It Seems Today That All You See is People Getting Offended Way to Easily

The very popular, hit TV show, Family Guy has stirred up many controversies since it's first showing in 1999. The show contains many gags and humorous jokes pointed at millions of different controversies from: religion, political stand-points, and moral conducts. But that's what they are, jokes. As an avid fan, and binge watcher of the show, I will admit sometimes the show takes things to far, however, some people overreact and take it far beyond what it needs to be. Leon Wolf's article, "Seth MacFarlane, 'Family Guy' and the cowardice of Hollywood" felt as though the adult cartoon takes to many jabs at Christianity.  

Now I do admit the show does make jokes about Christianity and as stated before may get out of hand sometimes. However, what the article failed to state is the show also picks on Jews, the Church of Scientology, and many others. There's a Jewish character in the show named Mort. The character is in many episodes and is portrayed in many stereotypical ways. There's no designated character that portrays the stereotypical Christian. 

The article praises South Park on their jokes about the Church of Scientology, writes about how no one jokes about Islam because of their violent ways, then proceeds to call Family Guy a cowardice move. Leo Wolf states in the article,"Christians don’t behead reporters or shoot up satire magazines when they lose. Cowardice, plain and simple, is the reason the world’s foremost satire artists have treated Islam like a genuinely holy thing, while treating Christianity as an object of casual scorn and mockery". Wouldn't making fun of another religion also be considered a cowardice? Or does it just apply when your religion takes a hit? I will admit I do get offended sometimes by the things they say but I know that it's a joke. The jokes I find funny may offend someone else, such as all the racist jokes included in the show. As for South Park, the show has even more controversial topics and displays them in a crass manner. 

If the man was really that offended, why wouldn't he write a letter to the family guy cast? Or call the editors? Christianity is picked on in these particular shows because they never do anything to stand up for themselves. Notice how the Church of Scientology complained to the creators of South Park and the character was erased. If someone was THAT offended do something to get the bit erased. The authors don't care about what they're making fun of, hence why they're targeted. The only way the will know it's taken to far is if someone says something. 

The article sates, "the business of satire is supposed to be irreverent, it is supposed to push boundaries". Well isn't that what the show is doing? The TV show pushes boundaries, Hollywood pushes boundaries. Whether it's in the direction you wanted it's being pushed and pushed even farther every year. Hollywood is the influential places. The world is obsessed with celebrities and the fast life. The only way to get it to stop is to stand up for what you believe in. 

A Consitutional Right isn't Always a Good Thing

For years and years women have been fighting for equal rights. They fought for the right to vote, they are currently fighting for equal wages in the work place, but they fail to realize they have a right no man will ever be entitled to, abortion. These women feel a sense of entitlement, despite the major health risks and the disappointment and regret that may come afterwards.

Now in order for this not to be biased and a giant rant, I decided to research the reasons why pro-choicers believe what they believe. I came across the article on Huffpost, and it was a list of reasons why someone agrees with abortions. Though most were ridiculously foolish some made me think a little. There was how motherhood is such a chore, and how the "embryo" can't feel and therefore isn't human. But what about the unhealthy pregnancies, where either the mother or child or both has the possibility of dying during childbirth? As terrible as it may sound, getting the abortion is still the wrong thing to do. There is still a possibility of the baby living after childbirth in this situation and if tragedy strikes you can at least say you tried.

Another article posted onto Huffpost was written by this lady who had been through not one but two abortions. Not only had she gone through to but she was proud of it and wanted the world to know. The article in general was nonsensical. There was this this one paragraph that left me baffled, I definitely questioned after reading this, it stated: "As we all know, you can divorce your spouse but once you've brought a child into this world, you are responsible for the safety, health, education, and well being of that person for at least the next 18 years. Not to mention financial obligation. Talk about a loss of freedom." Now I know what just about every smart and responsible adult disagrees with this woman. It sounded extremely selfish and as if she was oblivious to the situation that is adulthood. If you don't feel fit enough to become a parent then you aren't fit enough to the deed. Contrary to this woman's belief, divorce and abortions are actually nothing alike, other than the fact that they are both results of bad decision making. Divorce is becoming separated from someone you once loved. Abortion is killing a baby for something the baby had no involvement in.

