True Diversity: Affirmative Action in Universities

Greetings all!

This post comes as a closer to the month of September, a two-part work which will be completed tomorrow. This first part deals with a domestic issue, and the second portion will deal with a more international issue. In this post, I intend to state my stance on affirmative action clearly and provide my reasoning for said stance. This week’s quote comes from Jawaharlal Nehru, the first leader of an independent India and a large proponent of socialism in his time. Years later, India would eventually be declared officially socialist in a triumph of his life’s goals.

 Moving on from that the reason I bring up affirmative action is because, as some of you may have heard, the Supreme Court plans on hearing a case attacking affirmative action by the University of Texas at Austin in October (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/09/28/Supreme-Court-to-hear-UT-case/UPI-62921348867470/). This topic is especially important to me, because I am applying to colleges myself these days. Whether affirmative action is upheld, mildly changed, or struck down entirely could affect my admissions, and the admissions of hopeful students everywhere in this nation. As such, I felt the issue prominent enough to bring up. I also plan to further take a look at education next week, when I’ll be looking at why we do poorly, funding for colleges, etc.

To qualify my point of view, I must define affirmative action first. It is the policy by which universities are allowed to consider, but not prioritize race in the applications process in order to promote diversity in higher education. This policy has been intended to combat racism in the applications and admissions processes of the past, and to foster the education of minority groups in our country. I’m glad that we implemented affirmative action in the past to defeat our old habits; without it, we might be looking at an even more disproportionately educated population than we do today.

However, it has been 44 years since the last Civil Rights Act was passed, and things have changed since then. We find ourselves in a much more tolerant society, one where equal opportunity of education is much harder to find between social classes than between races. While we are not perfectly harmonious by the standards of race, we have made many improvements. As compared to the past, lynch mobs are fairly rare these days (read: nearly non-existent). We must confront the fact that we have changed as a country, and that our educational institutions have changed as a result. I think you can see where I’m going with this; I want affirmative action removed.

Let me explain why. We are not the best in terms of education; we haven’t been in a long time, and both No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top have done little to change that. Both programs have made standardized tests the basis upon which we learn and are judged, and have shifted our learning towards a very rigid set of what types of learning are considered “valuable.” While the latter program seeks to correct some of the issues the former created, progress has been quite slow and ineffective in most cases. This is why our SAT scores have recently been the lowest in decades (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444180004578016624120796346.html). We are faced with a crisis in primary education where, should too many kids get bad standardized test scores, counties will simply lower their standards rather than take the time to teach the kids better. As such, we are rewarding stupidity in a nation that can’t afford it. Affirmative action is another way we are rewarding stupidity, but in a different form.

By keeping race a factor in admissions, we are doing more to hinder minorities looking for educational opportunities than we are doing to help them. Let me provide an example. Say we have two teenagers applying to the University of Chicago, a notoriously rigorous school that is extremely difficult to get accepted to. These two teenagers have identical qualities for getting in; extremely similar grades for classes of equal difficulty, the same SAT/ACT scores, equal amounts of leadership in clubs and sports, equally good application essays, etc. The only stark difference between these two kids is that one is of Asian heritage, while the other is of Hispanic origins. If both kids are qualified to be accepted and push comes to shove, the Hispanic kid will be accepted over the Asian one. This is accepted fact among teenagers; minorities that are interpreted as being less intelligent as a whole race will be accepted more easily by colleges than minorities interpreted as being “smart.” The problem can be extended further in the previous example; even if the Hispanic student has lesser qualifications to a certain degree, they are more likely to be accepted and given financial aid than the Asian student.

This is not promotion of diversity. This is promotion of inequality of diversity. While not direct, this process essentially forces universities to hoist extra value onto certain races over others, resulting in an unfair admissions process. And while not immediate, this encourages the races which universities prefer over others to be less intelligent as a whole. We are providing a disservice to these people; if we cannot provide a fair process, there is no point in promoting diversity in colleges at all. If students in this age know they can get an equal reward for less work, we will take it. One needs only to walk through the halls of a high school and listen to the conversations to discover just how lazy and whiny the majority of us are. I’m not one to generalize, but I speak the truth when I say my generation is way too lazy for its own good. In classes that are even slightly less rigorous than the norm at my school, whenever a teacher announces an assignment or a test coming up, the entire class groans and begs for extensions. And I sit there, being constantly reminded of how pathetic we can be. And I assure you, should any seniors see an easier way to ensure their acceptance to colleges, they will go for it with their grubby little hands without even a thought. If students in my generation know they can be abuse their race to jimmy their chances of being accepted, they will take that freedom. This is why affirmative action must stop.

