boo

If zombies were to attack, what would you do? This seems to be a common subject lately. Through movies, books, and popular television shows, all kinds of survival techniques are used. I've never really gotten into the whole zombie deal. If zombies were to attack, i would probably get straight onto the computer and watch/read everything i could find since i wouldnt know the first rule to survival. Stocking up on food and water would probably be a good idea, right? Get some people together that each have different skills. That way we could overcome every obstacle the zombies throw at us. Guns are usually the first thing people run to in a time of crisis, but i feel like knives would be the way to go. wont have to worry about running out of ammo with them, easy to carry around, and silent. Like others said, dressing up like zombies could probably work. Rolling around in dead people would make the alive scent go away too. I'd be too grossed out to do that, but could always be a back up plan if all else fails.

"Christianity"

“Your love never fails. It never gives up. It never runs out on me.” Christians all over sing these and other words of worship as they sit in church on Sunday morning or meet with their youth groups on Wednesday nights. They sing of a God who loves each and every individual unconditionally. They practice a religion that follows the sacred teachings of the Bible, a book that always has a place on their nightstands. Hearing all of these things that they do, you’d think Christians would be beloved by everyone inside and outside of the faith, right? I’m sad to say that this just isn’t true. Too many Christians sing of this indescribable love they receive from God but show none to others in their daily lives. Too many Christians talk a great game about their faith but fail to practice what they preach. Identifying as one myself, I know firsthand that Christians have developed a negative reputation because of these shortfalls. And this is why Christians are in dire need of a reality check and some major changes.

Now, I know many of you aren’t Christians, and that’s awesome, but I’m sure you know what I’m talking about. I’m sure you’ve heard the hate and hypocrisy that is spewed from the mouths of so-called Christians on too often a basis. No matter what your religious beliefs happen to be, I’m sure you’ve heard of this little group called the Westboro Baptist Church. Claiming to be Christians, they’ve drawn media attention for their extremist views, most commonly picketing military funerals and public events, wielding signs that read things like, “Thank God for dead soldiers” and the infamous “God hates Fags”. Just this past weekend they’ve sparked even more controversy. According to the Examiner, “On Saturday, Dec. 15, Shirley-Phelps Roper announced that the church would picket Sandy Hook Elementary School on Sunday with the following tweet: ‘Westboro will picket Sandy Hook Elementary School to sing praise to God for the glory of his work in executing his judgment’. It’s people like this that give Christians a terrible reputation. Too many “Christians” use their religious views and the bible as a weapon for tearing down others who don’t share their beliefs. And it makes us look like hypocrites.

But it’s not just well-known, extremist displays like this that make people view Christians in a negative way. In our own school, we have a huge problem, and it’s no secret. A large number of Henry Clay students participate in a Christian oriented organization throughout the week and then go party on the weekends. Now, I’m not trying to throw these people under the bus, and I’m not trying to make judgments about a group of people, but rather point out that I, a Christian, clearly see this coming from my Christian brothers and sisters, and it hurts my heart. If I can see the discontinuity in behavior of these students, surely those outside of the Christian faith can as well. And that can’t do any good for the reputation of Christians. But I can’t stop there. I look at myself and see imperfections and I know that I don’t live up to the life that my religious beliefs make me want to live.

“I can honestly say that I’d rather go to hell than live the hypocritical life I see so many Christians living.” D. B. from Seattle wrote this in response to a blog post asking non-Christians to post something that they wish all Christians could read. S. P. from Nashville wrote, “When did it become that being a Christian meant being an intolerant, hateful bigot?” As a Christian, hearing these words hurts. And I hope that if you share my beliefs, you’re affected in the same way I am by the reality of these statements. I hope that if you’ve sat through this speech thinking to yourself, ‘That’s not me!’ or ‘I’m not like them!’, you understand that these statements aren’t just about groups like the Westboro Baptist Church, but about Christians as a whole.

So where do we go from here? Yeah, it sucks hearing this, especially if you’re a Christian, but it doesn’t have to be this way. No, we can’t stop the behavior of groups like the WBC, but we can try to show others that that’s not what being a Christian is all about. In his part of the book titled Unchristian, Gabe Lyons writes, “It comes down to this: We must become Christlike again.” My fellow Christians, that perfectly sums it up. We have to start loving others regardless of their religion, age, sex, race, appearance, sexual orientation, or other factor that makes them no less of a human than we are. We have to start living up to the name “Christian” not only when we sit in the pews at church but also in our everyday lives. When we walk into school, we want others to be able to say, “Look! There’s that Christian, Adam!” not in a sarcastic tone because of our hypocrisy but in a tone of respect because of our true Christian lifestyles. The only way we can change the negative opinions and the unfavorable reputation that we have earned is to first change ourselves.

Imagine a group of people who actually acted like Christ. That is what I believe we can become.   

It's Claire. Guess my topic.

We have all heard about Global Warming. The many theories, the bickering of weather it’s real or not but what hasn't been one of the big talks about it is weather we can help at least slow it down.

Montana’s Glacier National Park used to have 150 glaciers. Since 1966, 11 of them have completely melted and 25 remain today.  Scientist believe that in the next 15 years all of the glaciers could be gone. Since 1850 the park has risen two degrees and spring arrives three weeks earlier because of the snow packs declining. The Earth heating up not only affects glaciers but it causes drier summers in GNP. Wild flowers are disappearing and because of the dry vegetation wildfires are extremely worse. In 2003 10% of the park got destroyed by a wild fire. Dan Farge, a United States Geological Survey scientist who has been studying the glaciers for 20 years, says the park will be entirely different in 20 to 30 years and "It'll still be you know a terrific landscape to come and enjoy, but it will have been changed by climate change."

Of the coast of Fiji and Papua New Guinea is a set of nine islands called Tuvalu. At no point are any of the islands more than 13 feet above sea level. Tuvalu is one of the most remote countries on Earth and one of the smallest. Tuvalu could become one of the first casualties caused by global warming because of the constant rising sea levels. Scientists have predicted that within 50 years Tuvalu could be completely submerged. A Retired sea captain Lotu Pasefika will stay on Tuvalu, he says “My home is here, but my family, they have to go, people have to stop doing things to damage our environment, People must look at us as people who want to lead a normal life, but we cannot lead a normal life because other people are doing what they want for their own development. What about us?”