Carm.com, a Christian website, also wrote about how abortion is wrong and they were quoted as saying, "Abortion is the ultimate from of selfishness. It puts the mother's convenience and desire's above the life of her own baby" and I couldn't agree more.

The Pro-Choice movement also tries to ratify issue by saying that the fetus can't feel anything or that it isn't alive. Well a recent study done by the university of Notre Dame found that fetuses develop brain cells around 4 weeks after fertilization, which helps them develop feelings and thinking power. 

Now in political cases, this topic is widely debated. Most Democrats say abortion should be legal meanwhile Republicans highly disagree. Now what doesn't make sense to me and millions of other people is abortion is legal but they're debating gun control to "keep kid's safe" and now they have legalized marijuana however it will be "childproof". If we're that keen on children's safety shouldn't we stop killing them? 

     

The Electoral College and it's Importance

The Electoral College has been around since America was first becoming a country. The Founding Fathers wrote it into the Constitution and here it lies. Now within the last week the democratic party has been whining and complaining that "Hillary should've won because she won the popular vote" and that the Electoral College is "undemocratic".

The Electoral College makes it to where each state has a voice (which rounds out to about 20% of the electors). Which is why the Democratic Party is upset, "this means that small states have a greater voice in the presidential choice than justified by their populations," according to AEI). It also prevents candidates from campaigning in big cities instead of smaller states. Think about it, if we had the popular vote, who would campaign in Vermont, for example, if you could campaign in New York City? The Founding Fathers saw the possibility and wanted to keep the states in power and sought to remove political manipulation. As AEI argues, the Senate is just as "undemocratic" as the Electoral College. Same number of Senators and they have the voice not the people.


The Democratic Party sure has gone back and forth with their "love" and "hatred" towards the electoral college. In 2000, Al Gore and George Bush were the two candidates in the presidential race. Now Al Gore won the popular vote however, George Bush won the electoral votes. The same thing that's happening now was happening then, the democratic party was furious. However, in 2012 Obama was up against Romney. Mitt Romney won the popular vote but Barack Obama won the electoral votes. The Democratic party didn't complain whatsoever. Basically, the democratic party wants a democracy and not give anyone else a chance. The democratic party also ceases to realize that if their was no electoral college, Hillary Clinton still wouldn't of won. The popular vote was for Bernie Sanders as the Democratic Party Candidate, but the Electors decided otherwise.

The Electoral College prevents such a thing. As stated previously, if the popular vote was a thing the smaller states would have no voice. California, New York, Texas and a few others would basically vote because they'd make up 50.5% of the vote, and places like Ohio and Iowa shouldn't even vote because they'd have no say.

Thomas Jefferson himself said, "nothing more than mob rule, where fifty one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty nine" (wordpress.com). The majority isn't always right either. Which is, in fact, the same reason James Madison split of the interest groups, so there was no majority. This country was not founded on majority. In fact it was founded on a small number of rebels that were determined to get way from majority. These rebels desired freedom and rights for all, not just most. The Electoral College gives the freedom and right to all smaller states, who would have no choice in the election if set up otherwise. As "undemocratic" as I sound, I see the importance of the Electoral College and hope it stays.

 

Advice for College Advisors

Liberals vs Conservatives, an age long argument that never ceases to end. Since Donald Trump won the presidential election it seems to have escalated. The bickering is everywhere you go: social media, a trip to the grocery store, and especially on college campuses. Though most colleges want to limit the political conversations, the students won't stop. In fact some are outraged. An article written by Harvard students called "The Elephant and the Man" has proven this.

