My Favorite Movies

I'd consider this list to be a good "Greatest Movies" list as well, but I admit there are many movies, including some classics, that I have not seen. So though I personally believe this to be a list of the best movies, it is strictly speaking my personal favorites list.
1) Pulp Fiction- Quentin Tarantino (Hands Down...)
2) The Departed- Martin Scorsese (constant suspense and an amazing ending)
3) Reservoir Dogs- Quentin Tarantino (greatest independent film ever made)
4) No Country For Old Men- The Coen Brothers (exact to the book. Great directing and Bardem is amazing)
5) Shawshank Redemption- Frank Darabont & Stephen King (it's the story. Brilliant characters)
6) Inception- Christopher Nolan (a truly brilliant masterpiece)
Men in Black (one of greatest, and definitely the most cleverly written, Sci-if of all time. Also touches on political and philosophical topics with great intelligence)
7) Godfather Parts I&II- Francis Ford Coppola (Magnificent, but I just don't see them as number 1 material)
8) District 9- Neill Blomkamp (a hidden masterpiece, if you look beyond just the guns and explosions)
9) Fight Club- David Fincher
10) Inglorious Basterds- Quentin Tarantino
11) Social Network- David Fincher (some of the most intelligent dialogue I've seen in a movie)
12) Little Miss Sunshine- Jonathan Dayton & Valerie Faris (every actor involved was spectacular)
13) I Am Legend-  Francis Lawrence (I honestly think it's underrated)
14) Pineapple Express- David Gordon Green & Seth Rogen & Evan Goldberg (I know, I know, but I just love it)
15) Office Space- Mike Judge (probably one of the most underrated movies of all time)
16) Saving Private Ryan- Steven Spielberg
17) Borat- Sacha Baron Cohen & Larry Charles (I'm sorry, it's just so entertaining)
18) Star Wars: The Original Trilogy- George Lucas (see my Star Wars essay. If I hadn't suppressed my childhood instincts it would have been number one)
19) American Psycho- Mary Harron
20) This Is The End- Seth Rogen & Evan Goldberg (clever, hilarious, and a great ensemble)
21) Groundhog Day- Harold Ramis & Danny Rubin
22) The Shining- Stanley Kubrick
23) 2001: A Space Odyssey- Stanley Kubrick
24) The Dark Knight- Christopher Nolan
25) Gladiator- Ridley Scott
26) Se7en- David Fincher
27) Donnie Darko- Richard Kelly
28) Django Unchained- Quentin Tarantino
29) The Curious Case of Benjamin Button- David Fincher
30) Scarface- Brian De Palma and Oliver Stone
31) Schindler's List- Steven Spielberg (will always be a classic. Great use of black and white)
32) Jurassic Park- Steven Spielberg
33) Crash- Paul Haggis
34) Jackie Brown- Quentin Tarantino
35) Fargo- The Coen Brothers
36) There Will Be Blood- Paul Thomas Anderson (would be lower but THAT LAST SCENE!!! And also Daniel Day Lewis)
37) The Green Mile- Frank Darabont
38) Jaws- Steven Spielberg
39) The Big Lebowski- The Coen Brothers (the rug really brought the movie together)
40) American Beauty- Sam Mendes
37) Moon- Duncan Jones (look it up. It's quite brilliant, like a modern 2001)
38) Inside Man- Spike Lee
39) Full Metal Jacket- Stanley Kubrick
40) Indiana Jones: The Original Trilogy- George Lucas (maybe minus Temple of Doom)
41) In Bruges- Martin McDonagh
42) Seven Psychopaths- Martin McDonagh
43) True Romance- Quentin Tarantino (if only it had been directed by Tarantino... THAT WALKEN/HOPPER SCENE!)
44) Signs- M. Night Shymalan (This used to be my number one a long time ago. People misunderstand the ending and it sort of pains me because it's quite genius)
45) Burn After Reading- The Coen Brothers (clever beyond belief. An exaggerated yet somehow real expression of the way life works... Things just happen)
46) The Pianist- Roman Polanski (a historical masterpiece)
47) Casino- Martin Scorsese (I liked it better than GoodFellas. Pesci and De Niro were amazing)
48) Children of Men- Alfonso Cuaron
49) Caddyshack- Harold Ramis (& everyone who improvised, which is what made it great)
50) Kill Bill Volumes 1 & 2- Quentin Tarantino (Vol. 2 is better)
51) Forrest Gump- Robert Zemeckis (it's Forrest Gump)
52) Godzilla- Roland Emmerich (Grant me this one childhood favorite?)
53) Cloverfield- JJ Abrams (creative and entertaining. The best "found footage" movie)
54) Sixth Sense- M. Night Shymalan
55) Planet of the Apes- Franklin J. Schaffner
56) 40 Year Old Virgin- Judd Apatow and Steve Carell
57) The Hangover- Todd Phillips
58) The Prestige- Christopher Nolan (One of Nolan's lesser appreciated works. Caine and Bale are great, oh and also... David Bowie as Tesla? Awesome)
59) Juno- Jason Reitman (Ellen Page is stupendous! Another great dialogue piece)
60) Up in the Air- Jason Reitman
61) Napoleon Dynamite- Jared Hess (independent turned classic. Having absolutely no plot is an amazing twist)
62) Dazed and Confused- Richard Linklater (like Napoleon Dynamite it has no real plot but is a coming of age classic nonetheless. Also, an awesome soundtrack)
63) Unbreakable- M. Night Shymalan
64) Ferris Bueller's Day Off- John Hughes (a fun classic)

