and would only apply if there was actually a census that took place.
So how did the birth of Jesus actually happen? We'll never know, but we do know it certainly didn't happen how the Bible describes it. Every aspect: the star, the wisemen and gifts, the shepherds, and the humble birth, were all stolen from other stories from around the Medittereanan. This can be seen in his life story as well.
Many aspects of the Gospels are stolen from famous epics and mythology. Many gods before Jesus were born from a god and mortal mother. Hercules is a good example. Even his dying words were "It is finished." Another god, Osiris, was was born from a virgin, died and rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. The most interesting case however is that of the son of the god Zeus, Dionysus. He too was on December 25th to a virgin mother, and he also healed the sick, turned water to wine, and rose from the dead to save humanity. Sounds familiar. The only difference is that the story of Dionysus was written two hundred years before the story of Jesus.
{An interesting side note about "virgin" is that the word itself was mistranslated. The Hebrew word "almah", from which virgin was taken, simply means "a marriageable woman." The whole idea that Mary was a virgin is a sham, which is extremely detrimental to Catholic doctrine.}
Even if Jesus was real, he wasn't even the first, or last, "Messiah." There were others who claimed to be messiah as well. The most famous of these was a man named Apollonius of Tyana. In fact, there is more historical evidence of his life than there is of Jesus. His disciples claimed the same things Jesus did like heal the sick, raise the dead, and walk through walls. The thing is Apollonius and his disciples couldn't have been aware of Jesus. Jesus would have been just one of many. If he even did claim to be the Messiah, he was either a con artist or delusional. The entire life and story of Jesus is pure and simple plagiarism.
The Old Testament is filled with even more ridiculous stories, and is riddled with contradictions and story holes. Some attribute these holes to events or pieces being left out, but why is something important enough to reference not included in the actual narrative.
Today Christians use the excuse of 'symbolism' to explain these ridiculous stories, which have no proof or fact behind them. First of all, how far can symbolism go? As more evidence and historical facts come out we are finding out that a lot of what the Bible says happened, didn't really happen. If you say the whole thing is symbolic then your entire reliance on the Bible, the core of your faith, is pointless.
Secondly, the whole idea of symbolism is false. These stories were written literally. The writers wholly believed in what they were writing and what they had heard through oral tradition. Many theologians say the writers wrote these stories to explain to ancient people who couldn't understand the science of it. But how could these writers know any more than those listening. Answer: once again, it's simply because they were written literally.
Most of these stories were written literally, but some were pure lies. Stories like Noah's Ark and the Exodus. Noah's Ark was based on a real flood, but it happened only in the Tigris-Euphrates basin. The story goes that a rich king named Gilgamesh had a large boat he used to take his family across the basin where he landed on the base of a mount. The Exodus on the other hand has no historical record. Nothing in the Egyptian records talks of Jewish slaves, let alone an exodus of them. There is also no archaeological evidence found of the Jews journey in the desert. Nothing was left behind in those 40 years?
These are just larger examples of stories and excerpts that just don't make sense in the Bible. Of corse this makes sense for a book written hundreds, to almost a thousand years after these stories supposedly took place, by writers whose goal is religious persuasion. But of course, we have to give them some credit. They did create the best selling fiction book of all time.
Sunday, September 16, 2012
The Evolution of Religion
Each religion, if you think about it, is like its own organism. Each has a body of followers, a head to lead, and a spine, its core beliefs which branch off to nerves to supply and supplement the body. Even St. Paul of Christianity described the Church as a body. If each religion is its own body than each religion is subject to evolution. Religion as a whole is subject to evolution.
As we humans evolved, so did our religions. We created religion in order to understand the world around us. They started as simple tribal beliefs, but they grew more complex as we grew more complex. As our understanding fluctuated so did our religions. Generally though, especially in the last several hundred years, our understanding of the world, and universe, has only increased. This has been detrimental to religion as a whole.