All puppy rooms and passive aggressive comments aside, students want and need to speak about their beliefs. The Crimson (the publisher of Harvard students) conducted a study. The study concluded that only 13% of students at Hardvard claim to he conservative, while 70% claim to be liberal. Now you may think a liberal college would want liberal teachings, right? Well you're wrong. The article, directed to the college administration, aimed to have both teachings involved in the classroom. An actual quote from the article says, "diversifying political expression in all settings ought to be an administrative priority." I believe, and the article agrees with me, that discussing politics and different beliefs will actually further your education. The article believes the classroom should "actively encourage the airing of different views." The article also states that Hardvard students to be open to other beliefs.

As stated earlier, out of the entire student population at Hardvard only 6% considered themselves conservative. A different study by Gallup found that slightly below 36% of millennials supported Donald Trump (a conservative). Conservativism seems to be the minority in the millennial generation. However, the students still want to be taught the minorities. Now my thoughts on this topic agrees strongly with the editors of The Crimson. Students have the right to learnt the fullest. College campuses should listen to the voices of the students. As proven throughout history, debating and listening is what founded this country. Public political discussions amongst millennials is almost a must. Though I do believe some college students are "anti-Trump" because he's not up for free college, I do appreciate the peaceful protest fighting for the right of freedom of speech. It truly shows who cares for proper education and who doesn't.

 

The Persecuted Church

The Christian Church has been persecuted since the beginning of time. It's throughout the entire Bible and throughout history. However, in recent years Christian persecution has been on the rise and in more extreme ways. Christians now get thrown into prison, tortured, kidnapped, and even killed simply for believing in Jesus Christ. According to theguardian.com, 200 million Christians in over 60 countries have reported being persecuted in some way, that's about 1 in 10 Christian people. In some countries Christiananity is only 1% of the population, the rest is Hinduism, Buddhaism, Sikhs etc. Persecution of the church happens all over the world, most commonly noted is the Middle East and Africa. Though also in China, Malaysia, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Mexico, and that's just to name a few. According to John Pontifex of ACN, the number of Christians has taken a dramatic decrease. Isis, along with other extremist, have persecuted numerous people. In the past year we've seen multiple attacks on people, churches, and events. Though most occurring in the Middle East, they've also occurred in Africa, America, France, and other. Persecution does not occur to just Christians, though they do get the most, with 102 countries having some sort of harassment. The Open Doors Foundation estimates that 4,344 Christians were killed and 1,062 churches were destroyed in November 2013 up to November 2014. That number has only risen.

North Korea has stated that over 700,000 men and women are being held in gulgags. Some banished, tortured, killed, raped, etc. Persecution is rising and the methods are becoming more and more sinister. Organisations around the world have tried to help these people, such as: Open Doors, Voice of the Martyrs, and many others. According to Open Doors, 75% of the worlds population face

religious restrictions. It says in Jeremiah 20:11, "but the LORD is with me as a mighty terrible one: therefore my persecutors shall stumble, and they shall not prevail: they shall be greatly ashamed; for they shall not prosper: their everlasting confusion shall never be forgotten."

Recently, there was an attack on Kenya that targeted Christians. A group of Extremists, called Al-Shabaab, dressed as Kenyan Military and entered Mandera residential. They first attacked a mobile  money transfer shop and thre explosives into. The non native people were immediately shot as they tried to run free, the extremists assumed that they were Christians. 6 died from this accident and several injured due to the explosives.  An article was published on October 8 explaining the details, the article is on Open Doors website. These attacks aren't on the other side of the world either these attacks happen in America too. San Bernardino, Florida bar, and more. They might not have been directed to Christians but they're still part of these extremists groups. A few years ago a teenage girl in Texas was shot in the head for her faith. The persecuted church is a serious problem and people need to keep awareness of it. These people should not have to suffer in silence and/or stand alone. America was founded and built upon Cristian principles and beliefs. We fought in Vietnam to stop the spread of Communism, why can't we fight for the persecuted church? These people, our brothers and sisters in Christ, are in need of help. It's up to us to change it.

