Forerunners of the Constitution

The writers of the Constitution, while intelligent men without a doubt, did not completely come up with the ideals for the laws written there themselves. They of course were influenced by great philosophers, namely three important men of the European Age of Enlightenment: Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

Thomas Hobbes: Born in England in 1588, Hobbes is most known today in the field of political philosophy for his book Leviathan and the social contract theory. He also believed that humans in their natural state are, at their core, selfish, but rational. So the social contract theory asserts that people enter into a contract with the government in which they will give up some of their natural rights in exchange for certain protections that are in their best interest.

John Locke: Locke is another English philosopher born after Hobbes in 1632, making him a younger contemporary. While also important to the social contract theory, Locke is also responsible for the theory that people are basically good in a natural state and it is entering into society that can corrupt them. It is his views whose influence can be best seen in our Constitution, and Locke's most renowned piece of work is Two Treatises on Government. Locke also believed the Law of Nature to be that one would not harm another based on the other's "life, health, liberty, or possessions." As part of his theories, too, Locke also believed that if people did not deem their government to be fit, it is their right to dissolve their social contract and reframe the government. (That should sound like a familiar justification.)

Jean-Jacques Rousseau: Born in Geneva in 1732, Rousseau was the last born of these three philosophers. He is well known for his theory of the "noble savage," which asserts man is happiest somewhere in between completely wild and completely civilized. His theory also states that we define who we are by what society thinks of us, and that we give up freedom and individuality in exchange for civilization. Rousseau also believed that in the event the government broke the social contract, the people had the right to tear it down.

These three men had ideals that gave the writers of the Constitution a basis for the laws and regulations written there. They're the reason we have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," among other things.

American Culture Defined

The American culture is incredibly diverse and varies among regions, ethnicities, and genders, at least, so it's difficult to try and pick any one thing to define it. The complications increase when one considers there are different types of cultures -- there's pop culture, traditional culture and subcultures, to name a few.

But last year was easily a groundbreaking year for one individual who dominated the music scene and changed people's perception of pop culture for years to come: Lady Gaga.

Lady Gaga won nearly 50 awards last year alone, including ones from MTV, the Grammys, Nickelodeon, People's and Teen Choice, and a variety of international ceremonies. She had five singles, and another was released shortly after we entered 2010. All of these songs can still be heard on pop radio stations an entire year later. Stefani Germanotta has become an international phenomenon.

Easily, one of clearest ways she has achieved this status is by being more than just a music artist. Lady Gaga is known just as well for her outrageous fashions and off the wall live performances. Anyone who saw her perform "Paparazzi" at MTV's Video Music Awards last year could vouch that, depsite liking or disliking it, it was certainly memorable. Here it is, if you haven't seen it:



Lady Gaga is so incredible because she devotes herself completely to the persona she's created. She toes the boundaries of "acceptable" pop culture, and people are drawn to her for it. Her song "Poker Face" is about thinking of being with a girl while being with a guy, her outfits are constantly extreme, and she embraced the rumor of her being a hermaphrodite by recently appearing in a magazine wearing a strap-on. But her persona aside, she is truly talented. She's a powerful singer and plays the piano, so it's not that she's famous only for being eccentricly outrageous.

She may not represent the American culture of the everyday person, but Lady Gaga is surely one of, if not the, top people of 2009. If she can take the entire nation by surprise and has the success to back it up, then she deserves "The Fame." Besides, the country could use someone to keep everyone on his toes.

Mean What You Say

There are thousands upon thousands of words used today in the English language alone. The Oxford English Dictionary has entries for 171,476 words in current use, and there are thousands more that are considered obsolete.

With so many words to choose from, it's imperative to use the words that most clearly express the intended idea. In middle school, teachers often said not to use words like "good" or "nice" because there are other words to use that are "better." However, all of those words -- like good, fantastic, awesome, superb, terrific, wonderful -- all have slightly different meanings because they're different words.

The one word that particularly bothers me of those is "terrific" because of the way it's used today. Often, it is used in positive context, but really, the word means "very bad; frightful." It makes sense when one examines the other forms of the word -- "terror," "terrible," "terrifying," and "terribly" all connote negative images.


Children do bad things sometimes, sure, but I'm not sure that's what the intended meaning was.