How can we as single individuals help prevent disasters like these? It’s simpler than you think. Trees are an extremely vital thing to the Earth and life. Trees help keep the plant cooler, provide homes to many different species and give us oxygen. One of the first things you can do is plant trees. Everywhere, anywhere. Simple things you can do around the house are unplug devices not in use. Only plug in a charger when it is charging something. Only plug in a hair device when you plan on using it. Those items do still suck up energy- even when not turned on. That’s called phantom load.

Don’t leave water running when you aren't using the water.

Turn off lights when you aren't in the room.

In the summer close the blinds so you don’t let the sun heat your house and open up windows when a breeze will be around. It reduces your air conditioning. Same with the winter, keep the blinds always open so the sun naturally heats your house and make sure all outside entrances are sealed so you don’t use so much heat.

Look into carpooling. If it’s possible for you, do it. Look into biking or walking places that are within a decent distance.

All of these ideas lead into reducing your carbon footprint. You can find multiple “carbon footprint calculators” on the internet. Almost all of them include ways for you personally reduce your carbon footprint. If everyone took some time out of their day and looked up how they can reduce their footprint you might be able to help the kind people of Tuvalu or save endangered lives in the GNP.

Pass the Joint Over Here

*YET TO BE REVISED, DON’T JUDGE*

Why don’t you take a second and imagine a world in which you and everyone else around you was high, stoned, baked, or however you’d like to describe it. Wouldn’t that be great? This place which you’ve just imagined isn’t all that far off when you think about it. For years the United States government has stood firm on its stance to keep Marijuana illegal, but just last month two states passed into law the right for a citizen to grow, have on their person, and use Marijuana for medical AND recreational purposes. As there always has been, the bills were met with stiff competition, but should they have been? There are hundreds of reasons why Marijuana should become legal on a national level, perhaps the most glaring of these reasons is that if legalized it could: 1) improve the economy, 2) significantly lower the violence associated with the drug, and 3) reduce criminal activity across the country.

            Now, whether you call it “grass”, “weed”, or simply “Mary-Jane” there is no denying the presence of Marijuana in the United States. Almost no matter where you look you can find Marijuana or something linked to it. Something with this kind of ubiquitous-ness has the potential to be a huge money maker. As the situation stands today, Marijuana is a huge money maker, but not for the people we want it to be. Despite it being traded for in mass and being quite expensive, none of that shifting money is useful to the United States. Since it is illegal it can obviously not be taxed, federally or by the states. However, if legalized Marijuana could be taxed by both parties, creating massive profits for the government. And as we all know, the government can use all the help it can get when it comes to money. So at this point the government must ask, why not legalize Marijuana? It is a widely popular product on which a high tax can easily be justified. Marijuana is a definite money maker which has other benefits as well.

            Benefits, for example, like taking the violence out of the drug. One of the scariest things on this continent is the way in which the drug wars of Mexico are bleeding into America. Everyday too many people are murdered in cold blood because of a disagreement over Marijuana. Whether it be one drug cartel raiding another in a territory war, or a simple apartment complex drug deal gone wrong, any number of dead is that number too many. Most of this violence stems from the search for supply and demand of Marijuana. But one thing I have noticed in my time on Earth is that convenience and grocery stores do not raid and attack each other with AK-47s and the intent to kill. If Marijuana were legal then there would be no reason to wage war over the supply since it would no longer be a risk to grow the plant. The demand, however, would just fall into place. If you shop at Kroger then you would buy your Marijuana from Kroger and the same with any other grocery. With both of these issues resolved then there would be nothing left to fight over, nothing left…. to MURDER over.

As a result of the decrease in violence, criminal activity would decrease, not to mention nobody would ever get arrested for selling, smoking, or growing Marijuana again. Did you know that it costs about $47,102 per year to house an inmate in prison? Did you also know that the median household income in the United States is $46,326? Housing an inmate is no fee to look over, especially considering it is a higher total the average amount of income your basic household has per year. As we already discussed, the government’s financials are in a bad way and it certainly seems to me that a huge drop in the number of $47,102 checks that it has to write would be a step in the right direction. In case you still aren’t convinced, I’m sure you’d be interested to hear that someone is arrested for a Marijuana related crime once every 42 seconds. 42 SECONDS!!!!! That means that since I began speaking there have been 4 arrests which stemmed from Marijuana! There’s another $200,000 down the tubes. $200,000 which I know that we all would love to see the government use wisely, instead of on an inmate. All of these figures tie back into how legalizing Marijuana could help the economy. Because if keeping kids out of jail isn’t enough incentive then the money surely should be.

Final

            Imagine dolphins swimming happily in the ocean, when suddenly they are herded into a small cove in Japan to be captured and/or slaughtered. A horrific image, yet it is happening daily nonetheless. Taiji, Japan is the world leader in supplying dolphins for entertainment purposes which includes: aquariums, petting/swimming with dolphins, SeaWorld, etc., and it also slaughters dolphins by the thousands each year. Additionally, Taiji distributes dolphin meat throughout Japan, which is extremely dangerous for humans, because of the astronomical amounts of mercury the dolphin meat contains. The slaughtering and capture of dolphins is all spurred by the dolphin entertainment industry, like Seaworld. Although the dolphins may look happy in captivity, they are actually depressed and commit suicide occasionally. Dolphins are highly intelligent and self aware, so placing them in captivity is wrong and immoral.

           

            Every year in Taiji, from September to March, is “dolphin season.” The documentary, “The Cove” depicts what happens during that time. In remote coves along the shoreline, dolphins are herded up and trapped in the cove. The next day dolphin trainers come and choose the dolphins they want to buy, and the dolphins that are not picked are slaughtered. Not one or two are killed a day, the killing per day involves around 50-100 dolphins usually. It is a literal bloodbath, the fisherman go around stabbing the dolphins to death in a very inhumane way. The rest of Japan did not even know that this atrocity was going on until “The Cove” was produced, because Taiji’s government covered it up so well. Even after “The Cove” was shown in Japan, Taiji’s dolphin season still occurs because it is such a lucrative business. Each dolphin that is bought is worth $600,000 while the one’s that are killed either are just killed, or are sold as meat for roughly $50. So they capture all of the dolphins just for that one dolphin to sell.