Self Harm Awareness

Time Magazine wrote an article concerning teenagers and their mental health disorders. A few teenagers told their stories of their battles with depression and how the dealt. One girl spoke of how she self harmed. She would cut on her arms and ribs and felt that's the only thing that could make her feel better. Her parents were in the interview too and stated they had no idea she was depressed, let alone self harming. The only reason they know now is because the mother spotted the cuts on her wrist. The article stated tons of statistics and symptoms of depression or anxiety. The article, I believe anyway, was to raise awareness of the issue and to inform parents of what is going on.

Not only parents but adults in general seem to be oblivious to, or trying to forget, the issue. Many parents, teachers, coaches, and adults in general want the best for upcoming generations. No one wants to think of a child harming themselves, which is why I believe it's not highly talked about. As uncomfortable as it sounds it should be talked about more. Since about 15% of teens have reported that they self harmed, who knows how many teens have gone unreported. On top of that, the percentage is only growing.

While a vast majority of the teens are female there still is a good portion of males. There's multiple ways of self harm. The most common ways are: cutting, the most popular taking about 64%, head banging, taking about 21%, and burning taking about 15%. Research has also found two ways on why people cut. One being, they can't feel anything and can only experience this pain. The other being the exact opposite, they feel they are too full of sadness and that is the only way to release what's built up inside of them. Also there are two types of self-harmers: the person actually attempting suicide and the person crying for help. There's a common misconception that if you self harm that you're looking for attention. In most cases that claim is completely false. The people that cry for help aren't looking for attention, their trying to catch the attention of someone who cares, see the difference?

Personally I know what it feels like to self harm. Which is why I chose this as my senior project topic and the topic of this blog. It's something I'm very passionate about. Self-harming, cutting, whatever you want to call it can be like an addiction. Some people come home and get so hammered they can barely move, some people get so high they can barely understand simple English, others go home and cut their skin until they've lost so much blood they get dizzy. I'm certainly not encouraging these acts by any means, I'm comparing it. I was the person that was so immersed by sadness and pain I could only release it one way, or so I thought at the time. I know the pain of these teens, I was the one sitting on the edge of my bed crying wondering why I was like this. I believe wholeheartedly that if I can get through it anyone can.

Leadership Characteristic

Character is a big part of leadership. If your leader is comitting sexual immorality, stealing money, and lies about everything, then what kind of leader do you really have? Unfortunately, these characteristics describe our politicians. Bill Clinton and now Donald Trump have shown this. We all now the Bill Clinton sexual immorality in the White House with Monica Lewinsky. Donald Trump has now been published on the cover of Playboy magazine. Is that the character you'd want in a possible president of the United States? Along those same lines Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton alike have proven time and time again they cannot tell the truth. For example, Hillary in her first debate she constantly talked down about the Russians. Well if they're so terrible why exactly did she sell Uranium to them? Things like that make me question the mental state of not only our candidates but also the voters. People seem to have forgotten the times when politicians were true leaders and made a difference, not a bunch of lying scumbags trying to see how far they can push us until we snap. Take Moses for example. He would do anything to free his people. In this case we are the people that need to freed. Politics and rules has practically enslaved us. Moses had true character and leadership capabilities. He was passionate, payed attention, listened to what others had to say, and trusted in God. Just look back at the debates for a second. Trump was to busy arguing and disagreeing  and not actually paying attention to the question. Character should be a huge part of political leaders. Take for example Herbert Hoover, Ronald Raegan, Abraham Lincoln, even John F. Kennedy! They had true character and true leadership skills. Some went against the odds and got killed for it but they lead a bunch of people to the right thing. Why? THEY HAVE GOOD CHARACTER. Let's take Abraham Lincoln for example. He went against all odds to free slaves and stop racism. He had few followers but still got his point across enough and made action! If slavery was still around now Trump would be saying we need to keep them and Hillary would say we need to free them and then proceed to do absolutely nothing. Along with character we need to take action. A politician should have good moral conduct, nice character, a need to succeed, and a wish for the people. But we what do we have? The complete opposite. Hillary is such a people pleaser she'll do what they want but with no thought of succeeding while Trump has the temper of a 5 year old after he didn't get his way. The point of this was not to burn the candidates (though it was very fun). My point is that politicians, businessmen, and everyone else alike should work on their character. If you aspire to be a leader, or even are a leader, you need to focus on your moral character. If you constantly lie and act like a brat your leading that person in the wrong direction. Which is exactly where America is going. James Madison and George Washington stormed into a meeting and LEAD the group and explained their theory. Then with George Washingtons title and CHARACTER and James Madison's brains and CHARACTER the proceeded to debate and eventually went through with the plan. George Washington himself said, "I hope I shall always possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain what I consider the enviable of titles, the character of an honest man". That is the mindset we need in this country. Someone that can lead us to victory and still be humble. Someone with the correct moral conduct and character. So my point is that you need character to lead someone in the right direction. Without the proper morals our country will keep plummeting.