Communication is vital to daily life, there's no getting around it. In written forms of communication, like critical writing, it does wonders for one's credibility to be able to write cleanly, concisely, and with words that convey exactly what the author means.

2010 Winter Olympics

The winter Olympics are not a big deal to me. The only Olympic sport I've ever followed is women's soccer, and I haven't done that for years. I just dislike the cold, so seeing people willingly participate in sports that require such weather just baffles me. I do like figure skating, though I am always petrified someone is going to slice him- or herself dreadfully on those sharp skate blades.

This year, as I'm sure everyone who doesn't live under a rock is aware, the danger was in luging, however, and that is the topic I would like to dedicate the most time to in this blog. Nodar Kumaritashvili, a 21-year-old Georgian luger, died during a practice run when he hit about 90 mph on the track that was known to be dangerous.


The track was subsequently fixed to be "less dangerous," but let's go over some other issues here. Luging is a dangerous sport. Of course it's potentially lethal; there's practically nothing between the luger and the unrelenting ice he's covering at speeds at which it's illegal to drive a car. My question is Why is this a sport at all?? I mean really, has no one sat down and considered that the concept of this sport is crazy in the first place? Don't get me wrong, if you want to do it on your own time, be my guest -- I think it sounds like fun -- but to sanction it as an internationally competitive sport is just asking for problems. The competitors obviously want to win, and to do that, it means that they have to go faster. Someone was bound to get on the wrong side of fate sometime.

Comparative Advantage

The concept of comparative advantage is usually attributed to the book "On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation," written by David Ricardo in 1917. He coined the term when comparing production in England and Portugal. In essence, comparative advantage refers to someone or something to produce a good/service for a lower opportunity cost than another. It encourages people to specialize in what provides the lowest opportunity cost.



Example 1, Comparative Advantage In Practice:
-- Suppose Company ABC and Company XYZ each produce cars and airplanes, and the principle of ceteris paribus is applicable.
-- Company ABC produces cars and airplanes that are more structurally sound and more popular among consumers than Company XYZ's.
-- That means Company ABC has an absolute advantage.
-- However, it is not in Company ABC's interests to establish a monopoly and produce everything itself. It's actually cheaper for Company XYZ to produce airplanes.
-- Therefore, it benefits both companies if Company ABC specializes in cars instead of airplanes and if Company XYZ specializes in airplanes instead of cars. They can trade with each other and it's more beneficial.



Example 2, Comparative Advantage With Numbers:

"Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog" Review

I love Joss Whedon's shows, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" most of all. One would be hard-pressed to find a musical that I don't like. So knowing that, it should have been a guaranteed assumption that Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog would have been a joyous occasion for me. In some respects, it was -- I enjoyed the occassional bursts into song because I think they sang well. Aside from that, however, I more often than not found myself wondering Really? for the entire 40 minutes.

Dr. Horrible's was written during the writer's strike in 2008, intended to be a short film exclusively for the Internet. It takes place in three acts and is filmed to be like entries to Dr. Horrible's (Neil Patrick Harris) video blog.

The one thing I liked about this movie is that it was humorously from the "villain's" point of view. Dr. Horrible's main goal is to become a member of the Evil League of Evil, and, of course, get the girl -- Penny, from the laundromat. The way he starts out, though, Dr. Horrible is very much akin to Dr. Drakken of Disney Channel's "Kim Possible." He tries so hard to be evil, and it's just not going his way, so he's more of a pitiable character than a hated, evil villain. And then once it becomes apparent that the "superhero," Captain Hammer, is a pig-headed misogynist, the viewer feels even worse for Dr. Horrible because Captain Hammer stole the girl from right under his nose. Of course, at the end of the movie, to me, it seemed as though Dr. Horrible did a complete 180, though that may just be because he lost one of the only two things he really wanted.

I am in absolutely no way qualified to critique a movie in any higher form than "Did you like the movie? Yes." I am not cinematically inclined, nor am I very critical when it comes to movies. Movies are a form of art -- at least, when not produced purely for mass entertainment, but this is not going to become a rant -- and as such, it's the director's view that matters most. If he had a specific intent for the piece, and I don't like it, I'm not going to critique it. I understand that all art is critiqued, but I'm not going to be the one to critique artistic elements. I will just say the plot left me more confused than anything, but of course, it's not a film I'd've watched if I didn't have to for class.

