Minimum Wage (a letter to the editor)

Every human being on the planet has a right to live. No one deserves to endure long hours, multiple jobs, and tiring stress only to barely scrape by. That is why we must raise the minimum wage to a reasonable, livable number. The current national minimum wage of $7.25 was set in 2009. When measured in 2013 dollars, minimum wage has remained relatively the same since 1990. What hasn't remained stagnant are the price of goods and services- the basic cost of living. If the minimum wage rose proportionally to inflation it would be at $11. If it had kept pace with worker productivity it would be about $21. We're not even asking for a number that high.

Contrary to popular belief, 79% of workers on minimum wage are 20+ years old- many working multiple jobs. Besides, perhaps more money for the 21% of teens on minimum wage could help them pay for college without massive student loan debts.

Australia, the only developed country not hit by the recession of 2008, has a minimum wage of US$15.96. Unemployment is 5.9% and cost of living in Australia is between 28-31% higher than America's. However this is more than made up for with a minimum wage more than double our own. Cities in America, especially on the west coast, are increasing their minimum wages in order to combat rising costs of living. It has already helped cities like San Francisco.

This stagnation of minimum wage and simultaneous inflation of the price of goods has only helped those who benefit from the high prices- the wealthy, and corporations. Coupled with unfair tax rates, this has greatly increased the gap between the impoverished and the rich. We liberals are harassed for "hating the rich" and "hating hard work." Many Americans have this mentality that the poor are just not working or trying hard enough- that hard work trumps human rights. These are people suffering from their own environmental predispositions, struggles, and historical setbacks beyond their control. This isn't to say others haven't had their own struggles, merely to point out the fact that a large population of people in this country are suffering at largely disproportionate rates- minorities and urban populations.

We liberals value hard work just as much as conservatives, however we don't value it when it exploits the poor and only seeks greed. Conservatives also hold on to a sense of nostalgia. Then they should certainly support a return to a time like the '40s, '50s, and '60s when wage and price were proportionate and the wealthy were taxed fairly. I personally believe that many strict conservatives lack simple human empathy- an understanding that we are all just humans trying to live and to be happy. Unfortunately, our current system and wage do not allow this for many people. We need a higher minimum wage. We need a fair tax system and less breaks for those benefiting at the expense of others. We need an overhaul of our economic system.

Change, Money, and the Current State of Society

It's a shame that the common perception is that one needs money in order to change the world. This says a lot about our current social and economic system. One has to wonder if our capitalist system has created a society in which those with money hold significantly more potential and power to make real change. When the average person sees this, they feel that the only way to change the world is through money. One might say this motivates people to work and add to the economy. However there are several problems with this thought. First, it ignores those who have the will but no means- those hurt the most by our current system. Second, if that was the case our society would already be very different- better. The wealth gap is so large that people should be, by said logic, SUPER motivated, and the gap should be closing. This is obviously not the case. Lastly, it undermines and degrades the very being of the person. They're equating their worth and potential to money. This is exactly what our current economic system, and I would go so far as to say capitalism in general, is doing.
Perhaps the root of the problem lies with the creation/idea of money in general. I wouldn't advocate ridding the world of money (however utopian that may sound). Something does need to change in our current society, though. We are increasingly heading toward an oligarchy, in which the wealthy control the rest. Evidence of this can be seen in our politics and media everyday. The recent Supreme Court decision, which eliminated the limits to how much money a person could donate in an election season, is just further evidence. It's a common misconception that when the wealthy get wealthier the economy grows. When the wealthy get wealthier the wealthy get even wealthier at the expense of the poor. Such is the state now. Some blame President Obama for the growing poverty and wealth gap. The reality is that the economic policies, for example lower taxes on the rich, advocated by conservatives, are what is causing this. The rich only serve the rich.
Power needs to return to the average citizen- the middle class worker, the poor kid with a brilliant idea but no means to achieve it. I'm witness to this right now. My roommate and one of my best friends has some of the most creative and brilliant ideas I've ever heard- ideas and a story that could truly inspire. It's a shame, though, because he talks about needing to be a millionaire in order to spread his story and ideas. This is a problem with our current media system/industry as well.
We only pay attention to those with money. You have to pay your way to fame. The downside of this is that anyone with money, even if they bring no real value, can have an influence. Perhaps we push this ourselves, in the media at least. So many people no longer appreciate creativity or beauty or optimism. They just want basal, mindless entertainment. Those with money in the media industry see this and cater to it- on our television, in our films, on the internet, and even in our "news." It creates a cycle in which the only things we see are unintelligent, uninspiring shit with no real benefits, no nutrition, for society as a whole. We need to inspire ourselves. If we want real change, if we want the average man and woman to be able to change the world, we need to change our societal views. We need to change how we collectively and individually think. We need to take the power out of the hands of those with money (who only work to boost their own power) and put it back into our own hands. Change shouldn't need money.

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.

Why Ronald Reagan is Overrated

      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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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)

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