Flash Crash: It's a Heart Issue, Not Just a Finance Issue

I don't know much about the stock market. It is a mystery to me. I've tried to understand it; watching videos, reading articles, and playing the stock game. It turns out that even "Stock Investing for Dummies" is too smart for some people (i.e. Hannah Payne). But I do know about people, their perception of right and wrong, their reactions when they feel they've been unjustly wronged, and the constant moral battle that rages among humankind.

The New York Stock Exchange on a Monday morning is similar to a Vegas casino on a Friday night. The bustle and pure madness of the trades are as enthralling and addictive as In both settings, you take big risks and hope for big reward. Sure, there may be more of a science to trading stocks, but the mindset of NYSE and Vegas patrons is the same. Hungry for more money, more power, more adrenalin, more, more, more. And it's not healthy.

The fact that the basement genius, Navinder Singh, can send financial and emotional uproar ripping through the stock market with one fatal click of the mouse is infuriating. The fact that the entire world wept more for the loss of money than possibly a national disaster...equally infuriating. I know that money makes the world go round, and that is a necessary part of globalization and our society's evolution, but when is the line drawn? When is the line between comfortability and greed distinguished?

Accused of repeatedly trading in a very short amount of time in order to manipulate the system, some say this kid just changed his mind a lot. I found that somewhat funny. In realty, Singh entered a lot of huge, phony orders into the US stock market and then just as quickly withdrew them all within the comfort of his parent's basement. The entire market was upset and took the biggest and quickest dip in history. It took five years for officials to unscramble this seemingly simple mess. It makes no sense.

While this blog may be a commentary on the Flash Crash, it doesn't provide many answers. That is because as much as I've researched, I can't find the answers to my questions. Why did it take five years to pin this guy? How are there not more Is the trading system really that easy to hack into/manipulate? Is a possible for a nation to stay powerful yet escape the all-consuming fire of monetary greed? I don't know.

I suppose the only tangible solution is this: Traders must come up with more secure policies, a more secure algorithm, and ground rules. Until they do, the market is constantly at risk of another underwear clad, tech genius crashing the multi-trillion dollar market. As for the "heart issue," this world need a lot more Jesus and a lot less greed. 

Best Buddy Parenting

The socioeconomic climate of the US throughout the Twentieth Century was bound to produce the generally lax, revolutionist, and “best buddy” parenting style of the 1960’s. As the years, wars, and economic struggles progressed, families overcame struggles again and again and raised persevering, hard working children. With every struggle, American citizens pulled together and triumphed. Until the Vietnam War. Fed up with an unjust war, seeking peace, and relatively finically stable, many young adults of the 1960’s began to raise families with only happiness and comfort in mind. The quality of life seemed to triumph life itself. 

Parents were more concerned with the easy, happy, and carefree childhoods of their offspring instead of the formative and instructive ways of the past. Both generations of parents loved their children, but expressed it in different ways. This shift in child rearing rendered tangible results when the teen suicide rate grew by 250 percent during the “Hippy Era.” Maybe being the nice parent wasn't so nice in the long run. 

The aftershocks of this radical change in parenting styles will forever be felt by future  generations.  Millennials, those born between 1981 and 2001 (aka my peer group), are the first generation predicted to be less successful in every aspect than their parents. Is this generational failure completely the parent’s fault? Certainly not. But the tendencies of laziness and selfishness must not be cultivated during childhood in order to create a successful adulthood. Proverbs 13:24 says, “Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.” Now, this is not necessarily referring to corporal punishment within the household (that is a different argument for a different time), but this verse is wisely warning parents that discipline and boundaries are  the best thing for a child’s future. If you can be friends with your children and raise them up to be contributing members of society that make this world a better place, great. But often I feel that “best buddy parenting” translates to “lazy parenting.” It makes life easy to only care if your child is happy in the moment, instead of looking at his or her longterm outcome. Parenting should be individualized for the child. Maybe looking to the past will be the best thing for the future of the United States’ posterity. 

China's Military Problem

In the 1970's the world began to realize that China had a serious overpopulation problem. As an "easy fix" China began enforcing it's one child policy in the early '80's. Aside from the obvious fact that it's attempt to control the family unit in such a way was one of China's most socialist moves, the world seemed to be fine with putting limits on how many kids Chinese people could have...excpet everyone seemed to forget (or not care) about the intense gender bias that has been especially present in China since the rise of the Song Dynasty in 960 AD.

Since the installation of China's one child policy, the population has become extremely imbalanced.  In naturally occurring conceptions and births, there are usually 103 males for every 100 females. Although the gender ratio is not perfectly balanced, it doesn't even come close to the 130 males for every 100 females that exists in China because of the cultural importance on masculinity, continuing the family name, and the countless perceived benefits of having boys instead of girls. Today in China, there are currently 32 million more boys under the age of twenty than girls. 32 million. That is almost the entire population of California, the most populous state in the US.


So how does this translate to a weaker Chinese military? The policy that was installed almost 30 years ago, it just now bearing fruit. Many young men in China (and other gender biased cultured like India) are experiencing the "little prince" syndrome. A majority of kids have been used to being coddled for so long, that they don't know what to do when they arrive at basic training. They do not take orders well, cannot complete missions, and often complain about the physical challenges. Of course this problem of "whiney recruits" is nothing new to China or any other country for that matter, but not nearly in such a significant way as China has recently been experiencing. The People's Liberation have reported that about half of men in training brake down crying on a daily basis. Weaker men translates to a weaker army, and in light of the world's current state, I do not think it is smart for a powerhouse like China to be unprepared in it's defense and offense.

http://www.newsweek.com/2014/01/24/one-child-policy-one-big-problem-china-245118.html

#It'sOnUs

This year, like the Superbowl commercials, the Grammy performances mostly revolved around social issues and provided a commentary on current events. As a viewer, although the award show wasn’t quite as light hearted and fun as previous years, I appreciated that a group of celebrities with a large social influence used their power to draw attention to important issues. Some thought the climax of the evening was when Sam Smith won his fourth Grammy, but I think it was when a screen dropped from the ceiling to reveal President Obama live casted before the entire audience. In his speech to the over 28.4 million viewers tuned in, he announced the launch of the #It’sOnUs campaign, which combats domestic violence. He called all viewers and attendees, including the highly influential artists, to take a stand to end domestic violence. In closing, he said, “Artists have a unique power to change minds and attitudes— and to get us thinking about what matters.” Then a woman came on stage and shared her story of escaping domestic violence and Katy Perry continued the segment by performing a very personal song about her struggle with domestic violence. Everyone applauded in support. 