Freedom of Speech on Campuses

Freedom of speech in colleges has been a huge controversy over this passed decade. Colleges and professors have tried to limit the debates occurring on campus saying, “troubling incidents of speech curtailed” and try to reach a common ground. However, is a common ground even reachable in this debate? Well let's see, it's either free speech or controlled speech. How can you come to "middle ground"? You can say yes to one side or the other. Studies have shown that college students themselves want to put limitations on free speech so no one can get offended. Personally, freedom of speech should be allowed on campus. People have that right and should use that right. If people get offended, they can fight for what they believe in. They can even do research to back up their stance and form a debate out of it. Yes it may hurt their feelings but it can cause them to think. 

College campuses are even going as far as to insert "safe places" onto their campuses where students can go and sit down and relax so they can get away from whatever was offending them. I love puppies and everything but that has gone to far. One of the amazing qualities of freedom of speech is that when something offends you, you have the right to stand for what you believe in. Instead of going and hiding you can fight back. College is supposed to be a place where you get education, expand your mind, and become who you want to be. Shouldn't college teach us to use our rights and teach us how to properly win a debate? When in life would it be a good thing to run and hide in one of these "safe places"? Say your working, you think you're doing an amazing job then suddenly your boss comes in and terminates you. Are you going to run and cry in your "safe place" or are you going to fight for yourself?  

Adding "safe places" and limiting our speech won't stop someone from getting offended. Everyone at some point in their life has been offended. It's how you use it that matters. You could probably allow humans to speak a limited number of words a day and people will still get offended. Especially today, you look at someone the wrong way, wave to someone the wrong way, you could probably sneeze the wrong way and someone will get offended! So let's work on that before we limit our rights. There's no reason why people should be so easily offended and that should be taught at colleges.

The college I'm most interested in is University of Louisville. I looked them up on "The FIRE" website (https://www.thefire.org/schools/university-of-louisville/) in which they concluded that Louisville is a "Yellow College" meaning they protect expression but have rules against "verbal abuse". They limit threats and harassment and promptly doesn't have a "safe place".

The Argument Review

"The American Creation" by Joseph Ellis is a book written about the constitution and the wars. Chapter 3 titled "The Argument" talks about the act of arguing and compromise, and how they basis of our constitution. 

The Founding Fathers, in the midst of writing the constitution, seemed to think they couldn't agree on anything. It seemed like all they did was argue and bicker, which had never happened much before. The only person that knew it was constructive was James Madison. Madison realized the arguing is what they needed. The best efforts and ideas came from those arguments. 