On Patriotism

Patriotism is a dangerous, and I think, rather stupid thing. It is the act of being proud of of one's country. Any degree of patriotism is dangerous, as the next step is nationalism. Patriotism in America specifically is synonymous with nationalism. When we reach this level of patriotism we assume or imply that our country is superior to that of others', and our citizens are superior to those of other countries for living in our country. It is an arrogant and ignorant idea to possess. Perhaps this is why America is disliked so much- our arrogance and ignorance stemming from our strong patriotism. When we see ourselves, society, and state (gov't) as superior we lose touch with the rest of humanity. We separate ourselves. We become selfish as a nation and people.
Besides, why should I be proud of or adopt the idea of patriotism simply because I was born in America- inside of an invisible line on a map. Maybe we feel entitled to patriotism because we helped build this nation, or because we are a part of its government. The reality is that when we become proud of our government or country we become proud of all its actions, including the the wrong ones. Patriotism, especially that put forth by the government, threatens individuality by attempting to unite us behind everything the government does. Without individuality we are nothing but sheep. The strength of a country should not be decided by how strong of a following the government has but by how much the people can think for themselves and decide if what the government is doing is right or wrong.
Many, especially the far right, become patriotic about an idea of America that does not even exist. As far as America goes, we are not the best off nor are we even the most free. I will not be the patriot of a country that continues to deny the rights of minorities, women, homosexuals, and the poor, through its legislation, courts, and economics. I will not be the patriot of a country that allows the growth of the wealthy at the expense of the poor, the world, and the environment, through laws and war profiteering. I will not be the patriot of a country where in many places the beliefs of one religion govern and represent everybody, spreading bigotry and ignorance.
Only in a society that cares for the equality of all and is built by all and recognizes that we are just people inside lines, humans like the rest, can we be truly proud. This pride, however, is not patriotism but humanism. So rather than be a patriot blinded by rhetoric and empty phrases, be a humanist. Be someone that calls out the evils of the government and political organizations- of the system itself. Be someone that realizes we should not be supporting the superiority of our government or people but the humanity of it. We are all just humans living in lines. We may have different cultures, but in the end we are humans who are all equal.
One major step we can take to achieve this is to change how we perceive our own government. As Noam Chomsky said, the best way to approach our own government is with the principle of universality. We must apply to ourselves (our gov't and society), the same standards we apply to others. Our system is based too much on rhetoric and meaningless phrases, used to gather quick support. The people become blinded by this rhetoric, which leads to blind patriotism. If we assume that our government is naturally more ethical than others we are choosing to live in a world of illusion. To break this we must look at the evidence for what our government actually does and apply the same ethical principles that we apply to other governments, to our own. In other words, don't be hypocritical.
Some of the previously stated blind rhetoric comes into play when talking about the military, war, and the troops. I support the troops for their necessary commitment to the country, but our government's rhetoric has led to several misconceptions about our soldiers. First of all, the troops are not fighting for our freedom, and they haven't since the Civil War. (This does not mean there have not been good reasons to go to war, for example the World Wars were to protect the safety and freedom of Europe). The only people threatening our freedom are politicians, with laws that hurt women, gays, the poor, minorities, non-Christians, and the environment. A second misconception is that the troops are defending our country. Defending our country does not mean going to other countries to kill people. That's called avenging, and it has only done more harm than good (this is not the troops fault however). Only when troops are fighting enemies on our soil, or to keep them out of America is it defending. Do not misconstrue my words though. The military is necessary for defense, and I thank the troops for their willingness to defend us when that time does come. Finally I also support the troops for all they do. They are not the ones sending themselves to foreign countries to fight or die. It is the rhetoric politicians use to try to equate support of the troops with support of the war that is horribly wrong and deceptive.
In conclusion, patriotism should be abandonded and replaced with humanism. Only then can people open their eyes to deception and inequality. If we rid ourselves of the notion that our country is superior to or separate from another we can better help those in need and start acting as humans rather than patriots.

