Are Poor People Slaves?

Last week, if I remember correctly, Mr. O'Connor said in class that poor people are essentially slaves. He pointed out that since poor people have to work so hard and still struggle to get by, they are practically enslaved. I disagree with this assessment for three main reasons.

For one, I believe that people are entitled to their life, liberty, and property, and unless somebody takes those things away, you should be considered free. As the Founding Fathers said, there are things such as Natural Rights - or rights that every man, woman, and child is automatically born with. Life, liberty, and property are Natural Rights, and I believe that nobody should be entitled to anything more. Just because people are making a voluntary decision to work and support themselves financially doesn't mean that they are entitled to anything else. To do that would be to take away somebody else's rights, by taking money from them (perhaps through taxation).

Also, I feel like Mr. O'Connor is overlooking the fact that although poor people may seem to be struggling, rich people only a century ago could only have dreamed of such luxuries that are considered common today. Many of the things that we take for granted these days - like TV's, phones, an computers - were beyond people's imagination back then. I would say that poor people have a higher standard of living than rich people from the past. So with this train of logic, were kings and queens many years ago slaves too? What about the hunter gatherers from thousands of years ago?

And thirdly, if we are to consider poor people to be slaves, can't anyone be considered a slave? Shouldn't students at New Trier be considered slaves, since they are confined in a building for over seven hours a day and spend much of their remaining free time doing homework? And students don't even get paid. In fact, I would argue that what many young people are forced to go through could be considered slavery, to a certain extent. I mean, most of the people at school don't have a choice whether or not to go to school, and many of the students in level 4 classes are practically forced to take them because of pressure from home. In a sense, I'm required to work for a minimum of seven hours a day, and I think some of my Natural Rights have been taken away. But my point is that billions of people live very tough lives, and are we really to see them all as slaves?

What do you think? Are poor people essentially slaves, or am I right in arguing otherwise?

Celebrity Headlines - Give Me a Break!

In my search for interesting news articles on Yahoo, I realized I was bumping into the same celebrity headlines over and over again, whether it be Katy Perry debuts dramatic new hairstyle or Stars' posh kitchens match their styles or Stars step out in the same minidress. What really got to me was that for every three or four articles I saw on celebrities, sports games, and other useless and irrelevant information, I saw about one article on important issues, such as the article titled U.S. agents helped launder drug money and another one with the headline: Iran brings down U.S. drone.

Now maybe it's just me, but I couldn't care less about Katy Perry's new hairstyle. Who cares if she dyed her hair pink? So what? And who would even bother read an article about two celebrities wearing the same dress? Does it matter? Does it at all pertain to the serious issues facing America today? How can people find these things interesting? I've worn the same shirt as somebody else numerous times, and nobody writes a front page article on me. Why are celebrities so special? How is it not an outrage that as the world's financial system hangs on a thread and a war with a Iran seems imminent, people go online and read articles about celebrities and their "posh kitchens"?

I hope this isn't perceived as a rant, but I can't seem to comprehend the nonsensical interests of so many Americans. I mean, how is it that only about 37% of the eligible population voted in the 2010 elections? And yet Americans (and people all over the globe) seem so intent on finding out the latest hairstyle of a celebrity that the media hires hundreds of reporters to find these things out and write about them.

I found an interesting article that can be read here about people's obsession with celebrities. It does a fantastic job going over celebrities and how people tend to treat them. First, we build them up and get interested in their personal lives. We follow their every move and begin idolizing them, painting them as gods of some sort. In the end, some scandal tears them down, and we realize they were human all along, only to jump to the next celebrity. Apparently, this is the sort of cycle that appeals to Americans. In my opinion, it's an outrage, and when I hear people talking about this stuff, I fear for humanity.

What do you think? Am I overreacting or is this obsession really as ridiculous as I put it out to be?

The Drug War - Where has it taken us?

In my hunt for interesting news articles today, I came across one that really got me outraged. It was a story of a marine who was shot at 71 times by a SWAT team because he was suspected of being involved in the drug trade, even though he wasn't. It can be read here, and the 54 second clip of the incident (don't worry, it's blood free) can be seen here on YouTube.