            The Japanese populace is well aware of what happens when people consume unsafe amounts of mercury, as a matter of fact the disease for mercury poisoning is named after a town in Japan. Minamata disease, which is caused by severe mercury poisoning, causes birth defects, paralysis, polio, ataxia and even death. Oblivious to the repercussions the fishermen do immoral things with the dolphins they kill. One thing the fisherman do is sell ground dolphin meat for fish farming. The problem with that is the toxic meat of the dolphin is passing the toxins down to a fish lower on the mercury chain.  So a species that should be safe from mercury poisoning is now toxic without the Japanese consumer realizing it. Also, dolphin meat is sold to the Japanese consumer disguised as whale meat; so the Japanese are unintentionally consuming food that is hazardous to their health. The reason that much dolphin meat exists on the market is because the fishermen produce a surplus of dolphin meat after the killing.

           

            Dolphins have evolved over millions of years, adapting perfectly to life in the ocean. They are intelligent creatures that are social and self-aware. The capture of dolphins is traumatic and sometimes results in injury or death. The number of dolphins that die in the process of being captured or as a result of capture are never released by the programs that take the dolphins. Some facilities even have the audacity to claim that they “rescued” their dolphins from the wild. This claim is false. The training of dolphins is often distorted by the dolphin industry to make it look as if dolphins perform because they like it. This isn't the case. The dolphins perform because the trainers deprive them of food. Most captive dolphins confined in tanks to small, with filtered seawater that hurts them. Dolphins in a tank are also hampered in their ability to operate their sonar because the mirrors just bounce the picture right back to them. Which is like forcing someone to live in a room full of mirrors, with their image always bouncing back to them. Dolphins, unlike humans, breathe manually, so if they want to, they stop breathing thereby committing suicide. This happens due to depression among the captive dolphins.

            The continued public support of dolphanariums, swim-with-dolphin programs, etc., also supports the continued slaughter of dolphins in Taiji. To stop the slaughter, we need to stop supporting all of the dolphin entertainment venues; therefore sending a message and cutting off their funds. As a result, thousands of dolphins a year will be saved and the people of Japan won’t be exposed to the mercury ridden dolphin meat.

FINAL

Austin Gardner

Final Speech

                Imagine yourself as a single mother with no job, two toddlers, and staring eviction dead in the face. Where can you turn? What can you do? How are you supposed to provide for your family? Fortunately enough America has a welfare system that can help this woman get back on her feet. Yes – I said GET BACK ON HER FEET.

                The Welfare system was started in 1927 during the Great Depression by President Roosevelt. It has been incorporated into the national government budget ever since. As I’m sure everyone has heard the Federal deficit is growing at an alarming rate and has recently surpassed sixteen trillion. Currently welfare spending is the single largest expense of the federal government, at over 1.03 trillion dollars. This is more than one out of every five dollars spent yearly. The welfare system is a necessary aspect of the Federal government in order to have a prosperous and humane nation, but the abuse and dependence on it is not.

                The initial purpose of welfare was to help families through the great depression, and provide people with the proper means to take care of themselves while also finding the means of which to start businesses and obtain jobs.  Presently welfare financial aid is available for those that are receiving an income below the poverty line, defined as the bottom 35%, or those who are currently unemployed. This goal seems to be lost in today’s welfare system, as it is becoming a dependent source of income for those who apply for it.

                On one hand you have the unemployment welfare that benefits those who are out of work. The two sections under this benefit are: the general unemployment benefits, and the Temporary Assistance to Needy Family’s branch. As I stated earlier, these financial aid systems are necessary, but have become abused and twisted in today’s government. These flaws were addressed in the Clinton welfare reforms, also known as the change from welfare to “work-fare” where the extent of the TANF welfare benefits were only given for two years, and then the beneficiary was required to find a job. This reform was more for social changes than political advances. With the way the welfare system was prior to the reforms it created an environment in which people could choose to never work and get rewarded for it; therefor, depleting their work ethic, and creating a mentality where it was fine to live off of somebody else, essentially creating a lack of pride.

In 2011 congress moved to get rid of the reforms, and instead replaced it with an attempt to obtain a job, or any kind of job training in order to find a job, and you will continue to receive unemployment benefits. The jurisdiction on what is attempting to obtain a job, or job training is SO unclear, that almost anything counts. This grey area allows recipients to continue on benefits without an earnest effort to accept a position in the workforce. An unemployment recipient continues to receive benefits based off of their prior salary/wage. The money they receive from unemployment benefits is higher than they could receive working a job. To reiterate – a beneficiary of unemployment benefits LOSES money by getting a job. This creates a lack of incentive to actually obtain a job, and increases the desire to live off of welfare. Why work an honest job if you are going to be paid less? The societal problems with this come with an intense lack of pride, and how parents demonstrate to their children that it is okay to live off of somebody else’s money, which will later leave to even more societal issues. With the current unemployment benefits we are creating an America that has no work ethic.

                The most frustrating factors are that there are simple, available changes that will benefit the recepients, the economy, and our federal budget. First off, the whole “attempting to find a job or job training” in order to receive benefits has to stop. The change needs to be required work with in the community in order to receive benefits, and if transportation is not available it will be found.  Also, if there is need of child day-care it will be supplied. Second, the national government will rid the disincentive to obtain a job by getting rid of the loss of income found in taking a job compared to the benefits received by unemployment welfare. Instead of providing government funds for not completing any work, the government will create incentive to get a job by making up the difference between that of unemployment benefits, and the attained job wage/salary. Basically, the government will create an incentive to work by paying whatever the job does not, to have them making equal or greater money to what they would receive doing nothing for up to two years. In doing this the welfare system provides incentive to work, while also providing ample opportunity to work and increase salary/wage until they are making more than they would on unemployment benefits alone.

                These simple changes have three MAJOR outcomes. By requiring beneficiaries to complete community service in order to receive unemployment benefits the community they live in is benefited by the work they do to receive their benefits. In addition, to helping the community these changes create a DESIRE to work. This change from being dependent on the government to provide for them to having the unemployment benefits maintain a work ethic creates the necessary societal changes. Lastly, the federal deficit will decrease by this cut in spending. By making the second adaptation to the unemployment benefit system, the national government will spend less money on this overtime, with people getting jobs, and only having to make up the difference as opposed to paying the total cost of the unemployment benefits.