Fast Food Industry

It is safe to say that McDonald's has become a standard symbol of the Western world, and of the U.S. in particular. Knowing that, it's easier to see why some nations have a problem with Westernization -- out of all the things we have in our country, McDonald's and other fast food chains should not be the things that we export as a symbol of our way of life. All they do is promote obesity disguised as convenience, and it's time Americans recognize this and demand change.


There would be so much less wrong with the concept of fast food if the majority of Americans developed some sense of self-control and self-awareness. Fast food is not vital to one's diet and therefore should not be eaten multiple times a day, ideally not even multiple times a week. But no. People keep eating it and eating it and then wonder five years later what they possibly could have done to result in such high LDL cholesterol levels and clogged arteries. Not only that, but people get fat. Sorry if that's too blunt, but it's true. We are heading down the road of becoming an obese society, if we aren't there already. And still, people get so offended about weight comments when it's not even intended as an insult. Wake up, it's true. You're fat. If you don't like to hear it, or you can't admit to it, do something about it instead of complaining. And as a side note, whether you do or do not care, please dress appropriately for your body. That should be a given. Everyone of every body type has something that, when worn properly, looks good for them. (See: TLC's What Not to Wear.)

That aside, I think this epidemic is a social problem at its roots. Fast food was developed as a means of eating on the go, and now people are constantly go, go, go in everyday life. What I fail to understand, however, is why the fast food industry developed into something so unhealthy, overall. There's nothing wrong with the concept of food-on-the-go, but how did it come to be filled with the wrong kinds of fat, hundreds of calories, and perpetually fried? Sure, now there's Subway, but it didn't become an exceptionally popular eatery until Jared's weight loss starred in commercials. People have already started to recognize that fast food is not the very best choice given the nutrition that comes along with it, and some chains have started to make their food "healthier," but still, more change needs to occur before too many of their customers die. It shouldn't matter that it's cheaper to produce things in an unhealthy manner -- maybe customers would feel better about coming back more often if they didn't have to worry about having a heart attack at an uncommonly early age.

Now let's look at McDonald's restaurants around the world to see what fast food is like internationally.


McDonald's India

McDonald's Arabia, McDonald's Germany

Gender Stereotypes

Everyone has heard, and more than likely made, offhand remarks referring to things that are stereotypically male or stereotypically female. Comments to the effect of "Women talk too much," "All men think about is sex," or "Suck it up and be a man" are heard frequently enough that it has just become a norm in our society.

From the moment a baby is born, he or she is socialized to the gender roles of our culture. If the baby is a boy, he typically receives attire in blues and greens -- God forbid he receive a pink blanket when he'll have no recollection of it. The same goes for girls who receive things of a pink or purple nature. Then, of course, we even have dubbed "gender neutral" colors, like yellow.

As babies age, girls are given dolls and dresses, and boys are given cars or action figures. For many people, at least stereotypically, it's an awful thing and something must be wrong for one to play with the other's "assigned" things -- more so if a boy likes dolls and dresses.

Today, however, it is becoming more acceptable to blur the lines between genders. What this says about society remains to be seen, because there are still some people who have a very defined notion of what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman, and there are also people who will do whatever they can to be individual and unique.

Case-in-point ending.

Gay Marriage

Gay marriage is a subject that can be viewed as religious, political and a generally touchy topic for some people. In this entry, I plan to establish why exactly I think marriage should be available to anyone who wants to enter the commitment because I firmly believe gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry.


The most logical point alludes to the U.S.'s principle of the separation of Church and State. Often, reasons for keeping gay marriage illegal have to do with it being a sin or not the way God created man, and that's fine if you believe that, I suppose, but actions based on those views have no place in our government. Religion stays in the Church, and legislation remains in the State. The government does not try to tell churches, temples or mosques how they should act, so religion needs to stop affecting the government.

I realize that's a hard feat; our nation was born out of pilgrims who were persecuted for their religion, and our founding fathers were likely of Christian belief, but when they established the law of the land, church was not included. America is not a theocracy, and until it is such, believing someone is going to Hell is just not a good reason to abstain from federally recognizing two people who want to marry. If an individual church or other religious establishment does not wish to perform the ceremony, fine -- it's a privately owned place of worship. But gays should at least have the right to marry in more than 10 percent of the country.