Most religions have evolved over time in order to continue to exist. After all, one of the basic rules of evolution is survival of the fittest. Religions are not immune to this. Science is the catalyst of this evolution. Religions are constantly competing to survive, to agree with science. That's why they continue to look for gaps and holes in science. They fill those with God. As science advances and closes those gaps, religions will no longer be able to use God as an excuse and will have no facts or proof behind them, not that they really do today, but it eventually it will become clear to all. This closing of gaps began hundreds of years ago.
As time went on the weaker religions died out. The tribal religions, the ones with weather gods, then the great mythological gods and religions. This went on until nearly all the ancient religions were gone. Science killed them. Quite frankly, they deserved to go. Facts were against them and they could no longer live. The next weaker religions were the polytheistic. Except for Hinduism, all of these have died as well.
The last religions to stand up to science (but no longer do) are the big four. Judaism, Islam, and of course Christianity. Hinduism too, but I'm honestly surprised it has survived so long. Buddhism is still strong, but I'll get to that later.
The reason the first three still exist is because they fight so hard to exist against science. Monotheism is a strong concept. One God who is not connected to any tangible things like the sun or moon is a hard God to disprove (but he can be). They exist because they cling to gaps and holes, and sometimes even to ones they make up. Another reason they're still around is because their followers just haven't been exposed to or opened their minds to the facts.
As our understanding of quantum physics, the universe, and human psychology and behavior advance so too will the demise of religion. Fact will triumph, science will win, and evolution will kick out religion. But as I said before, there's still Buddhism.
Buddhism has the ability to remain strong because they do not cling to a god. It is a religion of spiritual advancement and peace. It doesn't focus on the worship of a god. It focuses on humanity. I myself am not a Buddhist, nor do I ever plan to be one, but I believe they are the strongest of the remaining religions and have the ability to continue. It doesn't depend on gaps in science. It is for the advancement of humanity.
Now there will always be small tribal religions, but only because those people are isolated. They do not have access to our scientific knowledge, and only have a few hundred followers.
My personal definition of religion is a sect that indoctrinates people into ancient beliefs that either already have or will be, disproven by science. People need to look to facts and science. Only then can they break the chains of indoctrination. Only then can they be enlightened and independent. Then it will not just be evolution of religion. Then it will become a part of human evolution.
[For further reading check out "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, it deals more with the existence of God than religion]
[For further reading check out "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, it deals more with the existence of God than religion]
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Taxes: Only One Way Works
"Death and taxes." We all know the phrase. Nothing is as inevitable as these two things, but fortunately only one is controlled by government (for the most part). In many ways taxes is the key factor in the strength of an economy, and one of the few ways we, as citizens, contribute to our government.
Overtime though, two opposite views have arisen and polarized many people, as well as our two major political parties. One plan is to decrease tax, with most of these benefits going to the wealthy and large businesses. The other is to decrease taxes on the middle and lower class, while raising taxes on the wealthy.
The idea behind the first plan is that giving money to those at the top will cause more investment into businesses and banks. Banks can then loan more for growing businesses. This growth will then trickle down to those in the middle class, who will then have more money to put back into the economy. This plan goes by the names supply-side economics and the trickle-down theory, and is obviously the main Republican tax plan.
The other plan is to raise taxes on the wealthy who aren't paying their fair share, while reducing taxes on the middle class, the largest class. This will give more money to be put into the economy and businesses, and more money directly to the people. Taxing the rich will also even out tax rates with the middle class which will also boost government income. This is the main Democratic tax plan.
Only one of these plans is right, and only one has ever worked: the Democrat's plan. The Republican plan became famous during the Reagan years, as a part of Reagonomics. When Reagan put the plan into action in 1981 it caused mass inflation, stalled business, and an unemployment rate of 11%. This, coupled with massive military spending, led to the worst recession since the Great Depression. Yeah Reagan got us out, and back to a strong economy, but only by raising taxes 11 times in his last 6 years. You know who else used the trickle-down theory? George H.W. Bush, who caused the economy to once again slip back. Then came his son George Bush, and we all know how that turned out.