                The unemployment welfare system is a huge right hook to the national budget deficit, and there are easy ways to change it. Additionally, the current unemployment benefits have created an environment in which American’s can be dependent for their income, and it actually costs them money to get a job. That all changes with the proposed ammendments to the current unemployment system, as it provides incentive to work, helps local communities, and lessens the blow of unemployment welfare from the national budget. I urge the national government to make these proposed changes as soon as possible.

wedding ring equality

Over the summer, I heard a woman describe the traditional Jewish process for engagement and marriage.  It was beautiful.  First, the man would tell his parents that he was interested in marrying a particular woman.  After he got his parents’ approval, he would ask the woman’s parents for her hand in marriage.  If the father agreed, the men would discuss the price the man would pay for the woman.  Then the man would return home and carve a tablet of his family’s history.  It had to be perfect.  Next he would carve a tablet of the woman’s family history.  He would then make two identically perfect tablets, combining their family lines, and give one to each set of parents.  After all of that, he had to build a room onto his parents’ house for him and his future wife.  The tablet-making and room-building would take over a year – to make sure the woman was pure and not with another man’s child.  Throughout all that time, the only communication between the future bride and the bridegroom was carried out by the bridegroom’s best friend.  Once the room was complete, the man and his family, as well as any hired musicians, would march joyfully to the woman’s house and begin the marriage ceremony.

After hearing what the woman had to say, I couldn’t help but think, “Man, if someone went through all of that, they must really want that woman in their future.   To wait that long must have been so hard, but so worth it.”  One thought led to another, and not too much later I started wondering about everyone who is denied our version of that tradition of marriage, that treasured process of engagement.  How many don’t even realize what they are deprived of?  How many couples want to get married, but, because of the law, can’t?  What else are they denied because they can’t get married?  And who are we, about 95% of potential voters, to deny them, our neighbors, our friends, those rights?

Let me introduce you to 3 sets of people.  First you have Joe and Sally, a couple which recently married and have been together for over 6 years.  Here you have Alex and Doug, who have been a couple for over 8 years.  Last but not least, you have Keri and Morgan, who have been together for 5 years.  The two same-sex couples want to get married, but their state refuses to allow them that.  They do not enjoy the federal benefits that come with marriage.  They have not been allowed to have the weddings they’ve dreamed of since they were little.  Is that fair?  Is their dream of marriage truly equal to their reality of a civil union?

My parents, and most of yours, enjoy over 1,000 federal benefits tied to their marriage.  They have been for over 18 years, and plan to continue doing so for the rest of their lives.  Remember Alex and Doug, or Keri and Morgan?  They can’t say the same.  Because their significant others aren’t of the opposite sex, they are denied those benefits.  What are those benefits, exactly?  They range from benefits for social security, taxes, federal employment, military, and estate planning, to immigration.  If my dad died, my mom could receive money from the government based on his earnings record.  If they file joint tax returns instead of separate tax returns, they save thousands of dollars a year.  If my mom had been born in Switzerland, my dad could marry her, which would allow her to obtain legal residency and eventually citizenship here.  Keri and Morgan don’t get any of that; nor do Alex and Doug.  They love each other just as much as my parents do; they work as hard; they are involved in their communities just as much.  They are just as deserving as my parents to be legally married, yet, because they are of the same sex, they are denied that right, and every right that goes with it.

You might not be familiar with my parents, but you are familiar with some celebrities.  Take Britney Spears and Kevin Federline.  They were married for about 2 years.  Another couple most of us have at least heard of is Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries – the couple whose marriage lasted 72 hours.  Pamela Anderson and Kid Rock were married for about 4.5 months.  When she was 19, Drew Barrymore was married to one guy for 6 weeks.  When she was 25, she was married to another guy for about 6 months.  Besides being celebrities, what do all of these people have in common?  They portray marriage as a joke.  They may or may not have taken their vows seriously, but they still legally bound themselves to another human being, which should be one of the most significant moments of their lives.  Our friends Keri and Morgan are jealous.  All they want is to sign a document binding them together, something Britney and K-Fed were allowed to do.  Why should opposite-sex couples be allowed to take such an important ceremony and laugh in its face?  Some might argue that most married couples don’t take marriage lightly, and I would agree with them.  But it’s the married like Ms. Kardashian and Ms. Spears that allow my argument to stand.  They are celebrities, which means people all over the world follow their lives, sometimes looking up to them as role models.  Because that’s the case, they, the celebrities, are the ones who potentially mold the idea of marriage into just another fun activity to partake it.

Famous same-sex couples, like Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi, and Neil Patrick Harris and David Burtka, are the role models for Alex, Doug, Keri, and Morgan.  These celebrities give them hope for their futures together.  Keri and Morgan want to have the unbreakable bond that Ellen has with Portia.  They want to metaphorically scream from rooftops that they are just as strong as one of the most famous same-sex couples in the media.  One well-known man that inspires same-sex couples is Gene Robinson of the Episcopal Church, the first elected homosexual bishop.  He advocates change in the federal and religious standings on homosexuality and same-sex marriage.  He has persevered through many a hardship because of his sexuality, yet still holds strong to his convictions.  Alex and Doug wish to be like him.  They strive to make the changes in their community that Gene Robinson has made in his, to open up the federal door to marriage equality.

That door doesn’t have to be hard to open as long as we, the other 95%, help them.  About 41% of voters are supporters of same-sex marriage.  They want those wedding rings to be equal to each other.  As of right now, with 39 states banning same-sex marriage, they aren’t close to their goal.  With our help, Keri, Morgan, Alex, and Doug can get married in the next 4 years, ending their long and painful wait for their dream day.  Let’s be the ones to walk them down the isle.

Right to Bear Arms

Due to the recent circumstances, our country has yet again been faced with the question of gun control. This question has been posed several times to our great nation seemingly without a response. Is it too difficult to answer, or are we avoiding this issue in its entirety? It is believed that a movement toward either side of this highly controversial argument would do nothing but tear our country apart. This is what is holding us back from making any progress. Under current circumstances, I believe that additional regulations should be put on firearms in order to prevent those with wicked intentions from obtaining such weapons.

The fact of the matter is that a vast majority of violent crimes are committed using firearms. According to a study conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 67% of murders committed in the United States in 2008 were with the use of firearms. This number alone shows that people whom should not have access to guns have been able to get ahold of them. Under minimum state requirements, all that is needed to purchase a weapon is the presentation of photo-identification. In another study conducted by the Government Accountability office, undercover federal agents were able to purchase firearms using bogus IDs with a 100% success rate. This study shows the ease in which criminals can illegally obtain firearms. With minimum requirements to get weapons, minimal effort must be put in by criminals to illegally obtain them. The fact that those who are declared by a court as mentally unstable are even able to just walk into a store and purchase a gun is just appalling. Had there been restrictions against this, shootings such as the incident with Gabrielle Giffords would have never occurred.

