Works Cited

Delaware Department of Labor. Delaware Career Compass. Wilmington: Delaware Career Resource Network, 2009

Environmental Engineers. Web. 30 Sept. 2009. .

War in Afghanistan

Do you think that the war in Afghanistan is a good idea? You probably haven't put yourself in the soldier's or soldier's families' shoes. At first, I will admit, I supported the war in Afghanistan, but once my Uncle Brian was deployed there, I began to question my views. Yes, it would create a safe haven for al-Qaida and other Islamofascist terrorist groups if we pulled out: with no exit strategy. One must think if it is worth it to risk thousands of American lives for the mere sake of putting off the Taliban temporarily. The best move right now would be to sign a peace treaty with the Taliban which states that we will withdraw under the conditions that they a)kick all terrorist groups out and b)In the event that they take over Pakistan, that they not start a nuclear war. This would allow for American lives to be out of harm's way while still keeping national security intact.

If you still support the war, imagine if you or a family member were bravely serving our country. If you are old enough and able-bodied, why aren't you on the frontlines. One will notice that even most people in the military don't join for "serving your country". If it wasn't for the G.I. bill, very, very few people would join the military. In fact, look at the statistics, 94% of military recruits come from either low-income or middle-income families. If politicians aren't willing to put their and their buddies' spoiled rich kids on the frontlines, they are hypocrites.

Should adolescents be treated as adults under the law?

The idea that adolescents should be treated as adults under the law is inane. The adolescent brain is not yet fully developed. The prefrontal cortex, which is the part of the brain which deals with judgment and danger, does not fully develop until one is eighteen. As a result, it would be unfair to treat teenagers under the law as adults when they do not have the same opportunity to be a good judge. It would be akin to treating insane people as sane under the law, even when they cannot understand the difference between right and wrong. Overall, it would not be a good idea.

Another caveat is that it would make teenagers second-class citizens. They would have no right to vote, no right to serve on a jury, no right to open a checking account, and no right to do virtually anything without parental consent (pick the school they want, go to another country, etc.). Despite this, they could still be prosecuted under the law beyond the absolutely necessary degree under laws in which they have no say in making. Put together, and this could be a potential violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In addition to that, if teenagers were to be given the death penalty, it would be a blatant violation of the 8th Amendment and human rights. If we ever executed someone who was under eighteen or even for crimes which were committed when they were under eighteen, the United States would be denounced worldwide as an authoritarian, cruel human rights violator. That would make our long-time allies especially eager to help us out, right? Not only would it violate the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (which, aside from Somalia, which literally had no government at the time, the U.S. is the ONLY country in the world which did not sign it), but it would put us along with the only five countries would use the death penalty: Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen. Remember when Iranian teenagers were put to death for sodomy which they allegedly committed when they were thirteen and how there were even a few sanctions imposed on them. You think because we're the superpower, that means that can't happen to us? Think again. Also, can you see on Taliban recruitment posters "America executes Muslim teenagers who support our cause". Wouldn't that help us win this "War on Terror"?
Adolescents are not given the same rights as adults. It would be inherently unjust to give them the same responsibility as adults. With freedom comes responsibility, but with responsibility comes freedom.

School Prayer:Pushing Religious Propaganda in Our Public Schools

School prayer, in my opinion, is an egregious violation of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. It espouses the message that we are a Christian nation, and that non-religious people and people of other faiths do not deserve to be represented. The prayers, as well of our "moment of silence", which is codeword for "let's all pray now", just puts Christianity above other faiths. School prayer defies the basic principles of separation of church and state, because it favors one religion over another. David Souter, in a This would also make the statement "Cab Calloway School of the Arts does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, or disability in its programs, activities, or employment practices as required by Title VI, Title IX, and Section 504” untrue.
Another part of school prayer is the “moment of silence”. It is a “moment of prayer” (poorly) masquerading as a “moment of silence”. While I am silent during the moment of silence, I believe that it serves no other purpose than prayer. In Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994), David Souter wrote with the majority that “Government should not prefer one religion over another, or religion to irreligion.” The moment of silence, has, as far as I can see, clearly does the latter, and it has no “secular purpose”. In Wallace v. Jaffree (1985), the Supreme Court found an Alabama law which provided for a “moment of silence” to be unconstitutional, although it did not find the moment itself to be unconstitutional.
School prayer violates two of the three criteria in the “Lemon Test”, which was a test to see whether or not a law violates the Establishment Clause by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). A law must pass all three requirements to be considered constitutional. While school prayer does not create excessive government entanglement with religion, it has no secular purpose and it has the primary affect of advancing religion. Also, as far as I can see, there is no reason to have a “moment of silence” or to have organized prayer. There is absolutely no reason for it other than to rub it in the faces of non-religious people. In conclusion, school prayer is a bad idea because it violates the spirit of the Constitution.