The Trickle-down theory does not even deserve to be called a theory. It has been proven false numerous times. Much like communism, it only works on paper. Yet the Republicans continue to use it. Is it because they have no other plan to turn to, or just because they're too greedy, or do they seriously believe in this failed plan? Republican voters continue to buy into it to, and believe these taxes decreases are directly for them, when they really aren't.
Since when does decreasing income during economic troubles make sense. When a family is struggling to make ends meet they don't want to make less. Raising taxes, specifically on the wealthy, creates a guaranteed federal income. Lowering taxes for middle and lower class creates money to be put into the economy, and to create jobs. We are the job creators, not businesses. Businesses don't make jobs just to make jobs. That would be stupid. They make jobs based on need, which is controlled by supply and demand. That thing we all learned about in 3rd grade social studies. More money for consumers creates more demand for products and services, which creates need for jobs.
An example of this success can be found with Clinton. 23 million jobs, a powerful stock market, booming business, and a great economy. International economists also support this plan as the only feasible way to grow an economy.
A common misconception about the Democrats is that we want to raise taxes on everybody. We aren't called the party of the middle class for no reason. Our goal is to decrease taxes on those that make less than $250k, while raising taxes on othe wealthy, like businessmen who who pay an average of 10-15% on taxes, like Mitt Romney (13%). These men move businesses, jobs, and their money outside the country to tax havens. Meanwhile those in the middle class are paying their fair share, about 25-33%. Barack Obama himself pays 26%, twice Romney, who makes millions of dollars a month. 15% compared to 33% . No one in their right mind should think this to be fair.
We all want the economy to get better, yet we don't want to do our part. Besides voting, paying taxes is the only way. This message is aimed at the rich in particular. I do not understand how any middle or lower class person or family could support the Republicans strictly for their economic policies. The Democrats have the only proven plan on taxes. It's time we used it to make this country strong again.
Sunday, September 2, 2012
Education: Three Reasons America is Falling Behind
A recent international study ranked the United States 31st in K-12 education, and showed a drop from 7th to 10th in innovation. What happened to the smartest nation on Earth, which was leading the world in education? Well apparently we've slipped, but why? Personally I blame it on three major reasons: spending cuts, failings of school systems, and apathy and failings of students.
Government spending cuts is the largest of the three reasons. The US is 34th in how much of its GDP we spend on education (5.4%). Seems awfully close to 31st. Taking billions of dollars away from education is illogical and hurtful to the economy in the long run. Evidence shows that children with early education are more likely to overcome poverty financial troubles after high school. Programs like Head Start do just that. They help young impoverished children and offer education that can eventually boost them out of poverty. This is exactly what we need, especially with the increasing gap between the rich and poor. So why do politicians, specifically the Republicans, like Paul Ryan want to cut from it? Ryan's budget plan would eliminate approximately 200,000 children from the program in a year, and 2,000,000 over the next ten. That's two million kids who may not come out of their current impoverished conditions. Cuts like this are just pure stupidity.
Meanwhile, Democratic Senator, Tom Harkin of Iowa, introduced a bill designed to expand and improve child care and education for low income families. Why cut from a program that yields $7-9 for every $1 dollar put into it, according to Nobel prize winning economist James Heckman.
More money needs to be put into college education as well. The extensions on student loan rates that President Obama signed into law obviously help college students. The law keeps interest rates on federal loans from doubling this year, a much needed thing. Obama has also expanded college scholarships, something Ryan also wants to cut from. His budget would slash nearly $170 billion dollars from Pell Grants, which would mostly hurt low income students.
An example of spending cuts that hits closer to home is Scott Walker's recent cuts to teachers' benefits. A gross exaggeration made by many, especially conservatives, is that teachers are reaping unfair benefits thanks to the evil union. Though these benefits are high, they are deserved. Teachers, whose salaries are nothing to brag about (between $40k and $55k depending on state), are molding the future through our children. Education is the key to any strong nation and economy, and teachers are obviously what make education possible. Though they get three months of vacation, the time and energy they put in during the school makes up for it. Teachers work for nine hours a day educating our children, then may have to spend more time at home on work. Many also spend hundreds of their own dollars on things for their classes and students that the school doesn't pay for.