The articles of Confederation was a main part of the arguing. Madison realized how they were failing so he wanted to make a change. Thus sparked the idea of the constitution. He wrote it and presented it to George Washington himself. The two of them stormed into a meeting and bestowed it to the Philadelphia Convention. The convention thought it was rubbish, but after reading through it sparked a couple people's minds. "For it made argument itself the answer by creating a framework in which federal and state authority engaged in an ongoing negotiation for supremacy, thereby making the constitution, like history itself, an argument without end" as said on page 91. Many of the people disagreed with what the constitution said, claiming that the constitution was to similar to Britain, in the fact that they wanted a stronger federal government. "Madison shifted his ground to become chief advocate for the very argument he opposed in Philadelphia: namely, that the Constitution institutionalized a unique form of shared sovereignty" (page 118). 

One person that stuck by Madison's side was Alexander Hamilton. They wrote "Publius", which was a collection of 85 essays, together with an assistants from John Jay. Another instance was, "Hamilton and Madison were forced by the political exigencies of the moment to frame their argument on behalf of the Constitution." Madison wanted a superior federal government rather than state. Hamilton was more of a nationalist and didn't want states at all. "they embraced the very ambiguity they had condemned as a fatal weakness of the Constitution as its central strength.   

James Madison also came to the conclusion that we needed a way to get rid of the big majority. The majority is a giant group of people that believed the same way and took chances away from others, they were often involved with interest groups. Now Madison must have seen insane for believing that we needed to split this up. It's what the people want right? Well the people aren't always right. I mean no we can see what happened in World War 2 with the Nazis. So in order to break up the majority he wanted to create thousands of interest groups. So in doing that he gave other people a chance. 

The government created two divisions. The Federalists and the AntiFederalists. The Federalists believed in power to the Federal Government. The AntiFederalists believed in modern revisions of the Articles of Confederation, but still more power to the states. Madison believe their would be no middle ground between the two matters. He was quoted saying its a "take it or leave it" situation. The AntiFederalists believed it was to close to Britain. They also had a great distrust for anyone that tried to take the rights away from the people. The only problem with this is that corruption is almost inevitable. 

Presidential Debate

The First Presidential Debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump touched on three topics: achieving prosperity, America's direction and securing America.

Achieving Prosperity:

When asked about how we can maintain job growth Clinton says that we need to build an economy that fits all not just those at the top. She wants to promote small business, raising the minimum wage, equal rages between men and women. Close the corporate loopholes which in return would reduce college debt. Trump would rather keep the jobs in America rather than Mexico, China, etc. Trump agrees with Clinton but admits they will probably disagree with numbers. He wants to reduce taxes from 35% to 15% but keep the trade system. Clinton disagrees with the trickle down economics and focus more on education and other things. Trump believes that closing off those things with other countries it could help with 20 trillion dollar debt. Big business is leaving but if they try to come back in they should be taxed. Clinton goes on a rant about solar energies that create jobs. While they did that in the past and it failed and we lost money. Trump believes the Clinton will worsen the debt and we need to keep our jobs. Clinton wants to enforce the trade deals which would therefore create jobs. Both Trump and Clinton debate on HAFTA. Trump said it brought down percentages and Clinton believes it was amazing.

694 million dollars income for the past year from Trump's company. He believes America needs the mind of a business man so he can get them out of debt. Trump says that when Clinton releases the 33,000 deleted emails from Clinton then he will release his tax returns. Clinton claims Trump hasn't paid his federal taxes since he opened a casino. Clinton also claims that Trump owes people money and is trying to hide it. According to Trump we are 20 trillion dollars in debt but 6 trillion dollars was sent to the middle east. Trump says that money should've gone towards the debt or even schools or roads etc. Clinton believes a business man can't do government. Trump admits to running the law and that Clinton is lying and he has paid 10,000+ people.