Those who oppose gun control defend the right to bear arms vigorously. The main focus of their argument is that it is a constitutional right to own weapons and that the government does not have the right to hinder it. These same people are unable to recognize that times have changed. Everyone must understand that there are also people out there who intend to purchase firearms only with the intentions to harm others. Of course the idea for many is to protect themselves with their firearms. According to the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, in 2007 there were 613 fatal and 5,045 non-fatal accidents with firearms. Though this number is relatively low, it is still representative of the dangers that firearms can create. Those who stand for the right to bear arms need to be responsible human beings in order to prevent the accidents and violence due to firearms that our country faces.

What gun control intends to do is not to take everyone’s guns away, like many believe to be true, but to make it more difficult for those to obtain firearms who cannot handle them responsibly. This motive should be common with those who support gun rights, as they too want to prevent violence against their families and the people around them. Though this is an uphill battle, as our country has been avoiding this issue for too long, we must put a stop to the violence. I implore you to please send letters to both your state senator and state representative asking them to follow through on instating additional gun control laws. In the time of crisis that we are faced with, our country needs it now more than ever.

An Atheist's Response: Fact, Faith, Purpose, and Beauty

In the past few weeks, after revealing my atheism to my family and my peers at the church I attended for many years, I have been told that my life is meaningless. I have been told that without God I have no purpose, that I can only live for myself, that my atheism is inherently immoral and precludes the possibility of developing any sort of moral code. I have been associated with the likes of killers and rapists because the world seems to believe that without God there is no respect, or love. I know it will be hard for me to convince you to change your mind on an issue as deeply personal as religion, to convince you to look beyond the limits of what you know and resist the temptation to judge based on society’s judgements. But at the same token I have begun to realize that it is my duty to do so, as I have seen for myself recently that our society has become deeply twisted in its views on fact, faith, purpose, and beauty. We have come to a point where fact and faith are mutually exclusive, where beauty cannot exist without purpose, and where opposing views have become so radicalized their rhetoric becomes almost tangibly bitter.

Before I continue I must clarify that my religious (or lack of) belief does not mean that I hate religion. In fact I would argue the very opposite. To me, religion is beautiful. To me, religion is a fundamental part of what it means to be human, to contemplate the vast machinations of a universe that cannot be fully understood. It represents the furthest level of human curiosity and exploration and it is really quite extraordinary. Yet at the same time, we have reached a point where those two fields, the search to understand through fact, and the search to understand through faith, have become true opposites. I honestly cannot fathom why this would be. Perhaps the centuries of oppression by religious organizations fearful of the results of scientific endeavors inspired the schism we now face. But that fear itself represents a deep misunderstanding of the nature of faith.

Fact and faith are entirely separate, yes. Fact is what we know to be true through observation, faith is what we believe and hope to be true without observation. Fact will always contradict the teachings of faith. There is not empirical proof that will support the veracity of any religion. However, faith does not necessarily contradict fact. The two can coincide, and it is in the very nature of faith to do so. Faith requires an element of falsity. It is necessary that the believer be uncertain in the truth of their belief, for if the truth were known then there would be no need for faith. To deny the conflicting nature of the two facets of existence is to deny the true nature of faith. 

The issue of purpose also seems to be inexorably intertwined with the issue of faith. I’ve never quite understood why modern consensus is that purpose is defined by faith. This past Sunday I attended what is widely considered one of the most liberal churches in this state. The pastor there spent the entire hour preaching that without faith, ones life can never serve a purpose, and all that is done is meaningless. I was told that the only thing I am capable of living for is myself, my greed. It seemed to him to be entirely outside the realm of possibility that I could ever desire to live my life for others, to live my life serving others and seeking to create a better world for those who truly need it. It seemed to him that the only way people achieve recognition of such a purpose is through the teachings of scripture, and that the lack of belief and written moral code in atheism meant that I, as a non-believer, was inherently evil. I’d like to take this opportunity to show that atheism does in fact have an express moral code. I believe that this one life I have is all I have. I believe I have this opportunity to experience the world I live in only once, and upon my death I will never be able to breathe, to see, to think ever again. It is only natural then that I would make the most of that one life. It is only natural that I would recognize the usefulness of altruism, the benefits of serving to create a more enjoyable world. It is natural in the mind of an atheist to realize that without the serving of all the people to ensure a just world, that just world will never arise. There will be no god to come in a remedy society’s ills. There will be no salvation; there will be no second chance. I have now, and now only, to make the most of this world and make the most of me. I, as an atheist, live for the opportunity to serve others. Such a passion is not unique to faith.

This same man who stood on stage and sought to rip all meaning from my life has also, in times past, sought to remove the concept of beauty from my existence. He has encouraged the gross portrayal of atheism as a hopeless and joyless form of existence. He has become overly fond of using a situation that arose between him and one of his atheistic friends. It goes like this. One day, the pastor challenged his friend to come up with one sentence that perfectly describes his existence. The pastor then promised to take that sentence and revise it in such a way to reflect his own faith based existence. The sentence the atheist eventually came up with goes as follows: I am an accident, born of nothing, waiting to return to nothing. The pastor returned with the following: I am a child of God, born of Him, waiting to return to Him. The pastor then proceeded to highlight what he saw as the inherent misanthropic and melancholic tone of the atheist’s sentence in comparison to the miracle of God. I never understood the pastor as he questioned how someone can find joy when they believe themselves to be an accident. See, when I heard that sentence I experienced a radical emotional shift. I have never heard in my life one sentence with so much meaning. Its infinitely complex and it perfectly describes the beauty of life from an atheist’s point of view.

I am an accident. Of all the possible ways the universe could have come together at the exact moment I was made, it happened in exactly the way it did to create me. Against all probable odds, millions of years of accidents and random occurrences lined up to create the man you see before you today.

Born of nothing, waiting to return to nothing. This is the most profound statement. I was born of a meaningless mixture of elements, brought together from across the universe into this one location. These meaningless atoms were combined from the dust of distant stars, the elements of collided asteroids and planets, the debris of the formation of the universe so many years ago, and brought to life to create something oh so far from meaningless. I was born of nothing, and yet born of everything. I wait to return to that nothing. I live every day of my life knowing that I will one day die, my body interred or burned, my molecules dispersed throughout the planet to rest for thousands of years. In one billion years after the sun has expanded and burned all life off this planet, I know now my body will be there. In seven billion years when this planet is engulfed by the flames of our star I will be there. My body will become the star and I will burn for a few billion years more. One day the sun will die and my atoms will in some form or the other be ejected into the depths of space to spread out across the universe. I will be nothing, and I will be everything. I will be there when the universe falls in upon itself and if some scientists are to be believed I will be there when it explodes again to from a new universe, bound by new laws, filled with new life, yes I will be there. I will be there in the midst of all this beauty, the beauty of creation.