Gays and lesbians are no different than any straight man or woman. I know this because I am sure there is nothing fundamentally wrong with me that justifies denying me the privilege to celebrate with whom I want to spend my life, and should saying that eliminate any of my potential credibility, then so be it. In the 1960s, the majority was hesitant about what the Civil Rights Act would do to the country, but today we can't imagine being without it. If our nation promotes equality and nondiscrimination, it is unjustified to be selective about to whom these values are applied.

Furthermore, permitting gay marriage will not, contrary to the belief of some, destroy the sanctity of marriage. Gays and lesbians do not want to get married so that they can get divorced. They want to get married for the same reason straight people should want to: love. As a society, we've moved past the time when marriage was more of an economic partnership or when a woman needed protection so she could focus on caring for her young. The point of marriage is that you have found as person that you love so much that you want to spend the rest of your life with, be there for, and share everything with them. The government does not have the right to deny that, nor do those who do not support it. It's either a personal matter, or it's between an individual and God.

I understand perfectly well that there will always be people who are homophobic or do not support gay marriage -- after all, there will always be racists, too. But it really comes down to a simple thing: If you're not a homosexual who wants to get married, it's not your business. It's not the government's place to deny one's right to pursue happiness either; check the Bill of Rights. Even if you are not in favor of it, you will not be adversely affected by two people who are happily in love, I promise. Even if they don't fit your preconceived notion of what a happy couple should be.





A light-hearted way to close the subject.

Marijuana Debate

Marijuana used to be legal. It used to be legal in a lot of places, and it was legal in the United States until about the 1930s when some people (Harry Anslinger among them) decided it was time to start reforming society as a reaction to the "Roaring Twenties."

Today, however, pot is illegal, as we all should be aware. In some places, it is acceptable to use it for medicinal purposes, but nowhere is recreational use permitted.

Why is this the case? According to an article on about.com, there are seven main reasons:

1. It is perceived as addictive.
2. It has "no accepted medical use."
3. It has been historically linked with narcotics, such as heroin.
4. It is associated with unfashionable lifestyles.
5. It was once associated with oppressed ethnic groups.
6. Inertia is a powerful force in public policy.
7. Advocates for marijuana legalization rarely present an appealing case.

This may be all well and good for some people. Actually, it is all well and good because there are plenty of people who believe marijuana should remain illegal. I am not one of them. As such, I will attempt to refute each point based on my opinion, or at least pose a question to possibly make someone reconsider.

1. Alcohol is also thought to be addictive, but as the Constitution proves, Prohibition was a failed movement. Just because something is addictive (and I don't believe marijuana is) does not mean it should be illegal. People cannot get proper help when they have an illegal addiction, so how is that going to solve anything?

2. As far as I know, people used marijuana for centuries to help alleviate pain; women even used it for menstrual cramps. Today, cancer patients are allowed to take it in some states, and they aren't complaining -- nor are they addicted.


3. Marijuana is classified as a Schedule 1 drug, meaning that there's a high risk for its abuse. So in that way, yes, it is linked to other more dangerous narcotics like heroin, but the physiological effects of marijuana (cannibis) and heroin differ:

4. Ah, the lifestyle of the arts. Or the poor. Or the upper-class, white-collar family. Drugs bridge the gaps between ways of life that other things cannot. Stereotyping should never be a valid argument.

5. Oppressed ethnic groups? Maybe if they weren't oppressed, they wouldn't have felt the need to abuse drugs. But I'm sure even while they're oppressed, others were using marijuana too, they just were less likely to admit to it and consequently hid it better.

6. Intertia IS powerful in poltics, and people are afraid of change. But sometimes the status quo needs to be pushed. We wouldn't be where we are today if it wasn't. I've heard rebuttals stating that if we legalize marijuana, everyone would be getting high, and it would certainly be abused. I would say I agree, in some ways. Americans lack self-control in many cases, sadly, and I feel this would be one instance in which they take their hypothetical newfound liberty to an extreme. But on the other hand, the fatality rate of marijuana is nowhere close to heroin. And imagine the economical benefits that would come out of this new taxable market, given the current situation of our economy. Money is often a good incentive.

7. All I have to say about this is Well, I'm sorry you don't find relieving a cancer patient's pain appealing. That's cold.