The story is of a marine (Jose Guerena) who was woken up by his wife in the morning and told that she saw a man with a gun outside through the window. Being a marine, Jose had a gun in the house, and he grabbed it in order to protect his family. His wife and son hid in the closet, and as the SWAT team busted the door in and saw him holding a gun (which was on safety by the way), they shot at him 71 times, and hit him 22 times. Jose's wife and four year old son saw him get killed through the closet with their very own eyes.

Now I know that legalizing drugs is a big no-no politically in today's society, but I don't understand how people can be so blind to the amount of damage it's caused for America and Mexico. Tens of thousands of people have been murdered by the drug cartels in Mexico, and as if that weren't bad enough, our civil liberties here have been at great threat. Now, busting into people's homes like this is common, and people are just expected to shut up about it and do whatever the police says. Unfortunately, Jose didn't even know it was the police at the door, and he was killed for trying to defend his family.

People might think I'm endorsing the use of drugs. This couldn't be further from the truth. I think drug use is a serious medical problem, and the consequences are absolutely abhorrent. However, wasn't this country build on the principles of freedom and liberty? Wasn't it intended for the people to make their own decisions, whether or not they are the right ones? The truth is, the drug war has been catastrophic to the cause of freedom, and the fact that a marine, who served his country honorably, was shot 22 times should raise questions in everyone's minds.

What do you think? Has the drug war been worth it? Does the prospect of making drugs go away make this incident OK?

America's Role in the World

This week, Obama announced an increased military presence in Australia. Now, for those of us who are educated in the past century of America's involvement over the world, something like this should come as no surprise. But especially now, at a time when the American government is over 15 trillion dollars in debt and counting, we must question ourselves: What is America's role in the world?

I came across an interesting article that puts the American involvement in Australia into perspective. The article can be viewed here. It really shows how the United States military maneuvers are viewed with suspicion all over the world, and although some people might stand with the U.S. military, there are always some that don't.

I think many people in America have gotten paranoid over possible threats from other countries. Many, especially on the right side of the political spectrum, use this as an excuse to invade and station our troops in more and more countries over the world. Currently, we have bases in over 120 countries over the world for a total of approximately seven or eight hundred bases. Is this a proper role of the U.S. military? Has the military become more of a tool for invasions and securing special interests than actually protecting American lives?

At a time when the "super committee" in congress is expected to come out with the information that they were unable to come up with the sufficient amount of cuts, it seems incredible to me that Obama ignores the debt and continues to station troops all around the world. I mean, do we really need to spend more on the military than all the other countries in the world combined?

What are your thoughts? You can address any of the questions raised above.

So, Um, Where Should I Be Looking Right Now?

As I was walking my dog a short while ago, I once again found myself in a few very uncomfortable situations. People were walking past me, and I was unsure of what my proper reaction should be. Should I say anything to them? Or when, if ever, should I be looking in their direction? Considering the fact that I was listening to music, the encounters became even more unclear and troublesome.

My parents lived in Ukraine for most of their lives. From what they've told me, in comparison with America, people were much less social as they walked past each other in the streets. After leaving Ukraine, they found themselves dealing with the same dilemma I'm dealing with right now. In America, it's much more common for strangers to acknowledge each other in the streets. But at least for me, the questions are numerous. Should we say anything, or just manage a small nod? And where is the right place to look as people go from being two hundred feet in front of you to right in front of your face?

Being somebody who still associates himself with Russian culture (to an extent, obviously), situations like these can be quite puzzling. It seems as if these interactions are most common in America, and although I can definitely see the upsides to such a friendly and social society, it definitely causes for some very awkward situations. Had you been on my walk, you'd understand.

What do you think? As somebody passes by you in the street, where should you look? And lastly, are these interactions unique to Americans?

Is Dirty Politics Un-American?

Following the sexual harassment allegations pertaining to Herman Cain, it really got me thinking about dirty politics and its history in America. I know that it's common for people to pretend that everything was so much more civil only a century or two ago, but thorough research indicates otherwise, at least on this matter. Truth be told, politics has been this way for at least two hundred years, most likely stemming from way back.

A particularly interesting example are the presidential elections of 1828, when John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson were running for the presidency. Some general information on the topic can be found here.