Alternative Calendar

Should our school go on an alternative calendar? I don't think so. It would be devestating to the economy, specifically the tourism industry. Hence, it would kill the economies of many third-world countries whose economies are chiefly dependent on tourism, such as the Bahamas. Even if we were not in this recession, we could not allow such an industry to collapse. How can we kill the economy of an entire region of the world? If we have an alternative calendar, it would be impossible for people to take an extended vacation.
The student performance would be severely affected. Several lawsuits have been filed by disgruntled parents because their kids' schools have switched to an alternative calendar. Also, 85% of students say that they do not want an alternative calendar. If students have an alternative calendar, there could be riots throughout America. An alternative calendar is a very bad idea for the well being of students.
Summer camps everywhere would be shut down. That would not only kill jobs, but then kids everywhere could only listen to their parents' distant tales of summer romances, being able to meet new friends, and spending an extended time away from your family. Also, kids could not get summer jobs and internships, which would not only kill the fast food (and other industries related to it) industry, but cut off teenagers' source of income. If teens cannot spend money, which would hurt the entire economy, particularly malls and the like. It would also limit teens' ability to volunteer at places, which would hurt their work ethic throughout their lives. Everyone would get hurt by an alternative calendar.
That includes teachers too. My mom, who is a teacher at the Delaware College of Art and Design, and has taught at many high schools throughout her life, says that an alternative calendar would "make [her] life miserable". My father, who used to be a college professor at Rutgers University, also opposes an alternative calendar. He says that if he were still teaching, it would make it impossible to spend time with me during the summer, and at other times of the year, when I would be in school. Nobody wins and everybody loses with an alternative calendar.

The Election: Why McCain Lost

McCain lost because of George W. Bush. When times are bad, people will almost never elect someone from the party in power. No presidential candidate with the letter R in parentheses at the end of his or her name could possibly win in this election with Bush being president during the recession.

Some people say that Sarah Palin is a factor in McCain's loss. Her approval ratings were lower than that of any vice presidential candidate since then-Senator Dan Quayle in 1988. Despite this, Quayle won. However, only 35% of Americans believe that Palin was treated fairly by the media. Other people, such as Joe Scarborough, political commentator, say that the election would have been a much more distant victory for Obama without Palin on the ticket.

Demographic changes also contributed to McCain's loss. The youth vote has increased substantially, which hurt McCain big-time. Also, increases in the Hispanic population gave votes to Barack Obama.

It's all about money. Obama raised a grand total of 820 million dollars, as opposed to McCain's measly 550 million dollars. Despite claims, 74% of Obama's money came from large donors (those who donated over $200). Another 48% came from donors who donated over 1,000 dollars. Obama also outspent McCain 3-2 on television ads. Overall, McCain was too bland a candidate.

The Election: Why Obama Won

The election was very interesting. However, it was called for Obama very early. Obama won because he was running an optimistic and positive campaign. Obama's party also had to have helped him win. In any election when times are bad, people tend not to vote for the party in power. Also, when times are bad, people tend to vote for the Democrats, because of their better track record on economic issues. When times are good, people tend to vote for the Republicans because of their better track record on social issues.

Obama pushed himself to win states previously unwinnable for Democrats. States such as Colorado and North Carolina were considered solid Republican states, but Obama won them. By pushing McCain into so-called safe territory, they painted the McCain campign with an image of desperation. By doing this, the Obama campaign was portrayed as taking the high road.

Obama ran a unique campaign. He had a certain mystical charisma to him that no one could understand. John McCain was viewed as "just another presidential candidate". In a recent poll released, 76% of Americans believed Obama recieved fair media coverage. A historic candidate
also has appeal to the populace.