Religious Violence

When we think about religion, we think about the charity, peacekeeping, and preaching. We might think about the variety of beliefs each religion encompasses, including Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Unfortunately we are also reminded that charity and peacekeeping are not always valued by religions. When we read about events in history books and watch the news at night, we see the problems religious fanaticism can cause. Though the violence may be not be faithful to the core beliefs and values of the religions involved, it is still there nonetheless. Examples of religious violence can be found throughout history, and it ranges on the scale of small events to all-out war.
The first instances date back thousands of years to the persecutions of Jews and Christians for not adhering to the religion of the Roman Empire. Thousands were persecuted and executed over the course of several hundred years. The fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of the Christian Church brought a new persecution, against a fairly new religion though, Islam. Muslims who had migrated into Europe, specifically the Iberian Peninsula, faced harsh treatment and violence for hundred of years. Christians were told to burn and destroy Muslim villages and buildings. This eventually culminated in the expulsion of Muslims from the region.
Hostility toward Muslims did not end there, though. One of the most famous examples of religious violence started during the 11th century and spanned nearly three hundred years. The Crusades were a series of invasions by the Christians to conquer Jerusalem which was controlled by the Muslims. Christians felt it was rightfully theirs, so they led a series of invasions to retake the city and once again force the Muslims out. The Christian Crusades were ultimately unsuccessful and many soldiers were imprisoned and executed by the victorious Muslims.
The next act of violence caused by religion was the infamous Inquisition. It was a 12th century event started by the Roman Catholic Church, whose goal was to fight heresy. They did this by finding and arresting anyone suspected of blasphemy or opposition to the Church. The victim was then tortured until he either died or admitted he had committed heresy. The Inquisition could target anyone, including women and children. This even included pregnant women, whose children were stolen after birth. The mother would often die during childbirth. Imprisonment and torture could last for years. Unfortunately thousands of people were often wrongly accused 
and innocent.
Not as well known but just as deadly were small religious wars and acts of persecution following the Reformation. The numerous splits in Christianity created heated tensions throughout Europe. Germany especially was torn by war between the new Protestants and the Catholics. Places like England and Switzerland used strict religious laws to enforce their respective churches. For example, Switzerland, which was Calvinist, used "morality police" to persecute and "correct" those who did not act according to the Calvinist rules. This period was also plagued by strong corruption in the Catholic Church. Several popes were fighting for the papacy, nepotism was rampant, and greed went uncontrolled (unfortunately greed and hypocrisy is something we still see in the Church today.) All told the Reformation caused the death and persecution of millions... all over minor discrepancies such as the Eucharist and the afterlife.
 Persecution continued for the next several hundred years and is still evident in modern times, including the last hundred years or so. The Holocaust, which caused the extermination of 11 million people, stemmed from Adolf Hitler’s warped religious beliefs, the main one being that God had created the Aryan race superior to others, and that the Jews were the cause of the world’s problems.
Even more examples can be found continuing to this day. The Middle East has seemed to be in continuous conflict since the 1950’s. The Jewish state of Israel and the Palestinian states have been at war for years. Meanwhile, radical Islamic movements have been growing. America has felt this violence in the form of 9/11, when a group of radical Muslims led by Osama bin-Laden attacked several American buildings. This radicalism has been felt across the globe from various terrorist attacks. 
Another issue that is unfortunately virtually ignored is the constant turmoil in Africa. Civil wars and violence envelop many of the developing nations, and has for decades. These clashes stem from differing ethnicity and local religious views, and cause the deaths of millions every year. So called "mercy killings" are also an unfortunate side effect of Islam.
Religions not only are the cause of violence and war, but also the force behind social injustices such as racism and bigotry, specifically against women,homosexuals, and the non religious. This is evident in America today, where the Conservatives are constantly trying to implement their own religious beliefs into the government through legislation. One can also see this overseas where the hatred and degradation of women and gays is much more violent, specifically in the Muslim culture, but also Africa, and even Russia. Putin is now using the state Church to enforce hateful laws and ethics, specifically against gays.
Religion, which should send a message of peace and unity, has been the catalyst of violence, persecution, and wars throughout history. One may say that peace and unity are at its core, and that said violence and bigotry goes against the religion, but this is wrong. One has to wonder why the most hateful in a religious group are called the fundamentalists. These groups adhere to the strict interpretation of their respective religions- to the fundamentals. One only has to read the Bible or Koran to see this.