In short, the entire presidential election was shadowed by one allegation after another. Jackson was accused of adultery. Adams was accused of being a "pimp". Jackson was accused of unjustly ordering the execution of six men during his time as general in the army. Adams was accused of buying a billiard table with taxpayer money. And there was more. But for the sake of this blog post, let's stop there. What does this say about the way we view the past over our perspective on the present?


In my opinion, we like to paint a picture in our heads where everything was fine back then and only now things have gotten so uncivil. But this couldn't be further from the truth. I'd say most elections in history have had at least some accusations between the opponents, and these allegations surfacing about Herman Cain should really come as no surprise. Campaigns are always an opportunity for certain people to get power over others, and the temptation of power brings out the worst in people. But we have to understand that although people have a bias of the past, human nature has stayed practically the same. No matter how different the situation may have been in the past, humans have always had certain temptations that have remained constant since the very beginning.

What do you think? Does human nature change?

Elections - Is it really worth voting?

I wonder how many times I've heard people say, "One vote can make a difference!" And up until a short while ago, I hadn't really questioned that notion. I've always thought that one vote can in fact make a difference, and at the very least it would make me feel like I contributed to the political system. But is that true? Let's take a look at what we know:

1) One vote will make absolutely no difference in 99.99999999999999999999999% of elections. 

2) Most of the time, you're forced to choose between two candidates that you only agree with partially. So you never actually get to express the entirety of your view.

3) Although you might feel like you contributed to the political system, you really didn't do much of anything to it. It's simply a mindset you might get that doesn't mean a whole lot.

4) It takes a relatively long time to vote. So you could be waiting in a line for quite some time if you really are determined to vote.

So after looking at all this evidence, it seems as if your vote might not be worthwhile. I know this is going contrary to what most people would think, but isn't this the truth? Voting is time consuming, and it actually has no effect on the chosen candidate.  So unless you really believe in a candidate (even though I can't imagine how anybody could even remotely believe in a politician), it seems pointless.

What do you think? Is voting the right thing to do? Will you vote when you reach 18?

MLK's Memorial

One of the front page stories on the news today is the newly opened memorial for Martin Luther King Jr. To make myself clear, I think MLK was an American hero: a visionary, a leader, and a staunch fighter for equal rights. His dedication to fighting for freedom and justice can not be overstated, and what he did has drastically changed society for the better.

But at the same time, I've noticed that MLK gets more attention than many other American heroes. Isn't it odd that MLK gets a whole day devoted to his memory while two previous holidays, each celebrating George Washington's and Abraham Lincoln's birthdays, were lumped together to one day and dubbed presidents' day? Who is it to say that MLK was more significant than Washington or Lincoln? And why do so many other presidents and influential people receive no national recognition in the form holidays?

To repeat, this isn't any sort of attack on MLK and his many accomplishments. I just have trouble understanding why some people get so much more national recognition than others, and why some people don't even get recognized at all. 

If you look up public holidays in the United States, you'll find that most of them celebrate groups of people or American values. Only a select few celebrate individual people. But there have been many brilliant Americans that have done wonderful things. In fact, there probably aren't enough days in the year to celebrate them all. So instead of recognizing some American heroes over others, I say we should celebrate groups of people and American values.This way, we will be honoring all Americans without any discrimination. What do you think?

Lessons from a Fisherman

In class a few weeks ago, we touched on the subject of Americans and our obsession with working. There is a serious problem with this - Americans live to secure a better future instead of enjoying what we already have. I found a YouTube video that tells a phenomenal story demonstrating the insanity of this mindset. 

The story being told is not one that we as Americans usually get to hear. We are told to go to preschool, elementary school, middle school, junior high school, high school, and college for the first twenty something years of our lives. Then, we are expected to get jobs, earn money, save up for our family (including our childrens' college), go on a few small vacations, and retire near the end of our lives at around sixty five.

Clearly, this isn't what the fisherman did. He lived his life in peace, and although he didn't have any nets, boats, or employees, he was happy. At the same time, the businessman had a very busy lifestyle, waking up early every day and flying all over the world to earn money. As a society, we are told that we should strive to live like this. We are constantly pushed in the direction of hard work by our community. And for what? Have we become happier?

