The Great Wall of China

•December 11, 2009 • Leave a Comment

The Copenhagen Summit. If you were to ask any culturally literate person a year ago if The Copenhagen Summit was going to be successful, they would have answered absolutely because of the massive amount of positive press. However, now that the Summit is coming to an end, it seems to be a bust. The treaty that was planned never was signed, rather the countries have come to non-legal binding treaty. Just to put this in perspective, the LEGAL binding nuclear non-proliferation treaty cannot be regulated so in reality what the heck is a non-legal binding treaty going to accomplish? That’s like telling a murder to please not kill anyone.

So why did the Summits grandiose plans of a treaty fall through? China. That’s right, one country. But honestly, this doesn’t surprise me.


What is correct?

•December 3, 2009 • Leave a Comment

Lucy White is a member of the NAAWP, the National Association for the Advancement of White People, who attends Wasp University, a prestigious all white college. For pleasure, Lucy watches WET and reads the daily White Press. She also enjoys reading a storybook collection written by solely white authors which is compiled to empower the white folk. The majority of Americans would coin Lucy as being a racist and close-minded, but why? The NAACP, BET, the Black Press, and all black colleges do exist, why isn’t the inverse true?

In today’s society there is the unspoken rule of being politically correct. The majority, which is white people, cannot over power the minority, which is ethnic groups like African, Latin, Arab, and various European Americans. However, groups like the NAACP create an even deeper divide between African American and American. Ironically, there are no groups that are dedicated to enriching the lives of white people and it is illegal to have an all white college. I am not suggesting the establishment of white empowerment groups, but rather groups that empower Americans, not just specific ethnic groups. America must set aside political correctness, stop separating races by groups, and prompt people to be American before African, Latino, Arab, or Irish.

Being too politically correct can also put our country in danger. For example, the Fort Hood gunman is of Arab decent, and according a CNN report, was suspected to be in confederation with a radical terrorist group. However, according to this same CNN report, because the United States Military had nominal evidence, singling the gunman out would be considered racial profiling and unjust. Our military, because of the unspoken rule of being politically correct, put its soldiers in jeopardy. The military feared racial groups’ nasty outcry and allowed this man to serve in the United States Military. One must ask oneself, if a white person was acting in the same manner and had the same evidence; would the action be the same? I am inclined to believe not. Political Correctness deterred the military from doing the right thing, rather if every race was seen as equal and the suspect would have been removed from his position.

Also, being politically correct puts the majority at a disadvantage. In the dear walls of Laurel School a group of girls was sitting at a lunch table discussing life and religion, you know the typical teenage girl discussion. During this discussion Catholicism and the idea of Jesus were mocked. As a Catholic, I allowed this to happen for some unknown reason. Looking back at this experience, if I were to chime in and not only express my confusion with Islam but blatantly mock it, I would be deemed a bigot. What makes disrespecting the majority acceptable, but mocking the minority taboo?

Now, I am not suggesting making America creepily uniform and allowing people to lynch minorities because they are different, but to rather abolish the double standard society has established. The political correctness in America has many people walking on egg shells attempting to avoid being deemed a racist. So what can I do as an 11th grade to try to undo the unequal standards? My proposition is to be blunt and matter of fact, being silent is never the answer. Political correctness prevents people from stating their true opinions, which merely breeds internal stereotypes. If people put their stereotypical views forthright, someone can contradict the stereotype thus uprooting from the source and preventing it from unconsciously spreading. I am also not discouraging pride in ones heritage. However the current racial groups, which are protected by political correctness, fragment Americans into smaller groups and inadvertently segregating people. These groups would say America was founded on a hodgepodge of cultures, but as my Graham said, “They came to this country to be Americans”. Let the different cultures blend together to create a true United States. With the races united as one, people will better understand each other and more effectively eradicate the everlasting burden of racism, rather than segregating themselves into their own said groups. I am willing and currently try to publically state my opinion, while being willing to change my views when they are proved wrong or unwarranted. My bluntness can sometimes be seen as mean and insensitive, but I believe in the long run it will shape me as a better person with a broader understanding of life and human nature. Besides, I never really got along with sensitive people.


•December 1, 2009 • Leave a Comment

The UN has asked to inspect Iran’s Uranium plants to ensure they are not making nuclear weapons. Even with threats of stricter sanctions, Iran is still blatantly ignoring the Nuclear Non-Proliferating Treaty they signed by not allowing an inspection. The UN might be essentially waging its finger at Iran in disapproval, but what has the UN, and better yet what CAN the UN do? Another question is, do they have to do anything, or is Iran bluffing like the Russians? Whatever Iran is trying to accomplish, producing nuclear weapons or getting international attention, the UN is aiding them in doing so. I believe this spectacle involving Iran are their it’s complete disregard to the UN proves how nebulous and ineffective international law is and how difficult it is to enforce.

