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.