If education is what shapes the future of our nation, and determines the strength of our economy, doesn't it make sense to INVEST in it rather than cut from it. As I stated before, we are 31st, spending 5.4% GDP. However we ARE first in something, defense spending. We spend 2.2% GDP (not the most % of all nations), but 2.2 is just too close to 5.4. Another example of imbalanced spending is here in Wisconsin again. The state is spending more on prison system than it is the UW college system. Stupid spending like this needs to stop. I don't know about you but I'm not happy with 31st. We are America after all.
The next problem involves the school systems, and in a way, society as a whole. Mismanagement of schedules and money, and students not being challenged. Schools, specifically public, are becoming more disorganized. Schedule types are changing and money isn't being spent well. A school near me has gone through three schedule changes in the last five years, and recently spent thousands of dollars on a new track and football field rather than toward much needed books and resources. This isn't the only case I've heard or read about and I know it can't be limited. A problem also lies with bad teachers. Though not many, they are a problem. These teachers, many prompted by the school, give out free rides and easy passes, as explained in the next paragraph.
This ties in with the second part of this, students not being challenged. Schools are cutting advanced classes in order to suit scheduling as well as lack of money. Students are also being given endless chances on homework and tests. Grade scores are being dropped, for example an 88 is needed to get an A, or a just a 60 to pass. Students are being babied in order to make them feel accomplished and boost their self-esteem. This is perhaps the result of a larger social trend, in which children are being babied with things like participation or consolation prizes, and weak punishments. All in an effort to make them feel better. All unrealistic things that do not prepare them for the real world. This kind of babying in high school certainly isn't going to prepare them for college or the work world.
The last problem lies with the students themselves. Though not as bad as the other two problems, it is still obviously something that needs to be fixed in order to fix the education problem as a whole. There is a growing apathy among the students. It has always been a problem, but it's on the rise recently. Numerous reports from teachers, specifically through the Internet have revealed an increase in apathy; students just not caring enough too pass. Some even completely uncooperative with teachers, to the point teachers have just walked out of rooms. In some cases, not to be confused with legitimately bad teachers, the schools blame the teachers; a completely unfair charge.
This apathy most likely comes from the mentality that if they failed or find school difficult, then they should just give up now. Another reason is simple hatred of authority, and not wanting to cooperate with teachers who just want to help. Students not trying can also be tied to the many hand-outs and babying they receive from the school. They take these free passes for granted and just don't try. So when work actually does get tough, they think it's too hard for them and just take the fail. Those fails will continue because of endless chances until they finally get a D-, and the school is happy. The student, who shouldn't be happy with a D-, is even happier.
Not enough money being put into education and failings of schools and students are what is holding this country back. All three can be fixed. Spending increases will help with all three. Weeding out bad teachers and fixing the local systems will create a better learning environment for students. And finally, changing student mentality might be the hardest task, but as I said, the reasons can be linked to the other two. If we can fix those, it may have a positive effect on student apathy. America used to be at the top of education, I think it's time we returned.
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Marijuana: Benefits, Myths, and Legalization
One of the largest social issues and debates out there today deals with the legalization and status of marijuana. There are valid arguments... but to me and many others, only on one side. Science is showing what many already knew to be true. Marijuana is completely harmless (both behaviorally and physically), and actually very beneficial.
More and more research is showing that marijuana doesn't actually affect the user's personality or behavior. This classic stereotype of the stupid, low-life stoner who isn't going anywhere in life is no longer the case, and never really was. This lifestyle is not a symptom of marijuana. Rather, marijuana is a symptom of the lifestyle. New research shows people of lower class and/or less intelligence have an environmental predisposition to using marijuana. And it is this group of people who society puts as the face of ALL marijuana users. It is a completely unfair and inaccurate presumption. The majority of users are just normal people looking to have fun with friends, or simply relax. This same stereotyping problem has led to what is called the gateway effect, which states that marijuana use leads to use of harder drugs like cocaine. Though not completely false, this statement is still widely exaggerated. It is the same group of people, those of lower class and living in poor urban environments, that have an environmental predisposition to hard drugs. And obviously marijuana, the most common illegal drug in the world, is going to be their first drug. It is becoming increasingly common nowadays that more intelligent and well rounded people are using marijuana. This can especially be seen in college students. Perhaps more people, specifically these more educated, are realizing the benefits as well as harmlessness of the drug.