This is great. I think a culture that becomes more aware of a problem like domestic violence is more equipped to combat and end it. But there is a major flaw in this seemingly “cure-all” campaign that the Grammy’s are partnering with. It’s celebrates known transgressors such Chris Brown and R. Kelly, who were both nominated for awards that very night and have also both faced multiple allegations of sexual misconduct. Just before the 2009 Grammy Awards, Chris Brown famously beat his then girlfriend Rihanna leaving her with gruesome bruises and him with a criminal trial. When he narrowly escaped jail time, the Grammy’s welcomed him back to the music seen and his Grammy nominations with applause. The songs, artists, and general attitude of the music industry and the Grammys does not support this campaign. Don’t get me wrong, I am just as as guilty of singing along to these mindlessly offensive, yet award winning songs as the next person. In order for it’s company to stay consistent, honest, and valid, the Grammy Foundation must give awards to the most well received and musically impressive artists, whether or not they promote violence, objectification, and generally detrimental content. The problem is not the Grammy Foundation or the #It’sOnUs Campaign, it is the cultivated culture of harmful behaviors that the musical industry hugely feeds in to. This is an important first step not only to raising awareness, but to using celebrities’ influence and power to cause a social shift. Hey, R. Kelly, Chris Brown, Snoop Dog, and all the other celebrities who promote domestic violence: Maybe if you stop beating your significant others, your fans might stop too. 

I Think Jesus Would've Wanted Gays to Have Legal Rights.

During the week of January 20th, the Idaho House approved a hearing to to add "gender identity" and "sexual orientation" into the legislation after a 9 year battle. This will allow people to share stories with legislators about the vital need to include these protections in the Idaho Civil Rights Codes. The man mostly responsible for it taking so long to get to this point is Representative Brent Crane. He has voted "no" against Adding the Words for the past nine years, and has stated that he will still vote against legal rights for gays in the upcoming months. His reasoning? "Partly because he told his voters he wouldn't support it and for him integrity means not changing his mind. Partly because he supports "traditional marriage" and partly because, as a business owner, he doesn't want to be sued for not wanting to employ someone who doesn't line up with his values."

Gay marriage is such a hot topic in our society right now. "Is it okay? Is it not okay?" seems to be the discussion revolving around every American dinner table. I think that the expectations of the church and of fellow believers has entrapped Christians in the chains of dependent thought. A large section of American Christianity has put people like Rep. Crane in the untenable situation of being unable to vote for justice and equality for all Idahoans just because of their sexual orientation. 

I understand why Rep. Crane and most Christians feel this way, especially if they haven't taken the time to really think about it and just go with the norm. I've read the Bible, I fully believe that it states homosexuality is wrong. But it also states divorce, adultery, gluttony, murder, etc. is sinful. How did homosexuality become THE sin? And why are we as Christians acting like this is the only sinful behavior that we need to take a stand against?

For example, Chick Fil A has refused to support equal rights for gays because of the company's Christian values. In 2012, Chick Fil A's CEO  openly shared his anti-gay views and received widespread backlash. If Chik Fil A is not going support gays, then in order to be Biblically sound, they must hold themselves to not supporting any customer or potential customer that they believe is engaging in a lifestyle of sin. I obviously don't know for sure, but I would bet that Chick Fil A has gladly served and taken money from an adulterer (Exodus 20:14)  thief (Exodus 20:15), or a glutton (hello, it's a fast food restaurant) (Philippians 3:19). Wouldn't a Christian business owner also refuse to serve people who have murdered, lied, cheated, stolen, given false testimony, withheld aid from the poor? The same applies to the bakery that refused to make a cake for a gay couple. In addition to refusing service to gay people, I hope that bakery has also refused to serve couples who have engaged in adultery (Exodus 20:14), premarital sex (Hebrews 13:4), or divorce (Matt 19:1-12)- all sins in the Bible. Unfortunately this is probably not the case. I believe homosexuality is the one sin that the Christian culture has decided to hone in on. 

I love this excerpt from Marci Auld Glass: "Jesus never excluded anyone from social interaction because they were gay or trans. Nor did he tell his followers to do so. He ate with tax collectors (Mark 2, Matthew 9). He touched the unclean (Matt 8, Mark 1, Luke 8). He welcomed sinners. He spoke to women, he even requested water from a woman who had had 5 husbands (John 4). If people want to continue to believe that gender identity and sexual orientation are sinful, then it seems perfectly reasonable (if damaging to their LGBTQ loved ones) to continue to not take part in those behaviors they feel are sinful.But there is no biblical mandate to deny LGBTQ Idahoans equality under the law. Adding the Words will not require religious organizations to change their theology or practice. It will prevent people from denying housing, employment, or services to people because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Jesus also never "ranked" sins. He also never tolerated the religious leaders who tried to do so. The biblical witness is clear that God wants us to feed the poor, take care of widows and orphans love one another, and welcome people in his name. It is time to Add the Words and to stop using the Bible as the excuse for why we can't."

Jesus loved the unlovable, the people that everyone thought of as low class citizens. And Jesus strongly chastised the pious religious leaders. Before we judge others, whether it's on homosexually or any sin for that matter, we must remember to not become those pious religious leaders. Because that judgment is sin. We are Christ's hands and feet. Our purpose is to show others the love of Jesus and lead others to Him. The judgement of others is God's job, thank goodness. We must search the Bible, pray, discover what is right and wrong in the eyes of God, and strive to live accordingly. Instead of spending our time judging other's sins, lets focus on our own. Let's focus on becoming more Christ-like. 

Pushing the Limits: Human Nature

With the legalization of recreational marijuana now present in Colorado, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska, chefs are adding a new flavor to fine dining experiences. Pot infused dishes are now much more advanced and sophisticated than simple pot brownies that coincided with the stereotype of "stoner food". Now, weed is appealing to whole new audience: the foodies. Which in turn translates to a whole new "upper shelf" of people with higher societal, social, and economical status then pot's former target audience. This information does not reflect my views on the value of individuals based on if they do/do not smoke, but facts are facts.