I am white, and a religious minority: Jewish. That is how I appear to colleges, and that is how I’ve always appeared, although I no longer follow the Jewish faith. I am part of a minority that colleges consider “smart,” where it is not considered unique for one of my kind to be intelligent and well-involved. The same goes for my Jewish and Asian friends; all of them ride the same boat I do. We have always ridden in this boat, and have accepted that we must work harder to appear unique to colleges in order to be accepted. Meanwhile, other minorities which colleges consider unintelligent have had to do less work to be considered equally good candidates for acceptance. We are propping up a broken system, by which we hurt all races. Races which are considered “intelligent” or “average” must work more and make themselves look better to have hopes, while idiocy among other races which are considered “less intelligent” is promoted, and inequality results.

But why stop this? We’re getting the diversity of ethnicities that we want in schools, so why change the system? Because if we don’t, we are faced with a society polarized further and further among educational lines. Martin Luther King Jr. said that he had a dream, one where all races could look upon each other in harmony. I have a similar dream; one where colleges don’t look upon men and women of King’s race as tools to make themselves look better to potential applicants. If we keep doing what we do now, I see a situation where minorities go to colleges using their race to buoy themselves, but cannot handle the rigors of the institutions they are in. So they drop out. Things become progressively worse for each of them, because without proper training and education they will not receive the jobs they need to prosper. This begins cycles of poverty, cycles that are harder to break than many of you can even comprehend. Those that don’t drop out will transfer to lesser schools, making them appear as though they weren't good enough for something they thought they were. Once again, due to the poorer education they receive they won’t get good enough jobs, forcing these cycles of poverty. Some will plain flunk out of schools, making it even worse for them. This promotes an inequality based on race.

But this can be solved. However, the process will not be immediate. Let’s say we end all affirmative action starting today, cold turkey. Colleges all across the country have to ignore race when accepting and denying applicants. At first, there will be an immediate decrease in those races which colleges consider unintelligent; namely, African-Americans and Hispanics. This is inevitable due to the fact that colleges are always looking for money, and if diversity won’t bring in money then colleges will turn to test scores, grades, and essays instead. Because of this, we will likely look at a few years where colleges will turn their campuses into swarms of Whites and Asians, unfortunately calling racism into the area. However, as students of all groups learn to accept that they will only get into college based on grades rather than race, we will gradually see a return of all races to universities of higher expectations. And instead of having certain races coast by while others stay up until midnight studying, all races will be doing the latter. All races will truly be equal in this way; we shall do equal work, and receive an equal payoff, regardless of where we come from. This results in further payoffs for our society as a whole. Minority groups will become more educated as a whole, thereby increasing their gross wealth and opportunities for the future. Because colleges will use grades solely as standards for acceptance, the nation’s aggregate educational strengths will increase over the years, to the point where we are competing among the top nations with much more gusto. While we still will have quite a bit to work on in primary, secondary, and tertiary education, we’ll have made the first necessary step.

That is all for this post, and I hope I’ve provided sound reasoning for my proposition of ending affirmative action. If you would like to contact me, I can be reached easily at my email zerospintop@live.com. My accounts on Facebook, Twitter, DeviantArt, Google+, and Steam are also always open. And so I bid you adieu, and this is KnoFear, signing off.

No Post This Week

Greetings all!

As you can tell by the title, there will be no post this week due to college applications work which I must undertake. Expect me to return next week with a double post to end the month of September, allowing me to cover both a domestic and a foreign issue once more. In the meantime, enjoy this week's quote by Leon Trotsky, the founder of the ideology which I follow most closely. That is all.