It may be hard to discern some sort of motive from my speech today, so let me make it abundantly clear to you now. It is my wish that you would ignore the poisonous judgments society has made against religion and against atheism. It is my wish that you would find it within yourself to recognize the dual nature of fact and faith despite the fearful ranting of the religious leaders in this world. It is my wish that you would learn to find your own purpose and not rely solely on the demands of others and of faith. And it is my wish that you would learn to recognize beauty in all forms that it presents itself in. In short, it is my wish that you would learn how to be freed from judgment.

Eating Is An Agricultural Act

This fall in an effort to become better versed in all things food so as to have a fighting chance among her sisters, my mother dragged me along to a talk by renowned food critic Ruth Reichl and Q&A with local chef, Ouita Michaels. We snagged a front row seat next to Ouita’s mother. She was the sort of a person my mother calls “a kick” and I call “pretentious.” She told us right of the bat that she inspired her daughter’s local foods movement in Lexington, and she buys her lamb from ‘Wendell”. I was not impressed, but though the name-dropping was pretentious it resonated with the sense of community inspired by small farms and local foods. She and her daughter understand what Wendell, better known as farmer, writer and sustainable agriculture activist, Wendell Berry means when he pronounces, “eating is an agricultural act.” This act of consumption affects our culture, economy and health and yet few know the difference between what Wendell calls the conscious decision of consuming sustainable agriculture and the passive choice to support the industrial agribusiness. It is long past time to realize the importance of our “agricultural act” and begin to “eat responsibly”. It is up to our generation to change our eating routines and habits as consumers to shift our community back toward local and sustainable agriculture.

There is a distinct different between the depth of agriculture in sustainable farming and industrial agribusiness. It is the difference between harmony with nature and domination of nature. Farming is no longer a symbiotic relationship between the land and the consumer; it has now become a parasitic relationship where, for the purpose of profit maximization, abuse of the land has become the norm. This domination of nature that the industrial agribusiness relies on has been the status quo since after World War Two when new technologies made large scale farming cheap and easy. Considered progress, American people marveled at the mechanization of farming. No longer were small family farms necessary. A much higher profit could be made by one person on one large farm selling one large crop than a small farmer on a small farm selling a diverse selection of crops. But as farms grew larger so did land abuse and by the 2000’s the idea of a thriving family farm has all but been replaced by the industrial agriculture. By 2007 Monsanto controlled 87% of genetically engineered seeds.  The farmers that grow Monsanto seeds must spend thousands of dollars for seeds and technology just to compete with other farmer’s crops all the while destroying the soil, stripping it of all of its nutrients. And while on the labels of food produced are happy, healthy farms the reality is slowly becoming the opposite.

This ideal of the bucolic family farm is still prominent yet the reality is far from it. How far have we strayed from the idea of farms in harmony with nature. The abuse of land has become commonplace. Yet the consumer continues to support this unhealthy practice. We have sat back and allowed the standard for farming become profit maximization and have pushed the standards set by nature fall to the wayside. We look past the fact that land abuse is human abuse. When farms are consolidated and left to the mercy of industrial agribusiness the small family farm disappears and along with it the local economy. As farmers leave the “urban industrial economy more and more usurps the local economy”, and as the local economy fails communities die. People in these areas become bankrupt and the standards for community life and farming are lowered. We must reduce large-scale farming and industrial dependency to stop abusing the land so that we preserve communities.

Instead of supporting the standards set by the industry, we need to set standards that adhere to those of nature by raising consumer demand in urban areas for high quality products and “pure” food. Our generation must support local food movements at farmers markets and coops to bolster the surrounding communities and local economy.

In his essay, “The Pleasures of Eating”, Wendell Berry attempts to explain what eating responsibly means. He argues that to eat responsibly is to become acquainted with what you are eating. To eat with “understanding and with gratitude” for the food you are eating, the farmers that farmed it, and the land the produced it. That is the fundamental difference between sustainable agriculture and the industrial agribusiness. Specialization, a standard of the industrial ag business, sends us cheap, chemically preserved, pre-packaged food. In contrast, you can eat home grown, locally produced, chemical and hormone free meat and produce that are produced together on a balanced and diverse farm. In the documentary, Coming To Ground, a farmer remembers the genetically engineering of a tomato. If the tomato bounced after being dropped from above a man’s head then they would use it, if not they tossed it. That is what is being produced on industrial farms, produce void of nutrition and freshness, tomatoes that bounce. A real tomato, grown and tended with care at a small farm and sold at the farmers market does not bounce. In fact, it may have dirt stains or a small split but it was grown in soil that had not been stripped of its nutrients, it tastes better and is much more nutritious than bouncing tomatoes that have been genetically crossed with fish to withstand lower temperatures. Besides that, these “frankentotmatoes” have a much larger carbon footprint than your sustainably grown food bought locally.

Just as our environment would be healthier if we were to support locally grown food so would our economy and ourselves. We must find a balance between the prosperity of the local economy and the federal economy. Which is essentially the difference between local health and monetary wealth. Though the economy has boomed as a result of the industrialization of agriculture, the health of the nation’s land has severely declined. And yet it is the wealth of our lands that will last not our monetary wealth. When truly, considered supporting local food is no more expensive than the long-term costs of unemployment and health care that must be paid as a result of the industrial ag companies. We need to begin consuming food that doesn’t rape the land and destroy communities. So what makes a burger that costs $7.50 at Stella’s better than one that costs $1.99 at McDonalds? Stella’s buys their beef that is raised grass fed is Paris, Kentucky and slaughtered in Bourbon County. The lettuce was grown pesticide free and Elmwood Stock Farm and the tomatoes, are fish gene free. McDonald’s burgers are from grain fed cows that lived most of their life in a space filled with their own excrement too small to turn around. They were raised in Texas but shipped to Kansas to be slaughtered. Then shipped to a factory to be made into patties and finally to your local McDonalds. Now, which one sounds better? Wendell Berry claims, “one reason to eat locally is to eat free”. Free to know where your food comes from and how it was treated. Free to not be influenced by the advertisements of big agribusiness. Free to stop being a passive consumer and an industrial eater and begin to realize the responsibly of the agriculture act each bite you take is. You determine your health, the local communities’ health, the local economies’ health and the health of the farms where your food was produced when you eat.