Skilled chefs love to try new things and use new ingredients, it's part of what makes restaurants popular. I understand that. But most of the time, cooking with heat removes the more potent aspects of an ingredient. For example, when cooking with wine, vodka, or other spirits, the alcohol is removed by the heat leaving just the flavor. With these pot specialties, the potency is not reduced. In fact, chefs boil it down to a cannabis oil to make the drug stronger in the dish. The ironic thing is that marijuana does not taste good. Called "the Martha Stewart of weed baking," Karin Lazarus herself admitted that her dishes taste better before adding the marijuana. The only sensible reason for why weed is being used in high end cuisine is simple: it's wow factor. This is the hot and new fad. It pushes the envelope and redefines fine dining. People are always looking to just barely push past what is "right" and go toward the more appealing "wrong" choice.

We are inherently always looking to push the borders. As humans, that is our nature.

Of course the restaurant industry is embracing this form of human rebellion. Since introducing weed to the menu, restaurants have already seen a significant lucrative profit. And it is estimated that by 2020, the marijuana industry will be worth over 10 billion dollars- 40% of which is due to the popularity of edible cannabis. Ken Albala, the director of the food studies program at the University of the Pacific (a Christian college) said, "It really won't be long until it becomes part of haute cuisine and part of respectable culinary culture, instead of just an illegal doobie in the backyard." Whether that encompasses his personal belief or not is not my judgment, but regardless I believe he very accurately described what our culture's view on this drug is becoming. If this is what is going on right now, what's next? What will be the next "hot and new" fad that really just does more harm for our society than good? 

Je Suis Charlie

While the US was still sleeping, Paris' satire magazine, Charlie Hebdo, experienced a devastating terrorist attack that left 12 magazine executives dead during the early hours of Thursday, January 8th. The attack was aimed at the magazine most notable for its mockery of Mohammed, the Muslim prophet. Two native French brothers executed a perfectly planned attack and calmly broke in and shot up the magazine's head quarters. After the attack I had the unique experience of watching the French news report live after the attack. I had just arrived home from India and my jet lag kept me up watching the news all night that night. The shock, the heartbreak, and the sheer outrage that France's citizens expressed was sad, yet inspiring and uplifting. A nation that historically has coward to assaults and knelt to oppression finally is taking a stand. Within hours of the attack, rallies gathered in support of the magazine and free speech. The saying "Je Suis Charlie" or "I Am Charlie" echoed from Paris, throughout France, and across the globe. Celebrities helped popularize the motto that symbolizes freedom of speech and press. 

I love that in the midst of tragedy, the French are rising above and not cowering in fear to these Islamic extremists. I must observe that the US has not done the same. Although President Obama immediately offered full support to France after this terrorist attack, the US media was not so openly supportive. In summary, it (as a whole) recognized the travesty, yet stayed neutral in voicing an opinion that might displease Islamic extremists. The New York Times even blurred out Charlie Hebdo's magazine cover released following the attack. 

I believe that if any other religious group had committed this crime, America's news sources would be openly enraged, turning anyone who they could away from the religion through persuasive writing. Yet, because of the 9/11 tragedy and it's association with Islam, we as a nation are living in fear. I fully believe in respecting others and their religions, but when it comes to the murder of innocent lives, we must take a stand. 

Opinion Not Fact

Written by an obviously pro life, staunch Republican, the Townhall article “Who Had the Worst Year? Jonathan Gruber” explores two separate events in the political career of Jonathan Gruber, the man who is largely responsible for penning Obama’s Affordable Care Act. Earlier this year, I wrote a post on Gruber’s misfortunate statements surrounding the ACA’s semi-secretive policies, specifically his quote stating that his team used deliberat confusion in the ACA’s wording in order to get it passed. He bluntly and boldly expressed that the general public was too dumb to pass it without this deliberate confusion.

Obviously Gruber is out of touch with the general public and puts his fellow wealthy Americans on a higher pedestal than the average citizen. But what he stated with the ACA isn't some new tricky policy maker’s tactic. Overly wordy and confusing text is a classic way that politicians pass laws. Gruber was frankly just tactless enough to say it. 

Mona Charen smartly uses the current situation with the Affordable Care Act to serve her own agenda, the battle against abortion.  

Charen re-dissects a 10 year old best seller that raised plenty of controversy in 2005. Not so shockingly, she reveals that Jonathan Gruber was a main contributor to the chapter that investigated the correlation to abortion and crime. Gruber (and others) decided that the legalization of abortions had an overall positive influence on the nation, economically, morally, socially, etc. He used concrete (and impressive) numbers to describe just how well off our nation is because most aborted children came from backgrounds more susceptible to crime, poverty, and health problems. He argued that because less of these “lower class Americans” were brought into the world, our nation is better off. 

Not only are these statements highly offensive to low income Americans, but they are inconclusive. When dealing with variables like human life, one cannot predict a 14 billion dollar welfare savings when the life in question never made it to become an American citizen. You cant say you saved money on something that never came into being. Just like you cant predict these substantial savings and lower crime rates and higher test scores, you cant predict that every child would have been a nuisance to society as Gruber implies. How can anyone know whether they had just aborted the next Walt Disney or Albert Einstein or Mahatma Gandhi? 

Whats even more disappointing? Charen uses the same tactics she chastises Jonathan Gruber for. By writing this piece in such a one sided way, she evades fact with opinion and hides her readers from the pure truth of the matter. I wish that I could have decided to agree with Mona Charen on my own, rather than being force fed highly conservative, one sided, and filtered information. Regardless of what I do or do not agree with when it comes to Jonathan Gruber and his skewed comparison of abortion and economics, this text is not a piece of journalism, rather a highly close minded piece of opinion. 

Hands Up

I have been very hesitant to write on this issue. Partly because I am surrounded by so many strong and opposing opinions. Partly because I haven't felt like I had done the proper research to form a fully educated opinion. And partly because I feel it is not my place to decide who was at fault for the death of Michael Brown. After doing my research, reading all of the eye witness accounts, and reading commentaries on both sides, I finally feel like I am qualifies to form form an opinion on this tragic event.