I can be contacted through my email at zerospintop@live.com, my Facebook, Twitter, DeviantArt, and Steam accounts. I hope you all have a good week, and I wish a happy Yom Kippur to my Jewish readers. Thank you for your patience.

Collective Stupidity: The "Innocence Of Muslims" Film

Greetings all!

This week I’m focusing on something that surprises me, something that I had expected would not evolve into the political stumble block that it has become. I’m talking about the short trailer film for “Innocence of Muslims”, which was given an Arabic translation and spread to predominantly Islamic nations just a few days ago. Quite soon there was a public outcry in Libya and Egypt, but I expected something as such to happen. Egypt has a government headed by an Islamist, and Libya has become a grounds for a resurgence of Islamism in the wake of the revolution. Libya has also become increasingly lawless in a similar pattern to Egypt, only quieting down a tad since elections took place. As the protests continued, my suspicions about the seriousness of the problem grew. And then a few days later, I’m reading in the post about Australian Muslims protesting against the film (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/police-clash-with-200-protesters-in-sydney-in-demonstrations-against-anti-muslim-film/2012/09/15/35ace750-ff0d-11e1-98c6-ec0a0a93f8eb_story.html). It’s around that point I realized just how bad this had become. So I’ve decided to post about the film and the international reaction to it. This week’s quote is a commemorative dedication to the Occupy movement, which on Monday celebrates its one-year anniversary. I have always stood and will always stand with them, and I hope the Occupy movement experiences revival and strength in the future.

Let’s start with what the film is about, shall we? It’s essentially a festival of hatred against Muslims. That’s pretty much as deep as it gets. There is something in there about persecution of Coptic Christians by Egyptian Muslims, but that is kind of forgotten once Muhammad has a one-sided homoerotic conversation with a donkey. Yes, I’m serious, that actually happens. The film also shows the Qur’an being made by Muhammad’s wife Khadija by stringing together verses from the Old and New Testament, and declares Muslims to be greedy savages bent on killing women and children. Not only is the logic behind the film’s argument incredibly scatological and inflammatory, but the film itself is of poorer quality than a 1997 episode of South Park (my apologies to Trey Parker and Matt Stone, they are hilarious in my eyes).

Now let’s review some things. Typically, when you blatantly insult someone’s beliefs just by calling them names and shaming their idols, they resist your behavior. Depending on the person, this can result in a verbal argument or physical violence. Now, when you spread your bigoted rant to millions of people who share the viewpoint you’re mocking, that’s when the problem snowballs. The problem becomes especially hot to the touch when you inflict your hatred on the world’s second largest religion, a religion known to be quite intolerant towards depictions of its prophet. I’d like to know just how ignorant one person would have to be to not predict that something of this magnitude would happen when “Innocence of Muslims” was translated and spread worldwide. I mean really, how stupid could this guy get? Let’s jump back to South Park. South Park had made an episode in which they intended to show Muhammad dressed in a bear suit (he could not be seen at all). Parker and Stone were promptly threatened by an extremist (http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/virginia-man-threatened-south-park-creators-charged-join-somali-terrorist-group-article-1.204009), so the bear suit was entirely censored. If South Park can’t get away with Muhammad in a bear suit, then nobody can get anyway with Muhammad saying gay things to a donkey. This should be an absolutely accepted fact of modern society, and a fact that should be followed without serious issues cropping up. You don’t show major disrespect for large religions, and people don’t die. End of discussion.

But it appears the time to tell Nakoula Basseley not to produce the film has passed, and the damage has been done. So once again, it is time for the United States to play damage control. Poorly, as always. But then again, I can’t really blame Obama for not being able to control the protests that have occurred in response to the film. Once religious, nationalistic and hateful anger has been awakened in millions of people, fanning the flames becomes increasingly difficult.

And to qualify my beliefs on the issue, I do not condone any forms of violence committed by protesters. Senseless violence and destruction are just that; senseless. I especially condemn any protesters whom feel it necessary to kill innocent Americans in “righteous fury.” To those protesting, I simply ask you not to charge American embassies. Feel free to protest outside all you like. But in pretty much all cases, those embassies have done naught to defame Islam or hurt you in any way. I realize they act as a proxy for America; but we cannot be destroyed. We are an enormous nation, both in population and geographic size. We also have the single largest economy, a massive military and unquestionable influence in international politics. We won’t be falling out completely for a while, and torching a few buildings won’t get us any closer to that end.

