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,