The Facts 
A few things about the shooting are certain: This event took place in Ferguson, Missouri, a town that has been bound in racial tension between a majority black population and a majority white police force. Michael Brown, a 6'4", 292 pound, 18 year-old,  and Dorian Johnson were walking in the middle of the street around noon after buying cigarillos from a local liqor store. (Surveillance video was later released by Ferguson police that showed Michael Brown and the store clerk getting into an altercation and Brown forcibly pushing him.) Officer Darren Wilson drove by and ordered Brown and Johnson to get out of the street. They refused and Officer Wilson proceeded to pull his SUV directly in front of them, blocking their way. An altercation between Brown and Wilson ensued which led two shots to be fired by Officer Wilson. This caused Brown and Johnson to flee the SUV. Wilson exited his car and began to pursue Brown on foot. Wilson shot at Brown and then Brown raised his hands and begin coming forward. This caused Wilson to fire until Brown was fatally wounded. In total, Wilson fired at the unarmed 18 year old 12 times. Unarmed Michael Brown was hit four times to the right arm, once to the neck, once to the chest, and twice to the head. This entire altercation occurred within 90 seconds from start to finish.

The Unknowns 
I think there is so much controversy surrounding this case is because there are multiple contrasting testimonies. The first event of the day was Brown and Johnson's stop at the liquor store. There had previously been a robbery reported, but it was not proven to be Brown's. When the altercation occurred by the SUV, Wilson reported that Brown was the aggressor; reaching into his car, punching him in the face, grabbing his gun, and aiming it toward's Wilson's hip. I read Wilson's testimony. He compared the struggle to one between Hulk Hogan and a five year old and said that Brown's face looked like a demon. If that was the case, then how was Officer Wilson able to get the gun back to fire it twice? Dorian Johnson's account is much different. He said that Wilson pulled up so close and then opened his car door, slamming it into Brown and Johnson. Brown then fell towards the SUV and Wilson grabbed him in the headlock. Once he was able to free himself, he fled. Obviously whatever happened, was enough to cause all 3 men a large amount of chaos and distress. Personally, I suspect that what really happened is a combination of Wilson and Johnson's accounts. Both men were probably heated in the moment. I have much more sympathy for the next events that took place. Eye witnesses and Dorian Johnson said that Michael began to flee out of fear. He was running so hard that his shoes flew off. Officer Wilson actively pursued him on foot and fired shots over and over. Michael Brown had stopped running, raised his hands (the universal sign of surrender), began to walk forward, and tell Wilson to stop shooting because he didn't have a gun when he was fatally shot for the seventh time. Officer Wilson's story paints Michael in an almost possessed way. He says that Brown ran back only in an effort to charge and that he shot because he knew his own life was in imminent danger.

The media has take hold of this story and gone wild. Every day since the shooting, Ferguson has been on the news. Media has definitely been an aid in getting the information out, but I believe it has also hindered the case. Instead of looking for solutions, many have rallied in anger and hatred without looking for a solution to this. Additionally, fake pictures of both Officer Wilson and Michael Brown have been misidentified on social media. This photo of Oregeon man suspected of murder wielding a gun, hundred dollar bills, and vodka has been circulating the web claiming to be a photo of Michael Brown. This photo of an injured BMX rider has circulated under the pretense of being a brutally beaten Officer Wilson, which is not the case.

Michael Brown wasn't a perfect kid. Officer Darren Wilson is not a perfect man. The small details that contributed to who's fault Michael Brown's death was will never be known. Whether Brown's hands up were in surrender or aggression will never truly be known because he is sadly not here to tell his side of the story. It is heart breaking that a child left this earth so young, and in such a violent way. Darren Wilson's life will never be the same. In fact, he will have to fear for his own life because of these actions.

Since the shooting, there have been riots across the nation- both violet and peaceful. People are enraged on both sides of this case. It is sad to see. I wish the protestors would put the energy into fixing the race issues in our nation, rather than just being angry about them. Military style defense and control, city curfews, and more citizen deaths have occurred in response to the Ferguson shoots. The town now stands in shambles, broken from this horrible event.

Personally, I believe both Wilson and Brown negatively contributed to the situation that unfolded on

The fact is that we will never know exactly what happened and we never will. The jury's decision to not indict Officer Wilson was the right one. It may seem unjust, because, well, it is in some ways. In my heart, I think it is awful that he does not have a punishment for the brutal murder of Michael Brown. But in my head, I understand that the different aspects of this case were just too vague to convict him. Our legal system treats it's citizens innocent until proven guilty. In this situation, there was just no way to proven Officer Wilson 100% guilty.

Sources: Wikipedia, Albert Mohler, Huffington Post

"I Wish We Could Be Transparent With the American Voter"

I don't want to live in a world that depends on my stupidity. I don't want to live in a world that survives on mediocrity. I don't want to live in a world that is dumbed down for it's average citizens. I want to live in a constantly curious, educated, and critical thinking world. Yet, economist Jonathan Gruber has proven that this world I envision does not exist. And he's disappointingly okay with it.

Gruber is one of the leading advisors for Obama's Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Last year in an interview shortly after the law for nationwide healthcare was passed, he held a conference explaining the technical and economical aspects of it. The conservative party, which as a whole is against the Affordable Care Act, got nitty-gritty and delved into some of the more questionable notions, one of which is the ACA text's purposeful over complication and ambiguity. Gruber faced this accusation head on, and unashamedly said his team used tortured, twisting, turing text in order to get the bill passed. Gruber expressed that if it openly stated that poor people pay nothing, rich people lose money, it never would've passed. He said, "Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage" It may be a political advantage, but who is to say it is okay?

On the world stage, blindly leading others under false precepts has proven to have grave consequences. Hilter did this, Mao did this, Stallin did this. Gruber said,"I wish we could make it (the ACA) all transparent, but I'd rather have the law than not." We cannot allow ourselves to be herded like cattle. In order for the US to stay the world superpower and stay free, we as citizens must take up the responsibility of having intelligence. Every vote does matter. Individual voices do matter.