I myself have to admit that I am not nearly as happy as I would be if I were just left alone. The countless hours of school and homework has put a great burden on me, and with the late nights and early mornings my life has become incredibly stressful. And it doesn't stop there. Up until my sixties, I am expected to work five days a week with a few short vacations. But if you think about it, this "ideal" lifestyle could be completely unnecessary. Why spend sixty five years of our lives working just so we can do what we could have done from the very beginning? Why have Americans forgotten about living in the moment?

What do you think? Have Americans become too preoccupied with succeeding that we have forgotten the ultimate goal of happiness?                          

Professional Sports: Why are Americans so Obsessed with Them?

I was just replying to Aidan's blog post when I came across a broader topic. Its been bothering me for some time now - why exactly are Americans so obsessed with sports? At the same time that 1 in 4 Americans don't know that we won our independence from Great Britain, I'm sure the majority of Americans want nothing more in their lives than to plop down on the couch and watch football, baseball,  or some other insignificant professional sport on TV. What has brought America to this? Why does America house so many people that are completely clueless on basic American history, for instance, but know so much about these athletes? 

I'd say the problem lies in the lifestyle of the average American worker. As we discussed in class, Americans are suckers for long working hours and hard, tedious work. By the time most working Americans get home, they feel exhausted and want to relax their bodies while getting a sense of excitement. And this is where professional sports do wonders.

Professional sports let average Americans feel some excitement in their lives without giving them too much stress from the competition. Everybody knows that the results of a certain game won't actually change anything in anyone's life, so at the same time that people feel energized and captured by the suspense, they can appreciate the insignificance of the whole matter. Although I can somewhat understand the desire by many Americans to turn on the TV and watch sports, it upsets me that society (especially American society) has gotten itself to such a sad point, where professional sports are one of the only ways that people can fulfill their need to relax.

Talking Points, False Promises, and Republican Debates

There have been three republican debates this September. I don't know if anybody else has seen them, but as a person who has watched them all unfold, I've gotten discouraged and I couldn't help but notice how they all go the exact same way - the host first questions Mitt Romney and Rick Perry and lets them fight it out, and then moves on to the other contenders, most of whom never answer the questions asked and simply revert back to talking points. All of the candidates get about a minute or thirty seconds to answer - an utter insult to the audience since it isn't nearly enough time to get to know the candidates. And when the candidates don't know what to say, they just go about trashing President Obama and talking about his failed record.

For the record, I'm not a big supporter of president Obama. I'm writing this post as an independent trying to understand the current political situation.

And the truth of the matter is, with so little time to answer questions, the candidates score quick points by ignoring all the questions and going back to talking points and quick jabs at Obama. I think the media is doing this on purpose, knowing that people at home watch the debates because most of them are just looking for a fun reality show to watch after work. And that is exactly what the media gives them.

It is sad that at a time when the American economy and financial system is falling apart, the media and the contenders are not honest with the American people. Instead of helping inform the public, it seems like the media and the candidates work together to insure that the American people stay as ignorant as they are now. These debates are an insult to the American people, and the real solutions to America's mess will not be found in them. Hopefully, people will wise up and open their mind to independent research.

Unfortunately, it seems like politics has gone on like this in America for a long time.And even as America faces an increasing amount of problems, politicians seem to incorporate more and more rhetoric.

What do you think? Is this unique to America?

Is the ACT Really a Good Measurement of Anything?

Just last weekend I was forced to crawl out of bed at seven o'clock, spend four and a half hours taking the ACT, and return back to my house at one o'clock, all tired and exhausted. Upon looking back at the experience, I have come to realize that its incredible that my near future heavily depends on how I did. The ACT is nothing more than a test to see how well someone can work quickly, stay calm, remain focused, and follow directions. And to think that colleges are using the results of this test to make vital application decisions is simply astounding.

During the four and a half hours, I spent 10 minutes on a break, and practically all the remaining 4 hours and 20 minutes on the mathematics, English, reading, science, and writing sections of the test, rushing through the pages in such a hurry that I barely remembered anything once I had finished. In fact, for some sections you I only got about 20 seconds to answer each question! Now, one has to wonder: what is the point of such a rush? Will any real life situation really require four hours of uttermost concentration without even a short moment to blow off some steam? Of course not. The makers of the ACT think that if a person is incapable of accomplishing something in an enormous rush, he or she doesn't deserve to go to a quality college. But this really doesn't make any sense, because almost all real life situations will give people the chance to slow down, soak it all in, and think with much smaller time restrictions.