Benefits that include the obvious like, helping chemotherapy, HIV, and AIDS patients deal with nausea, pain, weight loss, and anxiety. But newer and even more expandable uses and benefits are being discovered. Marijuana can help with a wide array of cancers from brain to breast cancer, and leukemia to lung cancer. THC, the main compound in marijuana induces autophagy, which causes cancerous cells to feed upon themselves, thus eradicating the cancer. This effect only affects the cancer cells. THC is also being seen as a preventative to cancer, specifically lung cancer. Research, most of which done by universities, found that marijuana users had no increase in cases of lung cancer, and that they actually had fewer than those who did not smoke at all. Smokers of tobacco showed three times that of the control, while people who smoked both tobacco and marijuana faired only slightly better. Marijuana also helped those suffering with Alzheimer's, by reducing the amount of plaque on the brain, as well as those suffering from asthma, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's, schizophrenia, depression/anxiety, and many more. An example i myself can relate to is asthma. Scientists discovered that cannabis smoke can stop an asthma attack in seconds, by immediately opening up the bronchioles. They are not entirely sure how, though. Compare seconds to the minutes it takes for a typical prescription inhaler.
Marijuana also helps in the brain. The common misconception that pot use causes a decrease in intelligence (which once again comes from the stereotype explained above) is actually nearly the opposite of the truth. Though it is proven that marijuana decreases short term memory, equating this with decreased intelligence is unfair and untrue. Ridding the brain of all the unnecessary memories created throughout the day can be seen as cleaning the brain, allowing room for more important information. Cannabidiol, the second largest compound in marijuana, is actually found naturally in our body. Where? In the synapses of our brain. Increased cannabidiol strengthens these synapses, which connect our neurons, therefore strengthening the connections in our brain.
It turns our weed isn't the big bad drug society had it cracked up to be. It's actually an all natural wonder drug which does WAY more than any FDA approved drugs do (which by the way have killed over ten thousand people since records were first kept, and injured countless more). Marijuana? Hmmm...zero. More misconceptions can be found with the legalizing of weed. Recently in California, many parents believed that legalization of medicinal marijuana would cause an enormous increase in teen drug use. What happened? Absolutely nothing, because pot was already so accessible anyways. And neighborhoods with marijuana dispensaries actually showed revitalization. The full legalization of marijuana, especially medicinal, would cause an even greater revitalization in the national economy. I just hope this information and these facts can be seen by everybody and replace the lies and inaccuracies we've heard for years. More people, specifically more doctors and politicians, need to speak out and spread these facts, because this miracle of nature needs to be legalized, not imprisoned with other drugs like heroin.
(For more info and further reading I recommend the book "Smoke Signals: A Social History of Marijuana" by Martin A. Lee)
More and more research is showing that marijuana doesn't actually affect the user's personality or behavior. This classic stereotype of the stupid, low-life stoner who isn't going anywhere in life is no longer the case, and never really was. This lifestyle is not a symptom of marijuana. Rather, marijuana is a symptom of the lifestyle. New research shows people of lower class and/or less intelligence have an environmental predisposition to using marijuana. And it is this group of people who society puts as the face of ALL marijuana users. It is a completely unfair and inaccurate presumption. The majority of users are just normal people looking to have fun with friends, or simply relax. This same stereotyping problem has led to what is called the gateway effect, which states that marijuana use leads to use of harder drugs like cocaine. Though not completely false, this statement is still widely exaggerated. It is the same group of people, those of lower class and living in poor urban environments, that have an environmental predisposition to hard drugs. And obviously marijuana, the most common illegal drug in the world, is going to be their first drug. It is becoming increasingly common nowadays that more intelligent and well rounded people are using marijuana. This can especially be seen in college students. Perhaps more people, specifically these more educated, are realizing the benefits as well as harmlessness of the drug.