America's Direction:

Clinton wants to reduce gun violence, make sure police officers get the correct training and build trust. Trump wants to bring back law and order. Trump also touches the topic of immigrants in gangs and their violence he wants to protect the inner cities. In his opinion African American communities have been desecrated by crime. Trump wants more police and a better community relation. Clinton believes you need more than law and order you need a plan. Clinton also wants the people on the terror watch list to not be able to buy guns. She retouches and says you need to have a community that trusts each other. Trump touches on the matter that around election time (now) candidates will talk a big game and not go through with it. He wants to control the border. Hillary brings up a case from 1978 that involved Trump and racism and Trump declares that it was settled a long time ago and he was not the only one sued. Clinton touches on hackers and how they steal information and try to bring down the country. Trump claims he has about 200 admirals and generals by his side. Trump also states how Clinton keeps saying Russia hacked it but she doesn't really know according to Trump and that they are not doing the things they should be doing.

Securing America

Terrorism comes into play and Trump doesn't agree with the way Clinton and Obama exited the war incorrectly which then created ISIS. Clinton believes we need to stay in touch with these nations so we can get a true insight on the countries. Trump makes a strong accusation an says Clinton was in office when ISIS was first formed and now that it's in over 30 countries she decides to take it and she can't. Trump claims that the nuclear agreement made with Iran should be changed. Clinton wants to stick to our allies and not make any changes.

My Opinion:

I agree with many things that both candidate's said and I also disagree. In this election I personally don't like either but if I had to vote for someone I'd choose Trump. Hillary bagged and bagged on Trump but couldn't defend herself. When it comes to the terrorism thing she stated in an earlier discussion that she wants to basically foster people from the middle east. I don't agree with that but that's not where it stopped. She doesn't want to give them a simple background check first. Granted not all will be terrorists but you still need to give your people assurance. Another thing Hillary discussed was that Russia hacked us. She bagged and bagged on Russia. I agree with Trump's response but also people seem to forget she sold uranium to the Russians. Trump is for the trickle down economy and that I do not agree with. Considering that was a big cause of the Great Depression. However, I know Trump is a business man so I believe he knows a thing or two about money.  

Murder Trials

Recently, I heard in my local news this story about a murder case from a while ago. This man raped a young boy and when he saw a cop, on patrol in the area, he shot the young boy. Very tragic scenario where the parents had given up hope of ever finding the killer. The police arrested and he went through a trial where he got a 20 year sentence. But why? You would think that if you kill someone you should get life in prison or the death penalty, it's what you would deserve. If you take someone's life your life should be taken as well, whether that be life in prison or, if the crime is that severe, the death penalty. You took away that persons right to live, speak, breath, therefore you should have some of your rights taken. Especially in this case, there was a boy who was around the age of 7. 7! This man took the boys life with the simple push of a trigger. Why couldn't we take most of his life? 20 years is no where near enough compared to what he took from that boy. That boy would have possibly had an amazing life. But because of this man his life got cut short. That boy could've had 60 years of life and we're only sentencing the killer to 20? He took the boys life so we should take his. Multiple people believe this.

There's plenty of misconceptions in not only this case but tons of others. The common belief is that if there is no "aggravating factors" (rape, arson, robbery, etc.) then they get 20-25 years. However, in this case and much others, it includes the "aggravating factors". So why was there such a short penalty?

The death penalty is determined by the illegal actions one committed that is punishable by death. Some of this actions include: terrorism, drug trafficking, attempting to kill a witness or legal enforcer, and much more. While deciding the prosecutors fate, one of two things could happen. Death Penalty or "life" in prison. If there is even one vote against death penalty than that person will get life. 

On average, 16,238 murders are committed each year. There is plenty of room for some leeway. If you look back on history you will see people getting hung, guillotined, and even burned at the stake if you killed, raped, or anything of that nature. Now I'm not saying if you murder someone you deserve to your head chopped off by a giant blade. 

What I'm saying is that you deserve what you did to that person. Inevitably, the ultimate judgment is up to God. In James 2:11-12 it says, "For he said, 'do not commit adultery,' also said, 'do not commit murder'. Now if you have not committed adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act to those who are to be judged by the law of liberty". 