Because of the ridiculously short amount of time, the makers of the ACT test people on their ability to answer many easy, shallow questions instead of important, big picture, challenging ones that really require people to demonstrate their skills. In total, there are 60 questions on the math test, 75 on the English test, and 40 each on the reading and science tests. That's 215 questions in total! But you have to wonder: can 215 multiple choice questions, that probably averaged about 30 seconds per question, really measure somebody's individuality and potential? I don't think so. These questions don't test for uniqueness or originality - they just encourage all students to think in the same way. In the end, students are forced to think without any creativity and answer the same shallow questions as anyone else.

I know that this may have sounded a bit like a rant, but this test made me very frustrated. I don't necessarily think I did poorly, I'm just upset with the whole educational testing system that we have in place here in the United States.

9/11: Why does it unite Americans this way?

While glancing at the news today, I came across the realization that almost every single front page story was about the tenth anniversary of 9/11. And then I wondered: what is it that makes all Americans come together in remembrance of this day? Why is it that Americans fight for over 350 days of the year but treat this day with such unity? I thought about it and came up with a theory. There are two main reasons for this behavior:

1.) Americans view 9/11 as a personal attack on themselves and their close ones. Compared to many acts of violence in this country, 9/11 was not specifically directed at a certain group of people - it was directed at the general population. Since innocent civilians were the targets of the attack, people began to think of their own lives. Anybody could have perished on that fateful day. It was just a matter of coincidence that certain people were targets for the terrorists and others weren't. This sense of fear and concern is a main reason for the unity seen on this day.

2.) Americans, as different as they are, feel like they belong to one, single country. When a major landmark in New York was struck by commercial planes, to many it felt as if America was falling apart. So although there was no direct impact on most people, Americans began to feel as if a part of them had been taken away by the terrorists. America is an idea - an idea based on freedom, liberty, and justice - and Americans felt as if they lost this idea following the attack. So when 9/11 came by today, most people came together to support the message of America.

I'm proud that the fellow citizens of our country are able to find a day to unite and stand strong. If you watch a lot of news as I do, you are probably tired of the fighting going on - as justifiable as it may be. But even though I take a strong political stance as well, I believe its necessary for Americans to understand that as important as politics may be, there are innocent lives that were lost ten years ago that need to be remembered.

Hurricanes Benefiting the Economy?

In the aftermath of Hurricane Irene about a week ago, I went online to check the news about the disaster. The first article I clicked on actually made me laugh out loud. Believe it or not, the title of the article ran along the lines of this: "Could hurricane Irene help the economy? Rebuilding as Stimulus". The very thought that a disaster could supposedly "stimulate" the economy seemed preposterous to me. If this logic were correct wouldn't it make sense to destroy all the great things humanity has ever created just so we could rebuild? Of course not. Unfortunately, this is a common fallacy in today's economic thinking.

Let's say somebody throws a rock at a store's window and shatters the glass. The store owner is now forced to waste his savings on replacing the window. He pays the window company, which in turn makes the window company more profitable.

Is this an economic stimulus?

The obvious answers is no. Many people tend to look at one end of the puzzle instead of looking at the whole thing. By using up his savings, the store owner lost capitol that could have been used for things that would actually advance society - for example, he could have used that money to create a service or product that people actually wanted to buy. But instead, he payed the window replacement company, and no new wealth was created. This is important to note: although the window company may have gotten more money and hired more people, no new wealth was ultimately created.

Now, let's expand this logic to Hurricane Irene. Sure, construction companies will get a short term boost, but other companies and industries will suffer tremendously. In fact, a whole lot of small businesses could be wiped out altogether. And in the end, a whole lot of savings will have been spent on helping companies that offer no new wealth to society.

And this brings us to my final point. Many people these days have the flawed belief that the ultimate goal of an economy is to get as many people working as possible. But these same people fail to recognize that jobs are just a means to the end - the real purpose of an economy is to create wealth, and jobs are just the medium through which this happens. Would an economy really benefit if we had people digging holes in the ground just for the sake of employment?