I'd also like to debunk several horribly inaccurate beliefs regarding atheism throughout history. Many strongly religious people would counter this essay by pointing to the tens of millions of people killed by atheist leaders and dictators, such as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao Zedong. First of all, Hitler was not and never was an atheist. He is quoted several times saying that he believed in a "Supreme Power" called God which had Christian values. This God wanted a world where the Aryan was the dominant race.

Secondly, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao did not kill for atheism. Atheism has no doctrine at all, and therefore nothing to kill for. These horrible people killed for political power, even killing fellow party members (including atheists).

I'd also like to point out that though religion has been quite the cancer to humanity it has done some good things. Though it ultimately caused the dark ages, it did play a part in the revitalization of science (specifically the Muslims) as well as the growth of universities. I highly recommend the book Galileo Goes to Jail: And Other Myths About Science and Religion. [This essay is not however, a summarization of the book. The bulk of research done for this essay was done prior to reading it.]

The Catholic Church's Crisis

The Catholic Church has made some rather bold and surprising moves lately, beginning with the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, and leading to recent remarks by the new pope, Francis. It's obvious the Church is trying to step in a new direction, but will it actually work? In short, no. Before I explain why I would first like to propose a theory (obviously not in the scientific sense of the word.)
        The resignation of Pope Benedict was not a willful one. Forced may be too strong a word to use, but that's basically what I believe it came down to. The Catholic Church was, and still is, at a crisis point. (This part is no theory at all.) They realized this, and decided they needed to fix it. So what do they do? They 'force' the old, conservative, and controversial Benedict out, under the guise of physical inability. (When has this ever stopped them before?) They elect a new pope. A fresh start. Someone they can use to push their new agenda in an attempt to appeal to a wider audience and newer generations. It is also not a theory, but fact, that the Catholic Church is losing numbers in staggering amounts, hence the crisis point. They elect a pope who encompasses many of the problems and attacks the Church faces. With more and more young adults studying the sciences, the Church tries to appeal to them by choosing a chemist. Facing accusations of hypocrisy when it comes to helping the poor while they amass more wealth, they choose a man who willfully lived in poverty and helped the poor. Once the pope was in he began making some surprising remarks. An example is his remark that atheists, despite rejecting God, can still be considered good people, an obvious appeal to the growing non religious. Francis's latest quote regarded homosexuals, in which he stated "If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge." Now this is not a new teaching in the Church, but it has been an issue the Church has remained quite mute on... until now. The Church has recognized the growing support for gay rights and has realized its effect on Church support. So to appeal to the new generation they start anew with a pope who can put out a new message.
        As I said, this is a theory. It is a fact, however, that the Church is at a crisis point. It is also fact that they have realized this and are working to fix it, to bolster its support and numbers. So why won't it work? Because they fail to realize the real reason for their downfall. And this one cannot be fixed.
Though the Church is losing members to other denominations and faiths, the main threat they face is the fast growing non religious population. It is the fastest growing group in the developed world, specifically among high school and college students, the next generation. The Catholic Church has obviously realized this, and as stated before, has made obvious attempts to confront this. They believe the main reason people are turning away from the Church is because of differences with the Church's social stances and appearances, such as with the numerous sex abuse scandals, the hypocrisy of wealth, views on women, and views on gay marriage. Society is becoming more liberal while the Church remains stuck in the past. This is what the Church believes is the problem and why people are increasingly becoming non religious. Though their reasons they face opposition are very true, their reasons for the growing irreligious are wrong. The Church fails to realize that the discourse is not with its social standpoints, but with its dogma and the very idea of a god.
        With more young adults becoming interested in the sciences, and the wealth of knowledge now readily available through the Internet, rational and scientific thought are becoming much more common. People are seeing the logical and ethical fallacies associated with God, religion, and the Bible. They see the incompatibility of science with the idea of a god. Contrary to what many claim, science and religion are not compatible. You cannot put forth fact based and evidenced laws and theories, and then say 'see all these rules based on logic, well a magical man in the sky made them.' It defies reason. And a growing number of people are realizing this. These are the reasons most people are becoming non religious. This is the Catholic Church's biggest threat, and since they certainly cannot abandon God, the Bible, or their dogma, it is one they can do absolutely nothing about.