Kentucky’s move from tobacco to sustainable agriculture became a change to community. Many committed young farmers left the competition of industrial tobacco farming to create bucolic farms dedicated to preserving the tradition of generations of farming before them. They have inspired life into the community and a local foods movement. This farm to table movement has sparked life into many old farms that today produce everything from your Thanksgiving turkey to spring strawberries to grass fed beef and brussel sprouts. As these farms grew the local economy began to flourish, and farmers markets in Lexington and Louisville expanded. Local food is different from organic food. Organic food can have a large carbon footprint and “free range” chickens that never leave their coop, but there is now way for the consumer to know. Local food has a much smaller carbon footprint and the consumer knows that the chickens roam around with the pigs because they see them together and they know and trust the farmer. This trusts builds a trust through out the community and community is the fundamental difference between industrial ag and sustainable ag. Sustainable agriculture does not just help sustain the biodiversity of produce and health of the soil, but the local community and economy as well.

To eat locally is to decide to support food that emphasizes a system of permanence, quality and beauty, not speed quantity and profit. That is to choose to eat responsibly. Is everyone in the world did not buy gas for one day they would lower the cost of gas monumentally. If every one bought and ate locally produced food one day a week they would fundamentally change the system of agriculture in the United States. Local farms would thrive, as would local communities and economies. We wont all be able to say we buy our lamb from “Wendell” but we will be able to say that just like Wendell we eat responsibly because we know that eating is an agricultural act.

last blog the semester, yo.

 Technology; the key to communication on a mass scale in a matter of seconds. Imagine the world that has become so reliant on these resources literally at its fingertips having them removed in just a few minutes. The results are unfathomable, yet they can become a reality. Electromagnetic pulse attacks are a warfare technique that targets satellites, a creation that could take warfare to a whole new level, if we let it. Many people in the United States refuse to view the threats that are out there because this nation has the greatest military in the world, now I ask those of you that are listening: what makes it the greatest? The answer is simple, our technology. What would we be without it as a military? What would we be without it as a nation? And what can we do to remove this threat? I give you a look at reality. This nation does not have the world’s  best military. 

In the 1960’s Hawaii had experienced some odd occurrences regarding their technology. It was found by researchers that an EMP had been used on the islands targeting the United States military. The U.S. military itself had not experienced problems, since most of the field equipment and ships exposed to EMP had electronic systems relying on vacuum tubes. In the 1970's, it was discovered that vacuum tubes have about 10 million times more hardness against EMP than integrated solid-state circuitry. Now here is the scary part, all of our satellites use that circuitry and are thereby vulnerable to an EMP attack. 

Iran could potentially cause havoc in the Strait of Hormuz, a strip of water separating Oman and Iran, which connects the biggest Gulf oil producers, including Saudi Arabia, with the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea.  But its navy would be no match for the firepower of the Fifth Fleet which consists of 20-plus ships supported by combat aircraft. John Daly, Eurasian foreign affairs and defense policy expert in DC, stated last year that Iran has been testing EMP technology in the straights. They know that the fifth fleet could easily have all of its communications neutralized by this asymmetric warfare. I am not saying that this will happen, but imagine if it did. Imagine if any nation used such an attack on our satellites. The economic, social, and political havoc that would take place is chilling. The mere existence of such a weapon should be enough to implant vacuum tubes in our satellites, let alone a direct threat. 

It would cost a lot of money to do this, I won’t lie about that. It will put us further in debt, this is true. Yet what good is an economy when a nation’s security is at stake? Our nation may have a great military, but we have a huge hole that is getting bigger as we expand technological reliance. So, I propose the implant of vacuum tubes, or at least the use of them here on out. This is not the best military in the world… but it can be. 

    

Basketball community and the search for a place in the world

I began my study of the sport of basketball when I was, well, born. In fact, my father left the hospital to go sit on the fourth row of the NCAA basketball tournament final four in 1996. Basketball influences my life continuously as I watch almost every Kentucky game and live in Lexington one of the strongholds of enthusiastic fans. Basketball creates community and encourages competition for those who watch it.

People long to belong with others. As Susan Cain says in an article for the New York Times, "Collaboration is in." Many if not all of us have been to Rupp Arena, the home court of the Wildcats. However, or all have been to a ball game, and so have missed part of the incredible feeling you expirience.  The exhilarating feeling one experiences during this is incredible. I have been to many ball games and feel strongly about Kentucky winning just like almost everyone else in the arena creating a sense of belonging hard to find anywhere else, satiating my need for a place to belong. 

Kentucky and Duke hold one of the most contentious rivalries in college basketball. The entire rivalry started because of one man, a man who if I could choose one person to never be born I would choose, a man named Christian Laettner. The year: 1992, the game: NCAA regional final, the first Final Four appearance in a number of years on the line. Early in the game, Laettner purposefully stomps of a Kentucky player, warranting a ejection however not even a foul is called. Even Laettner admits, "it was a big mistake. It's worthy of a technical. I don't think it's worthy of getting kicked out of the game even though all the Kentucky fans will disagree with me on that." And rightfully so Timberlake the player stepped on was hurt by the savagery. 1.3 seconds left Kentucky is up 2 points 103-101 Duke inbounds the ball to Laettner he shoots it behind his back makes the goal and wins 104-103, the worst loss in basketball history. This game sparked books such as Duke Sucks and Kentucky vs. Duke: The Rivalry That Started It All which highlight the impact of this game upon our lives. It changed not only the lives of Kentucky fans but also the entire regulations of fouls in college basketball. If you can't tell I hate Duke with a burning passion. This rivalry creates more of a competitive urge in me than just about anything else and competition, the drive to succeed is something everyone needs.

Basketball whether you currently watch it or not has a impact on your life. Watching basketball grants a drive not many activities may. People should watch sports especially basketball for these effects and stop complaining that it's all about the money athletes deserve to be payed they preform an important job in society.

No Child Left Behind, Except the United States

            When one looks at the world OECD education rankings, it’s not only immediately evident that the United States is well below first world countries such as Canada (number three overall) and Japan (number five overall), but surprisingly, it is also below countries such as Poland (number twelve overall) and Iceland (number thirteen overall). How did we as an economic powerhouse and as such an internationally influential country fall this far academically? After all, in 2001, we established the No Child Left Behind Act in order to improve our education system. Unfortunately, contrary to its name, this act did leave one child behind: The United States of America.