Teenage Toughness

These days teenagers get the reputation that we're "to emotional" or "to soft". The generation before was raised to be masculine and tough so the make fun of this generation. 

However, here's the argument. The generation before is the parents of today's generation, correct? So if they don't like today's teens why don't they raise their kids the way they want? 
The previous generation in all their "toughness" are in reality not all that tough. They say their like armor, always protected. However they have put up walls and like to disregard other people, including help. In the article Making Modern Toughness by David Brooks it states, "And then many people turned to alcohol to help them feel anything at all". Meaning people from the previous generation are not that though, in hindsight, they don't address the issue they just stop thinking about it. The generation today has been resilient and according to history those are the people we look up to the most. Albert Einstein, Vincent Van Gogh, Michael Jordan, and that's just to name a few. Today's generation has learned to take a major hit and still bounce back. Another great point the article said was,"There are moments when they feel swallowed up by fear. They feel and live in the pain. But they work through it and their ardent yearning is still there, and they return to an altered wholeness." Referring to the younger generation. Take a look at Mother Teresa. She may have not been consistent in life but God found it consistent enough for him. You cannot change the people around us. You accept people for who them. Previous generation or today's generation, we should all be accepted. Being raised in a tough home or being raised in a sheltered home, the world will progress either way. 

Finding the Middle Ground

The LGBT community has been around for ages. Since the beginning they've been fighting for what they see as equal rights. However, is that really the case? 

Since the sixties and seventies the LGBT community has tried and tried to be accepted. Through each stage our country goes through they get more and more accepted. This day and age majority of people are either all for gays, or don't even really care. Few people actually don't agree. You'd think that's where the gays would be content, right? Apparently not. The gays just keep wanting more and more from the rest of the world. Such as wanting to use the bathroom of their choice and complaining  that waiters or business people refuse to serve them. Isn't that going above equality? If you consider yourself heterosexual then you use the bathroom of your gender, correct? That's how it's always been.  

So where is the middle ground in all of this? The LGBT community has gotten what they wanted and then some. They have surpassed the middle ground already, so how far can they go? The middle ground should be equality. Personally I believe in equality for everybody and everything. That means the gays should be equal with the heterosexuals, the blacks should be equal with the whites, and so on. 

Donald Trump Presidency

  

Ian Tuttle wrote an article addressing his opinion on the Donald Trump campaign. I, on the other hand, do not agree with his claims. He, like many others, supports Hillary Clinton. The claims he uses are convincing to some but not to me, and here's why.     In this article one of the claims is, "those who site the Supreme Court as a compelling reason to vote for Trump are of the befuddling opinion that the same man who has demonstrated willful ignorance of the Constitution, who has promised to subvert the Constitution, and whose dealings with the judiciary demonstrate contempt for the Constitution, is the man who will save it." However earlier in the article it also states, "Hillary Clinton has made clear she wants to overturn Citizen's United...and she has waffled on the Courts Heller decision."  Isn't changing the constitution disrespecting it also?      Furthermore, the article address Trumps judges and lawyers the article says, "Donald Trump likes judges who like Donald Trump; he wanted a judge who would put his interest above the law." Similarly, Hillary and her husband Bill met with an FBI agent. Why? To clear her name from the Benghazi murders. 

A lot of people say Hillary did have any association with the men that died, however, they sent messages asking for help that went to Hillary's office and she never replied. How do we know she won't pull that if she's in office?      Likewise, the author discusses facts about Trump saying, "There simply is no reason to believe that the same Trump who has contradicted himself amnesty for illegal immigrants, abortion, NATO, and much else.." However, what the author refuses to understand is Hillary contradicts herself just as much, if not more, than Trump. According to foxnews.com, Hillary stated, "…hard working Americans across our country deserve a president with both the ideas and the know-how to create good jobs with rising incomes right here in our country." On the other hand, she despised job creation especially in small businesses. She even applauded Obama for his way of handling the economy. It's just that poverty increased and middle class incomes dropping in that time.