Humans and Evolutionary Interbreeding

Ever since the Human Genome Project was completed, scientists have realized how close we actually are to other organisms. It was no surprise that the animals we shared the most DNA with, were closer to us on the evolutionary tree. These of course, are the primates, like Chimpanzees, Gorillas, and Orangutans. Since the completion of the Human Genome Project in 2003 scientists have discovered even more about human genetics and our origins. One of the most surprising aspects of our genome, that has shaped us over the years, is interbreeding. Scientists have only recently found out how much interbreeding has actually distinguished us from other organisms and how important it has been to our survival.
The first case of interbreeding occurred nearly 9 million years ago, shortly after the split between chimpanzees and humans. When the Human Genome Project was done, scientists discovered that there was only a 1.5% difference between the two. Even our structural proteins were nearly identical. In fact, human and chimpanzees have identical blood. Scientists realized that there were too many similarities to account for a split nearly 9 million years ago. Scientists hypothesized that humans and chimps must have interbred after the split. They knew that signs of interbreeding, or hybridization, would show on the X chromosome. By looking at the Human Genome research they found that the newest genes did in fact occur on the X chromosome. Scientists were able to reason that, even though we split with chimpanzees nearly 9 million years ago, we continued to interbreed with them until approximately 5.4 million years ago.
An even more groundbreaking discovery came more recently when researchers began decoding the DNA of Neanderthals. Since Neanderthals had already been out of Africa for nearly 200,000 years, scientists had never thought interbreeding had taken place. However, they found that not only was Neanderthal DNA less than 0.5% different than human DNA, but also that most modern Europeans and Asians have about 3% Neanderthal DNA in them. Neanderthal DNA did not occur in Africans. This meant that when modern humans emerged from Africa they encountered Neanderthals from the east and interbred. This interbreeding has been confirmed several times since, after Neanderthal-Human hybrids have been found. Scientists have used this evidence to explain genetic disorders and diseases that are characteristic to only certain ethnic groups. For example, scientists found that men with Neanderthal DNA were much less likely to contract prostate cancer. This could explain why it is much more prevalent in African men. Scientists found that Neanderthals, and other hominids like Denisovans, had stronger immune systems. They had been out of Africa for nearly 200,000 years already and had undergone significant DNA evolution. Interbreeding with them allowed homo sapiens to be better suited for the new environment.
Perhaps it was these superior traits that attracted homo sapiens to Neanderthals. After studying Neanderthal fossils and DNA it became clear just how much better Neanderthals were than humans. Their brains were one-fifth larger, they were taller, stronger, and most likely smarter. They were even better looking. Their high cheekbones, strong features, and facial structure are similar to what we find in the supermodels of today. Scientists found that Neanderthals were even the first blondes. It is no wonder homo sapiens desired to interbreed with them. It's a good thing too, because their genes made us stronger as a species.