However, there are definitely many forms of protest I welcome. Feel free to create posters as you please, and stand before American embassies in anger. Show what you believe in legal, non-violent means. Show us your message; ingrain it upon us. Perhaps we’ll finally learn something. There is one more form of protest that, just this once, I’ll accept easily. Normally, I don’t like seeing the American flag burned. I don’t like our history very much at all, but that’s no reason to light our image in flames indiscriminately. I get the whole anger against what we’ve done and what we still do; my posts in the past show that in abundance. But to burn a national symbol for millions is something I just don’t like seeing; it shows no respect for our positive sides, few though they may be. However, I would fight to the death for your freedom to do so. And in this one case, I’m giving any true Muslim who believes in the Shahada Creed a pass to burn the flag if they truly must.

Let me explain why I would allow this. I can guarantee you anyone would say that our society, our country is not to blame for this film. They would say it is the action of a lone bigot, and should be treated as such. This is wrong. In a broad sense, it is correct; each individual is not entirely to blame for this abomination. But we as a society have made this kind of thing more and more acceptable in recent years. Sure, I’m betting no decent American would condone this film. But I’d also wager that a nation with more Nazis than modern Germany is not completely innocent in this matter. Ever since the tragic events of September 11^th years ago, there has been much accepted racism in America. It became much easier to say that you hated foreigners. It became much easier to say that you hated Hispanic immigrants. And of course, it became much easier to say that you hated Muslims. We are at fault because we did little to stop this; we started wars with predominantly Muslim countries, and made American nationalism increasingly tolerated to a boiling point. Things only got worse during the 2008 campaign, when many accused Obama of being a secret Muslim. Seriously, even if he was a Muslim that shouldn’t have mattered. Boo-hoo, someone who thinks differently than you got elected. That’s what happens in a democracy; get over it. Obama isn’t even a Muslim anyway; he’s a Christian, and that’s why the White House had a Christmas tree this year as it always has.

My point is this: we might not support this kind of thing as a nation, but we haven’t exactly done all we ever could to stop it. We have fostered a culture of fear and consumption, and it is this culture which breeds the hatred we see in this film. And then it just spreads, inciting riots. Can we really expect anything different of such an event? And can we really expect true followers of Islam to not blame us for allowing something such as this? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spews all sorts of lies about Jews and America, and despite not holding any real power in Iran, we jump all over his remarks like bees to flowers. We are no better; while we rarely display real violence towards our objects of distaste, when we do the situations are devastating (http://www.policymic.com/articles/12430/sikh-temple-shooting-and-missouri-mosque-burning-show-hate-is-rising-in-america).

That is all, and I hope I have made my ideas and points cogent and clear. If you have feedback of any kind, I urge you to comment here; it is my easiest form of reliable and speedy contact. I also check my email at zerospintop@live.com several times daily, so feel free to email me. Once again, I can be contacted through Facebook, DeviantArt, Twitter, Google+, and Steam if necessary. Good night, and this is KnoFear, signing off. 

Tetris Politics: The Right To An Abortion

Greetings all!

This week’s title is inspired as part of a quote from a friend of mine. We were discussing how both political parties in America very much like to focus on certain population demographics during the election season, and why we believe this is damaging to our constitutional republic as a whole. What she said struck me as unabashedly true: “Democracy is not a tetris game. People should be treated as people, not as voting blocs which can be used for political gain.” I decided to take a note from her idea, and begin a mini-event on my blog. Both this week’s post and next’s week’s will focus on women’s issues, while simultaneously making sure to treat the topics as subjects that affect all of us rather than just some. This is especially true since women make up more than half of all American people today. This may even spill over into a third week, if you all demand it. As you’ll likely notice, this week’s quote is from Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate for the presidency whom I support. The quote is not in full, although this is only because blogger limits that space to under 500 characters, so sorry for that.