             

            Let us first take a look at what the No Child Left Behind Act set out to accomplish as well as the resulting government costs. The No Child Left Behind Act states that schools will receive federal funding if schools administer state-wide administrative tests to students and if they meet the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) requirement, which basically means that the average test score for a certain grade-level, such as seventh grade, must be better than the previous year’s average score. Failure to meet this goal for three consecutive years results in the school being forced to provide free tutoring and other such services and five consecutive years can result in the school being shut down. Additionally, each year the AYP score is not met, the funding is reduced. Just how much money is the government pouring into this law? According to “NLCB Under a Microscope,” in the school year of 2004-2005 alone, the states were left with a surplus of at least 780 million dollars after receiving a budget of 71.47 billion dollars. It is obvious that the government has much faith in the No Child Left Behind Act, but just how successful has the act been in the last eleven years?

            

            Well, to answer the question posed at the end of the previous paragraph, it has not been very successful. The evidence is clear when one looks at the Nation’s Report Card (courtesy of the National Center of Education Statistics): no change in Eighth Grade reading between 2002 and 2009, little improvement in fourth grade reading proficiency, and only slightly smaller score gaps between ethnicities. Why exactly has this happened? We poured so much money into this act, and yet, it has barely changed anything. One could easily blame the students, calling those who do below average lazy or ambitionless, but are they really to blame? No, rather than blame them, we must look at ourselves as well as the United States itself to realize the truth: we have left a child behind, a fact that will haunt all of our own children until we adopt this lost child and set it on the path that so many parents want their kids to walk as well. This child is the United States of America.

            

             In its short 236 years of being a country, the United States, being the melting pot that it is, has formed a rather unique culture. This culture, like other cultures, has preferences toward certain attributes, examples being athleticism and social communication. However, one attribute in particular that many other countries find desirable is often looked down upon in the United States. This attribute is intelligence. The evidence is clear the moment anyone of any age turns on the television. The kids watch “Jimmy Neutron” or “Dexter’s Laboratory,” both shows are about an incredibly intelligent kid who has a secret lab but is constantly picked on by the people around him. It is clear that both protagonists are unpopular in their respective schools as well because of their intelligence. In the somewhat more realistic “Drake and Josh” reality TV show, something older kids may watch, one observes stark differences between the step-brothers. The intelligent one, Josh (played by Josh Peck) is shown as being goofy, prone to accidents, and often the butt of jokes. In contrast, Drake (played by Drake Bell) is shown as being below average in intelligence, but at the same time, popular, coordinated, and adored by girls. Even as we age into our teens, shows such as “The Simpsons” give us the socially awkward, but highly intellectual Professor Frink and the intelligent but comic-book obsessed Comic Book guy, both portrayed as lonely, loveless outcasts. There are plenty of other examples besides these, and they all point to a central theme of associating intelligence with unpopularity, awkwardness, and clumsiness. Although one can simply dismiss these influences as being unimportant, looking at how young America’s culture is, one could easily equate TV shows such as these with myths that often greatly shape the culture from which they are created. Because our country is so young, its culture is still very easily molded, and if we truly want our academic achievement to increase, rather than throwing money at the problem, we must make an effort change our culture, much in the same way one would try to change their own child’s behavior to fit what we consider to be a model for a proper behavior. It’s time for the United States to grow out of its immature ways and realize that in order to compete with other nations academically, it is going to have to start working hard to change its attitude.

           

            The best way to change the United States’s current attitude is to do what we have done for the country’s lifetime: adopt an aspect of culture from another country into our own, thus staying true to our title as a melting pot. In the case of academics, it is best to turn toward Japan. Japan, for all intents and purposes, is the complete opposite of the United States, a very homogeneous country where the focus on sports and individuality is minimal compared to the focus on academics and group cohesion. Many of their values stem from things such as the bushido code, which Academic Nationalism in China and Japan: Framed in Concepts of Nature, Culture, and the Universal notes as, “justice, courage, benevolence, politeness, veracity, honour, and loyalty.” Virtues such as these and many others are still present in Japan today, as is evidenced by the country having a very low crime-rate. Such values have led the Japanese to place importance in trying one’s best in whatever they are doing, and as a result, there is often a great deal of competition among peers, especially in an academic setting, to be the best. To add further contrast between the U.S. and Japan, let us take a look at the difference in word usage between the countries. In the U.S., before a test, we often wish each other, “Good luck!” as if it is merely luck that will allow us to pass a test in the end, while the Japanese say, “Ganbatte!” literally meaning, “Do your best!” This phrase of encouragement puts the result of the test entirely into the receiver’s hands, telling them to use all of the knowledge that they have culminated in order to pass the test. This difference in attitude and values, especially toward academics, may very well contribute to why the U.S. is only number fourteen on the chart mentioned in the opening paragraph. If we adopt aspects such as this into our own culture, it will be easy to pull the United States, the world’s youngest child, out of this academic slump.

           

            The first thing we as Americans need to do in order to create a similar respect toward those that possess intelligence that is to change how our culture treats those that are academically gifted, especially the way that the media presents them. As previously stated, like a child’s mind, the U.S.’s culture, is easily molded, so such a challenge is not as daunting as it first may seem. Firstly, we need to honor our scholars just as much as we honor those who can throw around a ball made of pigskin well. Not only that, but we must encourage children and teenagers to try hard in school and instill in them that intelligence is a value that is should not result in shame. One big way that we can bring about this change is by changing the archetypical intelligent, “nerdy” character we see in today’s television shows into a character well-respected by classmates and teachers but still given a character flaw that wouldn’t be out of the ordinary on any other average character; being intelligent would likely then become associated less with clumsiness and being socially awkward, and it would instead be seen as a generally positive character trait. This way, children are much less likely to fear the prospect of being intelligent or loathe those that are. It’s simple, the more our culture comes to accept intelligent people, whether through the media or from the new attitude our elders will instill in us, students will feel a much greater motivation to do well in school. Such changes to our culture will allow us to get rid of virtually useless programs such as the No Child Left Behind Act, because at that point, no child would want to get left behind, not even our little red, white, and blue.

             

              The United States has much untapped potential, but sadly, laws such as the No Child Left Behind Law simply will not bring that potential into the open. The biggest thing that is keeping us in our academic slump is our culture, not a lack of willpower. If we wish to compete with the likes of South Korea and Canada academically, we will have to change our culture. In conclusion, if the U.S. wants to compete academically with other top countries, we need to not only get rid of the No Child Left Behind Act, but our country must change its perspective on intelligent people as a whole.