One may wonder why such a strong and intelligent species like homo neanderthalensis died out, and a weak, new species like homo sapiens thrived. The answer of course lies in the genome of the Neanderthal. Anthropologists extracted a gene that modified the chemical make-up of certain parts of the brain that affected personality and thought. They found that Neanderthals were most likely too cautious and conservative. They resisted change and therefore could not adapt well over time. This eventually led to their downfall. This resistance to change was perhaps caused by a shorter development period. By looking at fossils of their teeth, researchers found that Neanderthals matured faster and had shorter life cycles. This could have hindered development of portions of the brain. They eventually lost out in the competition with homo sapiens.
Another, much smaller group that interbred with modern humans were the Denisovans. They were a much more recent branch on the evolutionary tree and were located in the far east and Siberia. Denisovan DNA only appeared in modern Pacific Islanders, like those from New Guinea, the Philippines, and Australian Aborigines. It was present by over 5% in some peoples. This meant that interbreeding was more common and more recent than with Neanderthals. The vast range of those with the genes also showed the large movements of the Denisovans.
Scientists are just recently starting to shed light on the interbreeding that occurred thousands of years ago. As they find more and do more research they continue to open the door to a possibly new field of study. By looking for traces of interbreeding they can learn more about our origins, find health trends, and learn about ancient species. By looking at our past of interbreeding scientists can learn more about who we are as homo sapiens- as humans.

Gun Control (A Letter to the Editor)

This is a letter to the editor of my local newspaper in response to a letter regarding gun control. (The name of the person I respond to has been changed.)

Fellow citizens,

Last week John Smith wrote concerning gun control. He listed three points as to why guns are not the cause of gun deaths. He stated that people are "blinded by their anti-gun biases." I would not consider myself anti-gun (I myself am a hunter), but rather anti-death. He goes on to say that the media ignores the facts about guns. Well, I believe that Mr. Smith is ignoring the facts.

He begins by giving Australia as an example country where guns are illegal. He states that since guns were made illegal, assaults increased by 35%. What he fails to mention is that there have been less than 40 gun homicides in each of the last 9 years, even as low as 15 in 2004 and 2005. I would rather have assaults than actual deaths wouldn't you? He then says that if people had guns they might not have been assaulted. Just because you own a gun does not mean you are physically and mentally prepared to kill or harm someone.

In his second point he brings up England, saying they have had over 40,000 firearm offenses. Well obviously, since guns are illegal there. He fails to mention a second fact. England had less than 60 gun deaths last year. Compare this to the United States's 10,700. Let me repeat that number, 10,700. Do you see the difference? He also mention knife attacks, but he does not say how many deaths by knife. There have been slightly over 300 deaths. This is still less than the deaths caused by guns before they were illegal. Once again compare 300 to the 10,700 gun deaths in the U.S. Another point to mention is that the difference between a knife and a gun is that the gun's purpose is to kill. It was made to harm.

His third point brings up Colombia and Mexico. Really? Yes guns are illegal in these countries, but Colombia and Mexico have something else besides a gun problem. The largest and most powerful crime organization in the world- the Cartel. Not only does this massive gang control the streets, but they also control the police, and have influence in the local governments. Nearly all gun deaths can be traced to the Cartel. The police and local governments are so corrupt (often bribed by the Cartel) that the gun laws are not even enforced. So in reality there are no gun laws. Colombia and Mexico are horrible examples.