Moving on, this week I approach a subject which lights fires in everyone’s eyes the moment I say it, regardless of political affiliation: abortion. It’s a contentious issue ever since the 1972 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade essentially made abortions legal up until around 28 weeks into the pregnancy. Since then, some states have chosen to embrace such a ruling and live with the limits, while others have rejected it and tried to limit such abilities on the part of women to get abortions. This is mostly based upon how each of us defines a normal, human life. It also depends upon what time we consider such a life to have started in earnest. The trouble is, there is no absolute and definitive scientific legal standard applied to the federal level which could shut out all the lesser opinions. As such, the debate still rages on today. Roe may have set the limit at 28 weeks, but the Court’s ruling also admitted that such a limit could extend backwards to even 24 weeks, or rather whenever a life was “viable”, meaning the child could survive absent of the mother, albeit with machines attached. All of these standards are still questioned, even by me, although not likely in the same direction as many of my readers.

I’ll take a look first at the scientific side of this debate. Because a “viable” life is a fairly broad term under the ruling, especially due to increases in technology and knowledge that we have gained since then, we must learn to define at what time we should consider that life to have started. A normal human life is termed as being a person that can live independently and can perform all normal human bodily processes. I would like to qualify this definition is a generalized scientific one, and not a legal definition, as no such definition exists within the context of federal law. However, it is the only legitimate definition we can use for now that is not tinged with political opinion. The first point of the definition specifies that a normal human must be able to live independent of another being, and that its bodily processes must be accounted for solely by its own systems. The second point specifies that all capabilities of human function must be accounted for, including things such as thought, instinct, sensory responses, digestion, etc. If you can’t tell by now, this definition which I use points towards normal human life beginning at birth. At that point, the human becomes independent of its food source (the mother) and begins to live its own life. It is also capable of all normal human functions (although complex thoughts are mostly restricted until later, of course). By this definition, that fetus is not truly alive until it is born, and therefore an abortion should be legal at all points of the pregnancy. Couldn’t this possibly lead to abortions the day before children are born? It certainly could, although I would think that any woman pregnant for that long would’ve likely already chosen to keep the child. Do I agree with this definition? For the most part, the answer is yes. A fetus certainly cannot think at all, and does not experience extinct or nerve responses in quite the same ways as we do. The fetus’s food and blood interchange with the mother, and normal humans do neither of these things (I would hope). Would I allow an abortion a day before the birth? Yes, as it is not my personal decision to make, although I would certainly question such a woman as to whether she is acting rashly in the face of sudden life changes. However, I still would not stop her from making that choice.

This leads me into the second portion of my debate: the civil rights and religious issues tied up within abortion. Roe ruled that abortion is part of a legal right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14^th Amendment and is therefore protected by the Constitution. However, a significant portion of the population believes that abortion should be further restricted or abolished entirely. The first and foremost reason cited for such proposals is due to a differing definition of when life starts; a surprising amount of Americans believe life starts at conception. Now this definition is one I strongly oppose. Take a look here, to see what conception looks like: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/Sperm-egg.jpg. It is a simple picture of what a zygote would look like the instant that sperm combines with that egg. Once that happens, under the “life starts at conception” definition, that zygote could feel highly threatened and kill its mother with a gun as self-defense in Florida. Oh wait, that can’t actually happen because a fetus can’t hold a gun, or feel threatened, or claim self-defense in a court of law. Why guarantee the right to bear arms to a cluster of cells which does not even possess a brain yet? This functions under the same reasoning we do not allow minors the right to vote; we are not yet considered mature enough for the responsibility of such rights. A zygote is not mature enough for such rights as freedom of assembly or freedom from double jeopardy, and therefore should not be accorded those rights. A reason many claim that life begins at conception is due to religion; however, this point is moot because as soon as religious standards are brought into the debate, they can be shut out in the same instant. Because the 1^st Amendment guarantees separation of church and state, the federal government cannot appropriate laws which respect one religion over another or which promote any religion. As such, the government cannot create a standard of when life begins based upon religious doctrine of any kind; neither Christian nor any other religious definition may be used without violating the 1^st Amendment.