The nation Gruber is described isn't free at all. It is enslaved to it's own ignorance. The fault doesn't solely lie on Gruber either- he was just gutsy (and maybe unwise) enough to say it. I believe the fault lies on every American citizen who has failed to care about his nation's affairs. I'd be surprised to find any politician that has always been 100% transparent. That is the game of politics. And, over time, we as US citizens have let that happen. We have let politics become the monster it is today.

I am glad that Gruber was open about the deceptive methods his team had to take to get the ACA passed. It's utterly disappointing that it happened and it's honestly shameful. But the firestorm his words caused across the nation also have cause people to think. And that is a good thing for our country.

Sources: Washington Post, YouTube

The 6th Circuit Appeal

The Gay Rights Movement has been slowly yet steadily gaining support for the past several years. Gay marriage has become legal in 35 states, and nation-wide legalization is projected for the near future. So far, most gay marriage cases have made their way through the legal system without much backlash as they have been expected to- states have passed them individually, with the District Courts finalizing most decisions.

The Judiciary Branch of the US Government works like this: every legal case first goes to the District Court. This is what the local courthouse is, and here every case reaches a verdict. If the party in question disagrees with the verdict, they can ask for an appeal. This is where the case goes to one of the thirteen Circuit Courts. Eleven of these Circuit Courts reside over the United States based on location and the other two are the District of Columbia and the Federal Circuit Court. A case must be reviewed and accepted to get to this level. If the Circuit Court reaches a verdict, and an appeal is again requested, the case moves on the the Supreme Court. Only the most complex, and often controversial cases get accepted for review by the Supreme Court. The verdict reached at this level is final.

To the surprise of the nation, the 6th Circuit, which is compiled of Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, overturned the legalization of same-sex marriage. Entry to the Supreme Court was denied and this caused controversy. The conservatives rejoiced for their party's victory and the liberals wept for the huge step back. This case was the first time a court had ruled against sam-sex marriage at this judicial level.

Judge Jeffery Sutton is an obviously brilliant, well read, and intelligent man. Residing over the sixth circuit, he offered truly thought provoking arguments against gay marriage. They didn't relate to religion, they only sourced from a purely logical, and econonimalcally beneficial standpoint. He stated,"By creating a status (marriage) and by subsidizing it (e.g. with tax-filing privileges and deductions), the States created an incentive for two people who procreate together to stay together for purposes of raising offspring. This does not convict the States of irrationality, only of awareness of the biological reality that couples of the same sex do not have children in the same way couples of opposite sexes and that couples of the same sex do not run the risk of unintended offspring. This explanation, still relevant today, suffices to allow the States to retain authority over an issue they have regulated from the beginning." Basically, he is saying legal support is offered to married couples to stay together can raise a more stable family. These benefits are only necessary to those who have the option of pro creation.

Personally, my beliefs fall in a tricky place. I am a strong Christian who personally believes gay marriage is a sin, yet I believe every couple should have the legal rights, benefits, and responsibility that come with lawful partnership in marriage. I believe that by not allowing this, we deny American citizen's fundamental rights a citizens and go against the Constitution. This country was founded on Christian principles, but it was also founded on freedom- freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. We as American Christians, cannot force the nation to conform to Christian ways or else the church becomes disingenuous and corrupt. We can encourage morality and others to turn to Jesus, but we cannot force our religion. That being said, after reading Judge Sutton's full report (which can be found here), I know he could easily and intelligently offer convincing counter arguments to my remarks.

Now, the 5th Circuit Court, which includes Texas, anxiously awaits a ruling on the same-sex marriage cases. News reports anticipate the gay marriage ban to be ruled unconstitutional, but I wonder what would happen if Judge Sutton resided over this ruling as well.

Sources: Albert Mohler, Kate Jacenich, My San Antonio

CIA Report Released

Torture: one of the most shameful and overused forms of warfare. On Wednesday, December 10th, the CIA released the first part of the long awaited extensive report on the methods used proceeding the 9/11 terrorists attacks. What was released was the first part of a 6,000 pages. I am sure that the first series of this information released is only scratching the surface of the brutality used in the war on terror. The Washington Post stated' “An exhaustive five-year Senate investigation of the CIA’s secret interrogations of terrorism suspects renders a strikingly bleak verdict on a program launched in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, describing levels of brutality, dishonesty and seemingly arbitrary violence that at times brought even agency employees to moments of anguish.”

This statement alone honestly fills me with shame and it hurts to think about the physical and psychological torture conducted under America's name. Obviously, the people receiving this torture are suspect and often guilty of awful crimes against the US, but this torture even brought CIA personnel immense amounts of psychological injury. If the CIA wants to take punishable routes, maybe they should approach it in a way that doesn't harm their own agents.

Especially referring to the 9/11 attacks, I feel this torture is completely failing its purpose and therefore unnecessary. The religious fanatics that comprise Al Qaeda were willing to do anything for their faith. They committed suicide and murdered three thousand others when they flew commercial aircrafts into the World Trade Center: a symbol of America's prosperity and success. The pride for their faith and Al Qaeda has led them to do horrific acts, I believe that this specific cultural group would be especially resistant to torturous methods as a form of interrogation, that they would rather die than abandon their faith.

As the world superpower, I believe we have a standard to uphold. Torture and keeping prsoners. In our socio-economic, social, technological position, it is fully possible to win a war without the use of 
torture. President Obama stated the Senate report "documents a troubling program" and "reinforces my long-held view that these methods were not only inconsistent with our values as a nation, they did not serve our broader counterterrorism efforts or our national security interests." We as a nation set a moral and ethical precedent for the world to see. Obama also said, the CIA's interrogation program "did significant damage to America's standing in the world and made it harder to pursue our interests with allies and partners." I agree with his statements. There are more effective ways of interceding information that are more effective and beneficial for this country's reputation and morale.

Senator John McCain, a former prisoner of war, spoke openly and passionately on the recent release of this information. He himself was beaten, starved, humiliated, and isolated for five and a half years during the Vietnam War. He is the only person of his national status to have the credidation to fully offer an opinion and I believe he expressed it perfectly. McCain described the CIA's methods post 9/11 as a stain on America's honor and with barely any practical value.