            Alright, after that tirade, what should the United States do when it comes to Iran? Some believe it is hypocritical of the United States to regulate nuclear power because of the 2 Atomic bombs that were dropped on Japan; however, just because there was genocide in Germany during WWII, would it be hypocritical of them to deter the genocide that is going on in Darfur. Yes, the United States dropped a bomb on Japan, but that doesn’t mean we cannot prevent hot headed nations, like Iran whose president said they want to essentially sink Israel into the ocean, from making radical decision. Also, we must consider our international standing. Do we want sit back and allow ignorant holocaust denying leaders obtain nuclear weapons, puppet or not, and do we want us or our allies to be threatened by a secretive Iran? One might also say why do we sit back and let North Korea have nuclear weapons? The differences are that North Korea is not making death threats towards nations and has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferating Treaty. Note: I do believe in efforts to convince North Korea to sign the treaty because they are a failed nation; however, I believe because of the radical public statements Iran has been making it is pertinent that the United States makes a stand with or without the UN. I would prefer that the United States military does not invade, but if the United States joins with other nations, not under UN though because there are too many nations to appease to, that group could be aggressive and could scare Iran into allowing inspection. Also, many people believe that by confronting Iran will be similar to Iraq, but again Iraq was not threatening to wipe out whole nations, there were different motives for that invasion. The United States and others must realize that Iran is dangerous with its puppet and completely unpredictable statements for there even to be a possibility of nuclear development.

maybe we will get lucky

•November 10, 2009 • Leave a Comment

Each year, issue 3 was on the ballet and I quickly agreed with opposition. I believed that it would promote crime, poverty, and scandal in intercity Cleveland, which already seems to be bread transgressions; however, my opinion has changed. Cleveland, just a mere 20 years ago, was a booming and profitable city to live in. Sadly, today the once bustling downtown has emptied out and turned into a ghost town. Cleveland, judging by its past, has great potential; however, because of the lack of downtown development, the deserted city cannot be exploited to its full potential. A Casino could attract people to the city and then, consequently, bring more money and business to the city. Monetarily, Casinos seem to be a good solution; however, the major objection is the poverty casinos could bring to Cleveland. This is a pointless argument because, whenever a city makes progressions that gain profit, someone is hurt. For example, when a mall is built in a community, people tend to spend money, and some people develop an addiction to shopping, When a bar is built, people could become alcoholics, when a sports stadium is built, sports fanatics become consumed by the teams;  these arguments would never prevent these institutions from being established, so why are Casinos different? I am not saying that there are no risks, but when are there not? It’s time for Cleveland to renovate and attract some people into the city, because at this point, what do we have to lose? We need to do something because, no matter how many apartments we build, if there is nothing to do then the city will never attract the younger generation.

Finding a new way

•November 5, 2009 • Leave a Comment

America has been a prominent military power and has demonstrated their martial supremacy through insurgency attacks targeting specific countries. Both President Obama and Bush attempted to fight the war on terror by invading single countries, Afghanistan and Iraq. Though both presidents have sent a small amount of troops to various Middle Eastern countries, such as Pakistan and Palestine, the majority of troops were stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, Al-Qaeda groups can be found in the Middle East, Africa, Europe, and even the United States. Though concentrated troops have worked in the past, the war on terror has no central location. America must use a different type of warfare because there are no practical ways for American troops to invade all said terrorist groups. Some of the difficulties in invading these said terrorist groups are monetary costs and the many secret groups that are unknown to United States intelligence. For these reasons, America must reform their current military strategies because stationing mass amounts of concentrated troops is simply wasting American money and lives. To find the perfect military tactics, one must look how rapidly society has advanced technologically over the last 20 years. America must look at technology, not the brute force that has made America victorious in the past because the terrorists have spread out and delocalized making physical troops are ineffective. Therefore, Obama’s invasion into Afghanistan is nebulous and ineffective to the global terrorist groups. America must determine an intelligence policy that will hurt the network, not just one specific location.




Change is Good!

•October 23, 2009 • Leave a Comment

During Federalist 10, James Madison believes fractions must be minimized and idealistically eradicated from the United States to deter civil unrest. Because it is neither practical nor ethical to attempt to eliminate all factions because liberties would be destroyed, James Madison takes the realistic approach and states that the United States must deal with the “consequences” of factions effectively. However, I do not see these so called “consequences” of factions on having a negative impact on society. Due to people’s various philosophical and religious beliefs, there are often value clashes that cause civil and occasionally violent dispute. James Madison sees this as being a threat to society, whereas I see these disagreements and debates essential for the preservation of society. When people form factions to support or denounce a piece of legislation, it demonstrates to Congress and other officials that there is disagreement and, if the opposition is large enough, promotes change. The primary reason why fractions are essential is because without them, government would not keep up with the ever changing opinions of the American people and pass just legislation. Factions also deter a rebellion from happening. If issue specific fractions, like the ACLU and the NRA, do not form and do not express the opinions of its members, it would be extremely difficult for the government is survey American opinion on issues and could potentially pass bills that disregard current American wants and spark a rebellion.  Grant it, fractions cannot be violent and burn towns down; however, when fractions are civil they can be tools for the government to survey American opinion rather than a burden.

What would the United States Do?

•October 15, 2009 • Leave a Comment

In our state position paper we were asked whether our state would benefit from 1 leader, absolute or democratic, or 2 leaders. Most, I am guessing, immediately said 1 democratic would be the most practical and effective for their state. Interestingly enough, Afghanistan is currently deciding whether to have a run off or have the 2 prominent leaders of the two major parties hold office. Would this be good, I have no idea. I originally said absolutely not because it is difficult for two leaders to agree and accomplish tasks effectively; however, with the great divide pertaining to religion in Afghanistan, it is a different situation than in America. Personally, I would like to see a runoff election to ensure there were not tainted election results, and then see how close the two candidates are. If they are extremely close, I would have to consider having 2 leaders to prevent violence from breaking out again. It is fascinating how in the Middle East religion is such a major part of choosing a political candidate, whereas in the United States it tends to carry much less magnitude. I think it is very interesting to think, if the United States had an election and the public protested like they did in Afghanistan, would there be a runoff or would we keep the elected official? Let’s hope we don’t find out.