And now, my final point. I should not have any say over whether a woman has an abortion or not. It is the personal decision of each and every pregnant woman whether to have an abortion or not, and if so when they plan to do so. A woman is a mature being with all the rights given to her by the Constitution and the government, and as such she has domain over her personal affairs. Unless that woman is a minor (which I would sincerely hope they are not), they have full control over whether they have a child or not. No person or group should be able to restrict that choice legally, unless they are the parents/legal guardians of a pregnant minor. Even in such a case, the young woman should have more than enough say over what happens to her. It is not our right and nor is it legal for us to take away such a choice, contentious as it may be, as it is not our choice to make. We don’t know what these women are going through, and why they may or may not choose to have an abortion. But whether we like it or not, we must respect that choice and cast off any illusion of control we may have.

That is all for this week, and I hope I’ve made my points cogent and easy to understand. If you have questions or comments of any kind, I encourage you to post them right here for me to see and respond to. If you would prefer other means of communication, I would suggest my email at zerospintop@live.com. I can also be contacted through Facebook, Twitter (@KnoFearMLP), DeviantArt, Google+, and Steam (once again, KnoFearMLP instead of KnoFear). Good night, and this is KnoFear, signing off. 

One Road To Take: The 2012 Election

Greetings all!

I’d like to wish a happy Labor Day to all my readers from the United States. I hope we’ve all enjoyed a day of rest in celebration of the many achievements organized labor has made over the years for our society. This week, I’ll be passing my first and final judgment on whom I think should win the 2012 presidential election. I have postponed making this post because I wanted to wait until the general election season had officially begun and both conventions had passed. I’ve decided to not wait for the DNC to end, as Barack Obama will be the only nominee there. It would be pointless for me to wait, as we already know with absolute certainty that he is running and how he is doing so. I specifically wanted to wait for the RNC to formally nominate someone, and that has now occurred; Mitt Romney is officially the Republican nominee for president. As such, it is time I tell you what a communist hopes for in this election. This week’s quote comes as a sort of in-joke between me and my friends, in that for many years Sweden truly has been doing better than many modern European nations both economically and socially. While not absolutely true in every aspect, we cannot deny that Scandinavian nations typically best the rest of Europe in many areas. But enough of my playful jabs at Europe.

Many people in the news media hail this election as the most important of them all. I would disagree wholeheartedly. The election of Abraham Lincoln was far more important; so was the first election of FDR. However, I won’t say this one is as unimportant as, say, the re-election of FDR for the fourth time (it was essentially inevitable at that point). This election certainly will determine some of the rules and traditions campaigns of the future will follow. This election will also determine how America has reacted to our recovery from recession, and whether we move away from our questionable past or embrace it. Either way, it’s obvious by now that the current political climate has left America bitterly divided, and this division will likely continue for years to come. When people get angry about Oreo’s supporting gay marriage, you know things have gotten out of hand (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/oreo-pride-rainbow-stuffed-cookie-sparks-boycott/).

I’ll be completely honest; if given the choice who I would vote for at this moment, it would be neither of the main candidates. Personally, I’d be casting a ballot for the Green Party candidate Jill Stein. Should you wish to learn more about her and the Green Party platform, check out their website here: http://www.gp.org/index.php. However, at the same time I realize that the probability of a third party candidate winning one of our elections is smaller than the probability of a butterfly causing you serious bodily harm. And so, I’ll be speaking solely on the two main party candidates.

Deciding who I’d rather see the election won by is easy. I’d much rather see a weak Democrat in office than a strong and active Republican. Specifically, I fear a Mitt Romney presidency. I can’t say that such a presidency would destroy America, or anything close to such an extreme. However, I can say a Republican victory would definitely confirm and change many things in the eyes of the electorate. Let me preface this by reminding us all of what led to the Obama presidency; two terms of a Bush presidency. This is where I view America as having declined significantly. We started two costly and illegal wars, all while driving up budget deficits and letting the classes become more and more divided. And in the meantime, we did little to nothing to advance our society; if anything, we backtracked. The reason why Obama was able to win in 2008 was because Americans had realized the consequences of running a nation like a business, and we were sick and tired of a government that neglected some of our very own in favor of others. It seems we’ve forgotten all this, because just four years later many of us are ready to revert to those exact same policies which got us into this mess. I’d very much like to look at every Romney supporter and waggle my finger at them, but I can’t do that. I can, however, explain why I would be justified in doing so.