Regardless of one's support or repulsion of the use of prisoner torture, I think it is pretty universal that it is one of the most shameful chapter's of American history. Treat others that you want to be treated. America's people would chastise any other nation brutally for using the methods that we ourselves have been quietly using for the pat thirteen years.

Sources: USNI News, Albert Mohler, Washington Post,

The F-Bomb

Recently, a for-profit social justice shirt company called "fckh8.com" has released a series of videos raising shock value and conversation. The company carries a message of pro-gay rights, anti-racism, and anti-sexism. Let me preface by saying that I am personally for all of these issues, but the way that this company has gone about promoting them is absolutely sickening. Their commercials for the shirts mostly contain young children using alarming, attention catching language and statements. 
 If I belonged to any of these respective groups, I would be ashamed of this negative attention the company has brought. 

The shirt company first caught the public's attention when it released a commercial for it's "Racism Is Not Over, But I'm Over Racism" shirt by using black kids from the town of Ferguson, just weeks after Michael Brown was shot and killed by a white police officer. The video starts off by saying, "Hey white people!" and then continues to chastise the entire white race for Michael Brown's death. NEWS FLASH. People of all races contribute to racism, and people from all races help to end it!

The latest video has become most popular. It contains six young girls dressed up like pretty princesses defending feminism by dropping the F-word dozens of times. These girls, some as young as six, are preaching a message they cannot possibly understand or believe in given their age. I believe that this feminist and anti-sexist video is actually creating the opposite of what it stands for! It's odd that in this video they talking about ending abuse, when the children they use themselves are being props used to sell a t-shirt. These videos are scripted. These children are reading lines or, for those to young to read, are copying what an adult tells them to say. The video's goal is to prove that terms such a "rape" and "pay inequality" are worse than standard "bad words". But here's the problem: having little girls spew explicit language does nothing but catch attention and corrupt their young malleable minds. I get that it's not language that is wrong, it is the intent of it, but these young ladies aren't mature enough to distinguish that. 

If you look beyond the insane amount of F-words these little girls are reading off their cue cards, you will find even more offense. This line said my the youngest girl especially caught my attention: "Here's a hot tip: stop trying to tell girls how to dress and start teaching boys how to not f-ing rape." That statement completely destroys any last shred of credibility the video might have still possessed because it is completely sexist toward men! Men face descrimination and pressure because of the gender ALL. THE. TIME. How dare this company imply that every man is a twisted, villainous, rapist?! This comment on the video summed up most of my feelings: "In what world do you tell a six-year-old child that she's going to be raped or sexually assaulted when she's older? That is incredibly offensive to me. And you know what else is offensive? The logic behind this video, and the IDEA that women in the United States are oppressed. Go to Saudi Arabia, come back, and then whine to me about how oppressed women are in the United States." That is not to say that sexism doesn't exist in the US, it does. But women are being stoned by ISIS for not being fertile, wanting an education, or refusing to let their husbands rape them. I believe that instead of hyper focussing on what's wrong, our society should be hyper focussed on not focussing on gender! Isn't that the issue? By not judging someone based on gender, I believe the issue would completely resolve itself. 

This video has received 50% positive feedback and 50% negative feedback, so technically it can't be called a success. BUT what it has done is create conversation, debate, and brought attention to gender equality. Whether you agree with the content of the video, that fact can't be denied. My question is: is it worth sacrificing little girls innocence in order to do that? Little girls should not be exposed or cohersed into saying bad words, thinking about rape and gender violence, and raised with the expectation of discrimination. Regardless of the language, by having these girls say these things,  If you think like a victim, you become the victim. 

Another question I have: If you're really promoting equality across your brand, then why are 99% of your t-shirt models white and stick thin? If you truly believe in what your promoting then wouldn't your own models be diverse in shape, size, and color?

Death with Dignity

Brain cancer is scary. Death is scary. Fighting for your life is scary. Having a choice in when you die may seem like the only sane part of one's life. This is how I interpreted Brittany Maynard's reasoning for taking her own life with a physician's assistance.

Brittany Maynard had a form of cancer that was especially scary. Malignant brain tumor's more often than not completely destroy their patient's lives before taking them completely. As a control freak, I completely understand why Brittany was terrified by this and wanted control of this last part of her life. What I can't understand is how she didn't have hope. If not hope that she might live, then hope that she might use her time on earth to make a huge impact. How can you be certain that there is absolutely nothing else for you on this earth?

Another aspect of this case that I can't begin to comprehend is Oregon's death with dignity policy. To me, it simply translates as a pretty word for euthanasia. It may seem extreme, but once the floodgates are open for one patient, the lines of right and wrong begin to become blurred and unclear. If not controlled, this death with dignity law could become an inhumane, financial, managing, and immoral issue across the nation.

As a Christian, I especially find deep moral issue with this. Up to our deaths, we are here in this earth for a purpose. God might have planned for Brittany Maynard to make a huge impact in this life on her last day. Instead, she took control of her own fate.

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/cancer/brittany-maynards-death-why-brain-cancer-so-lethal-n240841

Color Blind Society

Story time. At my work, my boss (and close friend) happens to white and her boss happens to be black. The two young women were talking about a work related topic, and my boss described something as "ghetto" to her boss. Her boss responded with a formal six paragraph email chastising her for using the term which she took as a direct insult to the black community. In the email, her boss accused her of being unprofessional, insensitive, and uneducated. I became aware of this because my boss (and close friend) called me crying. This email ruined her night. She didn't know if her position with the company would be threatened, if her professional relationship with this person had been destroyed, or if the respect of her colleagues had been lost. One simple word created a terrible situation. My friend had never associated being black with being ghetto. Instead the black girl assumed and took quick insult. Is this being conscious to your culture's history or oversensitive?

I think there is a fine line between remembering your background and culture and, in a way, using it as a crutch. No matter what race, it is a commonality for one to assume something occurred because they are that specific race. For instance, as a white person, it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that you didn't get into a certain college because you're white. It is true that university's have a ethnicity quota to fill, but a student shouldn't use that policy as an excuse for not getting in. As far past racism as we have come in our nation's recent history, you would think it would be to a point of not falling into this trap.