Benefits that include the obvious like, helping chemotherapy, HIV, and AIDS patients deal with nausea, pain, weight loss, and anxiety. But newer and even more expandable uses and benefits are being discovered. Marijuana can help with a wide array of cancers from brain to breast cancer, and leukemia to lung cancer. THC, the main compound in marijuana induces autophagy, which causes cancerous cells to feed upon themselves, thus eradicating the cancer. This effect only affects the cancer cells. THC is also being seen as a preventative to cancer, specifically lung cancer. Research, most of which done by universities, found that marijuana users had no increase in cases of lung cancer, and that they actually had fewer than those who did not smoke at all. Smokers of tobacco showed three times that of the control, while people who smoked both tobacco and marijuana faired only slightly better. Marijuana also helped those suffering with Alzheimer's, by reducing the amount of plaque on the brain, as well as those suffering from asthma, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's, schizophrenia, depression/anxiety, and many more. An example i myself can relate to is asthma. Scientists discovered that cannabis smoke can stop an asthma attack in seconds, by immediately opening up the bronchioles. They are not entirely sure how, though. Compare seconds to the minutes it takes for a typical prescription inhaler.
Marijuana also helps in the brain. The common misconception that pot use causes a decrease in intelligence (which once again comes from the stereotype explained above) is actually nearly the opposite of the truth. Though it is proven that marijuana decreases short term memory, equating this with decreased intelligence is unfair and untrue. Ridding the brain of all the unnecessary memories created throughout the day can be seen as cleaning the brain, allowing room for more important information. Cannabidiol, the second largest compound in marijuana, is actually found naturally in our body. Where? In the synapses of our brain. Increased cannabidiol strengthens these synapses, which connect our neurons, therefore strengthening the connections in our brain.
It turns our weed isn't the big bad drug society had it cracked up to be. It's actually an all natural wonder drug which does WAY more than any FDA approved drugs do (which by the way have killed over ten thousand people since records were first kept, and injured countless more). Marijuana? Hmmm...zero. More misconceptions can be found with the legalizing of weed. Recently in California, many parents believed that legalization of medicinal marijuana would cause an enormous increase in teen drug use. What happened? Absolutely nothing, because pot was already so accessible anyways. And neighborhoods with marijuana dispensaries actually showed revitalization. The full legalization of marijuana, especially medicinal, would cause an even greater revitalization in the national economy. I just hope this information and these facts can be seen by everybody and replace the lies and inaccuracies we've heard for years. More people, specifically more doctors and politicians, need to speak out and spread these facts, because this miracle of nature needs to be legalized, not imprisoned with other drugs like heroin.
(For more info and further reading I recommend the book "Smoke Signals: A Social History of Marijuana" by Martin A. Lee)
Intro to the Author
To anyone reading, welcome to my site. My name is Tanner Bowen. I am a freshman at the University Wisconsin-Madison, and I live in Wisconsin. My intended major is Molecular Biology, as a part of a pre-med program, in order to become a neurologist.
I will be writing essays on a wide array of topics concerning politics, science, society, philosophy, and current events, as well as a few fun ones here and there. I promise you that I put time and research into each and every essay I write.
Now, I'll admit that I am a strong liberal, and that will show in some of my essays, but I will always make sure facts come first. I do not consider myself affiliated with any political parties. Many of my essays will not concern politics anyways. I hope you enjoy all of them, or at least most, and my overall goal for this site is education.
Thank You
I will be writing essays on a wide array of topics concerning politics, science, society, philosophy, and current events, as well as a few fun ones here and there. I promise you that I put time and research into each and every essay I write.
Now, I'll admit that I am a strong liberal, and that will show in some of my essays, but I will always make sure facts come first. I do not consider myself affiliated with any political parties. Many of my essays will not concern politics anyways. I hope you enjoy all of them, or at least most, and my overall goal for this site is education.
Thank You
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)