Romney has not revealed much of his intended policies; this makes it somewhat harder for me to predict what exactly would occur under his presidency. I cannot say how extreme his policies would be if elected. However, I can predict with some certainty at least what direction his policies would take. One thing Mitt Romney has promised is absolutely no defense cuts, so I’ll start with that. I realize that many Americans have jobs in the military, and we would hurt somewhat to lose many of those jobs. At the same time, let me show why cuts in defense are in our interests. We already outspend many nations on defense, so what have we got to show for it? Not much, really. We have not had significantly more or less terrorist attacks than other developed nations with less military spending have had in recent years. Much of our military spending has been on offense rather than defense in the past decade of war, and the results so far are grim; those tracking the total Afghan war deaths in the Washington Post know by now that number exceeds 2,000 American deaths. This number doesn’t factor in Afghan military or civilian deaths, either. So let me ask; is spending so much on defense necessary if we’re just going to be letting our own people die and suffer in the process? I know terrorism is a threat, but not big enough a threat that we need to direct huge amounts of our GDP towards fighting it. We can’t destroy an idea, and the best way to protect ourselves from it is not to shoot it in the face. We must concentrate on educating ourselves about why such an idea exists, and use diplomacy to tear away its principles. If we set a better example and develop a better foreign policy, terrorism will have no legs to stand upon. And imagine the money that could be saved should cuts be made; that money could be used to pay for our debts, or could be reinvested in order to boost our economy. It’s not an easy choice to make, but it’s a necessary one. We can’t let our economy become entrenched in war economics; eventually, all wars must end.

I’ll be covering just two more points, as they are the ones I can best predict and make a point on. First is the healthcare debate. Romney has promised that he would begin the process to repeal Obamacare the day he takes office. Let me start this by noting just how humiliating this is. Really, we’re going to start a presidency by simply trying to undo what the last guy did? If we let that kind of thing happen, we’re just going to have cycles of presidents undoing their predecessors, resulting in a stagnation of policy that will ruin us. And secondly, Obamacare really is a good thing when you take a long look at it. There are flaws, of course; it leaves far too much wiggle room, and depends too much on private companies for my tastes. However, we also must take into account how many people are uninsured in the United States right now: about 50 million (http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/27/politics/btn-health-care/index.html). This is horrifying. We can’t sit here and wait for these people to get injured or sick; it will inevitably happen with a number that large. By keeping ours a system of non-universal healthcare, we can guarantee that some of these people will likely suffer or even die because they cannot afford the care they need. It sickens me to know that many of us like Mitt Romney would happily let this occur; we can’t allow our own to suffer when we have the chance to end it. Obamacare may not extend coverage perfectly, but it begins the process. And that first step is what it takes to make progress.

Lastly, I’ll be looking at education, because it matters very much to me at this moment. I’m a high school senior, and I will be applying to colleges soon. I will no doubt be applying for scholarships and loans no matter what, and I’d very much like to be able to pay off my education costs before I’m, say, forty years old. I’d also like to avoid defaulting on my loans, which many students have had to do. I say all of this because I can very much see what Romney would do to education as president; he would likely cut funding for public institutions and for public loans in cost-cutting measures. This is the absolute worst thing we could do to ourselves. Republicans complain about the debt we may be saddling our younger generation with; how can they say this and then wish to defund said generation’s education? Education is a powerful tool that allows us to rise up through the classes and make better lives for us. If only those with money at the outset can become educated, we create a plutocracy where only the rich have the education to get high-paying jobs and therefore have enough money to influence politics. We can’t allow this to happen; plutocracies don’t work, and we will fall if this path is set forth upon. We must more properly fund education; every child who is smart deserves to make something of those smarts. Every actor deserves a chance to shine, and every person deserves to become educated at least through college. If you can provide a reason why education is not a right to me, I’d be happy to hear it.

That is all for this post, and I hope I’ve provided enough for you all to go on. I can be contacted at my email zerospintop@live.com, my Facebook, Google+, Steam, Twitter, or DeviantArt accounts. Good night, and this is KnoFear signing off.