The term "colorblind society" has raised questions and concerns. Many think that this is the white person's excuse for not acknowledging the disadvantages that the non-white population faces. Although I am white and can't speak for an African-American person, or any person of color for that matter, I feel this mindset is poison. A colorblind society simply disregards the color of a person's skin as a factor of decision or judgement. As much of a no-brainer like this seems, one should be judged "by the content of their character" instead of "the color of their skin," as Martin Luther King Jr. said. This instance that between my coworkers really struck deep reflection about racism and equality in our culture today. It seems as if in such an effort to fight racism, our culture has set impossible standards and created an assumptive and hyper sensitive culture.

http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-experts-03-01.htm

A New View On Feminism

Feminism: "the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. It is the theory of the political, economical, and social equality of the sexes." My entire life, standing by that term has seemed like a no-brainer. I didn't bother to do much research on feminism because I didn't think there was a way to distort this pure quest for equality. I assumed most people in the 1st-world Western nations held the view of feminism as a good thing as well, but I was wrong.

Actress Emma Watson was recently appointed the UN Women Goodwill Ambassador. Through this position, she is launching the campaign "He for She." The day this went live, my twitter feed exploded with opinions. I am a writer for The Smart Girls Group, and through this company I have connected with many brilliant and driven (and opinionated) young women who are well versed in political, social, and economic issues. At first, I only saw positivity and applause for Ms. Watson's speech, but then negatively started swelling. I realized that this group of educated and thoughtful women was split down the middle on the issue of gender equality that Watson spoke about. I wondered why and then discovered that's it's not equality that people have an issue with, it's the word "feminism."

After watching Emma Watson's brilliant speech, I decided that there are two types of "feminism." One, that doesn't like the F-word, as it's been coined, and one type that finds identity in it.  It seems as if almost everyone is on board with the ideals of gender equality, but the word feminism gets many on edge and upset. Here's why: there have been some extreme groups that I believe reject what it means to be a woman. They fill a negative stereotype of man-bashing, dressing in clothes that reject a woman's beauty, and angrily forcing opinions. I believe that this not only misrepresents feminism, but goes against what it stands for. This drives women who believe in gender equality to preface their opinions with "I'm not a feminist, but..." In a gender equal world, "both men and women should feel free to be sensitive. Both men and women should feel free to be strong," as Emma Watson said. We should not be confined to either acting like a strong man or a weak woman. I think that these extreme "feminist" groups do exactly that.

Cosmpolotin Magazine Attacks Jessa Dugar

For those who don't know, Jessa Dugar is a star on the TLC reality show, 19 Kids and Counting. The show centers around an unusually large Christian family that holds wholesome and conservative views. As a regular viewer of the show, I find it refreshing to watch something that is appropriate for the whole family and sets an example instead of leading other's astray, even if I don't agree with every one the family's stances. The Duggars love one another and respect all regardless of their beliefs, yet this family constantly faced hatred and accusations. Yes, they live life in a way that doesn't fit the normal mold of today's society, but should they face a media firestorm because of it?

This proved to be especially significant when Jessa Duggar posted a picture from the Holocaust museum. Her caption said: “I walked through the Holocaust Museum again today… very sobering. Millions of innocents denied the most basic and fundamental of all rights–their right to life. One human destroying the life of another deemed “less than human.” Racism, stemming from the evolutionary idea that man came from something less than human; that some people groups are “more evolved” and others “less evolved.” A denying that our Creator–GOD–made us human from the beginning, all of ONE BLOOD and ONE RACE, descendants of Adam. The belief that some human beings are “not fit to live.” So they’re murdered. Slaughtered. Kids with Down syndrome or other disabilities. The sickly. The elderly. The sanctity of human life varies not in sickness or health, poverty or wealth, elderly or pre-born, little or lots of melanin [making you darker or lighter skinned], or any other factor. “If thou faint in the day of adversity, thy strength is small. If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain; If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; doth not He that pondereth the heart consider it? and He that keepeth thy soul, doth not He know it? and shall not He render to every man according to his works?” (Proverbs 24:10-12) May we never sit idly by and allow such an atrocity to happen again. Not this generation. We must be a voice for those who cannot speak up for themselves. Because EVERY LIFE IS PRECIOUS. #prolife" I believe this very eloquently stated her beliefs. A visit to the Holocaust Museum reminded that we must protect every life. In fact, it would not have been obvious that she was referring to abortion until she used the hash tag "prolife".

Cosmopolitan's Senior Political writer jumped on this opportunity to attack Duggar. Her article slammed Jessa Duggar for comparing abortion to such methodical murder of 6 million Jews. Did this writer who holds a senior position at a nationally recognized magazine do enough research to know that so far 42 million women have chosen to get abortions? That is 1 in every 3 women. The holocaust was an atrocity. Abortion is an atrocity. Both issues are different, complex, and, in my opinion, inhuman. I applauded Jessa Duggar for so beautifully stating her opinion, while this writer accused her of being "tone deaf, insensitive, clueless, and deranged." To me, it sounds as if this woman is actively seeking attack against anyone who makes her feel convicted. Additionally, I'd like to point out that "prolife" isn't just talking about abortion. Prolife defends all life, so it makes sense why Jessa Duggar was so passionate after visiting the Holocaust Museum. The Holocaust should be a constant, every reminder that we need to protect all life.

 Live Action News Adreanna Ekdawy

Emma Sulkowicz

Emma Sulkowicz is a senior at Columbia University that is making a big impact be bearing a heavy weight. An art major, Sulkowicz's senior thesis is one of the most bold, symbolic, personal, yet simple projects the university has ever seen. She is one month into her ongoing project of carrying a 50 pound dorm mattress with her wherever she goes on campus. This project affects her and an overwhelming amount of young woman in a very personal way. Not only is this an artistic showcase, but a stand for justice and equality.


On the first day of her sophomore year at Columbia University, Sulkowicz says she was raped by a fellow Columbia student whom she has previously had consensual sex with. There was alcohol involved, the lines of friendship and romance were blurred, and when she finally reported it to the university, it was dismissed.


When I began my research, I had a starkly different viewpoint than I do now. With a light amount of investigation, I perceived her as entitled and taking a serious matter and turning it into a publicity stunt. She very well might be both these things, but that is the beauty of her project. Emma Sulkowicz is embracing the same mindset as Hester Prynne of The Scarlett Letter. Instead of wearing the letter "A", Sulkowicz proudly boasts her mattress. She is not ashamed of being a victim, in fact she is using her bad situation to bring unprecedented amounts of attention to this important subject.