In the second part of his third point he talks about Switzerland. It is an exception to the normal because of how unique its gun laws are. No, they do not have strict gun control, but they do have strict gun regulations as far as purchases. They are also unique in that every male between 20 and 30 must serve in the military. They are provided with their guns and are trained to use them because they do not have an active militia (the exact reason our 2nd Amendment was made). We've learned from history that Switzerland and its people are very peaceful.

Finally, some conclusions: Japan, the UK, Australia, Canada, Israel, and Germany all have strict gun control laws. All had less than 60, with most less than 40, gun deaths last year. Once again compare this to United States' 10,700 gun deaths. There is a direct correlation!

Gun control laws are not the full answer however. We need stricter regulation and a reorganization, especially in the ATF (Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms) Agency. The ATF has only 2500 members, the same number they had in 1972. The head of the ATF also has two full time jobs. How can we expect his full attention to the ATF?

Another key thing that hinders the ATF is an act passed by Congressional Republicans, specifically Jim Sensenbrenner and Todd Tiahrt of Kansas. The Tiahrt act was jammed into a completely unrelated bill. It prohibited the ATF from tracing back deals in the Federal Registry of Gun Transactions in order to find corrupt dealers. It also prohibited the ATF from inspecting gun dealers' inventories. Gun dealers are also not required to keep track of inventory and transactions. This act was reviewed and approved by none other than the NRA. It makes one wonder what their real intentions are?

Lastly, he continuously brings up the mental state of the killers. First of all mental health is not even a factor in most gun homicides. It only seems like a major reason because of mass shootings. Yes, these mass shootings may not have happened if the shooter received mental care, the same free mental care provided by in the new healthcare. But it seems the same people fighting against gun control are also against Obamacare.

In order to fix our gun problem we need to fix the laws and regulations governing guns, as well as the organization that's suppose to be controlling them.

Change

            Change is a thing we as humans are used to. We may not be prepared or used to the changes themselves, but we have become accustomed to the fact that change is inevitable. To most people, the definition of change is an event we have the ability to react to. It is noticeable, tangible, and can be life altering. Other times change comes in small instances, often ignored, but these changes are still noticeable. It seems that definition of change is ‘an event or variation from the normal.’ However, when we look deeper into the meaning of change, as well as its opposite, our entire view of the definition begins to change.

It is the change that goes unnoticed that often has the largest impact. It is this type of change that could possibly redefine the entire definition of the word. Life is full of things that go unnoticed. It is full of constant variations. These may affect who we are, how we act, and how we appear. They are also constantly changing the world around us, as well as the people around us. These constant changes can lead to a new view of the word.

To better help understand this new view, it is best to look at the opposite of change. The opposite of change is the constant, or static. This is the period during which our everyday lives occur. It is the time that holds our same, monotonous moments. Each day seems exactly like the previous day. But if this is true, then where does the change occur? The answer is that change is always occurring. Those minute, unnoticeable changes are constantly shaping us and our world. It turns out that the only constant in life is change. Change is the only thing we can truly rely on. There is little true static time, or constant.

So rather than the definition of change being an ‘event or variation from the normal,’ it is ‘the change that we actually perceive, from the constant change that is actually occurring.’ In other words, the change we do happen to notice is what becomes the ‘change’ to us.

Our lives are constantly in motion and we are being bombarded with constant variations. Most of these simply go unnoticed. Many of us find that when we look back at our past, we see how different things are. We grew up, and barely noticed. Our personalities evolved and we might have become different people. The people around us changed, but since we changed together, we hardly noticed. This change was always occurring, we just never really noticed, or took the time to notice.

This realization can have positive effects on our life. Maybe we can take the time to notice and pay attention to our lives. The more of this constant change we see, the more in tune we are with our lives and the lives of others. This in turn can lead to a deeper appreciation for the life we have and for the constant change that shapes it, as well as an empathetic appreciation for the lives of others.