Coinciding with her bold stand, the White House has launched a campus rape prevention program called "It's On Us." This program positively brings rape to the attention to whole communities, not just the victim and rapist.


NY Times The White House

Posner's Stance On Gay Marriage

Recently Judge Richard Posner was among a panel of three judges to rule that the bans on same sex marriage in Indiana and Wisconsin were unconstitutional. He presented oral and written arguments that were blunt, brutally honest, and non wishy-washy, which was refreshing regardless of what side of the issue you fall on. Judge Posner can be considered a prolific genius by any standard. He  graduated as valedictorian of his class from Harvard Law School in 1962 and has knowledge on an unimaginably wide breadth of civics minded topics. It's virtually impossible to find an article that disagrees with his most recent ruling on gay marriage, and perhaps because it's because his opinions are pieced together brilliantly. As much as I agree with his "big picture" ruling of Wisconsin and Indiana's ban on same sex marriage being unconstitutional, when it gets down the his reasoning behind this ruling, I couldn't disagree more. 

Posner forcibly asserted his opinions in a way that made one ashamed to believe anything contrary. He, along with two other judges, were perplexed when the states of Indiana and Wisconsin banned same sex marriage. Although I will definitely admit there are holes in the arguments of both states, I am swayed to believe that Posner (or perhaps that author of this article) purposely selected information and twisted it to fit what he was trying to say. For example, the article said "Both states admit that children benefit psychologically and economically from having married parents. These facts would seem to suggest a compelling interest in support of gay marriage, since banning it actively, demonstrably harms children." Wow. Can we talk about words getting twisted? What state isn't going to agree that a married home is more beneficial to a child than that of an unmarried or single parent home? In no way were those statements originally meant to correlate to gay marriage. Additionally, one of Judge Richard Posner's key points in his ruling was, "Heterosexuals get drunk and pregnant, producing unwanted children; their reward is to be allowed to marry. Homosexual couples do not produce unwanted children; their reward is to be dinned the right to marry. Go figure." As someone who has the intention to marry a man and have children, I find great offense in this. Posner is implying that gay couples would be more responsible and better suited parents than straight couples. I interpret this as degrading and demeaning. While trying to defend homosexuals, Posner began discriminating towards heterosexuals. The fact of the matter is that there are straight people who will be bad parents and gay people who will be bad parents. Just as there are gay people that are great parents and straight people that are great parents. Instead of discriminating towards and judging a whole group, one should take a look at the individual. Posner's argument, although well spoken and strongly worded, was fundamentally twisted. 

On a governmental front, I agree with Posner that same sex marriage should be legal. In order to for our government to be constitutionally sound, our nation must support equality on all fronts. Just as we have freedom of religion, freedom or speech, freedom of press, and so on, Americans should have the freedom to make a choice of who they marry and to be recognized as legitimate. Whether it is due race, gender, social standing, or sexual preference, the US cannot support the exclusion and discrimination against a particular group. On a moral front, I believe that being gay is wrong. The Bible teaches that being gay is a sin and that marriage between a man and a woman is a sacred covenant created by God. Quite honestly however, I don't think that making gay marriage legal will corrupt what has already been corrupted by the millions of straight couples that have lied, cheated, and dishonored God through their marriages. As sad as it is, today most marriages aren't what God intended when He created them. Instead of hyper-focussing on fighting something that will undoubtedly be legalized across the nation within the next few years, shouldn't we as Christians be working to further the kingdom of God by loving others and showing them what marriage as He truly intended is? 


Sources: U Chicago // Slate

What We Watch

I'd like to start this week's post with a story. My dear father had some dental work done this week that left his mouth extremely numb. When it was time to eat dinner that night, he unknowingly gnawed on his numb lip until it was beat up and bloody. Now, days later, my dad has a purple shiner on his lip that makes others wonder if he lost a fist fight.


Similarly to how my dad injured his own lip without even noticing, by letting increasingly inappropriate TV shows creep into our homes, we unknowingly can cause permanent damage to our hearts and minds. In the early days of television, tastefulness took president over sheer entertainment. Now it's reversed, and the morality of what we watch without a doubt takes a back seat to shock value. In 1952, "I Love Lucy" made history by controversially featuring the first pregnant openly woman on television. Additionally, one of the most well known family friendly sitcoms, "The Brady Bunch", shocked audiences when it featured a husband and wife in bed together for the first time. They weren't showing an ounce affection for each other, just simply reading before bed, but still this scene pushed the boundaries of what could be shown on TV.

Now, those same boundaries have been pushed farther than ever before. In the last decade, television shows have become increasingly more vulgar. A "sweet spot" between family friendly and completely obscene is encouraged because it attracts the largest demographic and therefore the most  revenue. Although these of shows are the most beneficial for the TV industry as a whole, they can be extremely damaging to family ideals.


For instance, one morning I was watching the "Today Show" on NBC as I was getting ready for school. Later that evening, I was baby-sitting my 6 year old cousin and we wanted to watch a movie. I turned on my TV (which was automatically tuned into NBC) and before I could turn the channel a sex scene from "Parenthood" was being streamed into my living room. With such a powerful medium as television shows, the entertainment industry must accept the responsibility of influencing millions of people. While some have the mind set of "Let them be exposed to the real world, let them ask questions", it should be the parents judgement not a TV producer's about when the right time is appropriate for children to watch things.

I believe that we shouldn't be forced to be desensitized to immorality. If someone really wants to seek out entertainment with a more adult theme, they definitely should have the freedom to do that, but it shouldn't be as easily accessed as it is today. Now, the main channels like ABC, NBC, and FOX stream shows that contain excess amounts of violence, language, and sex during the hours of the day with the most viewership (7-9pm). It is hard to find shows that are appropriate for all members of the family. During TV's peak hours, shows that respect family ideals should be played. Once it's later in the evening or even on other more obscure channels, less tasteful shows can be played. I think that TV should use its great influence for the betterment of society, not its corruption.


Sources: Albert Mohler//Albert Mohler