Hugs=Detention in One Illinois Middle School

Thirteen-year-old Megan Coulter was giving her two friends a goodbye hug just before the weekend at Mascoutah Middle School in Mascoutah, IL when she was slapped with two days of detention, one for each hug. According to her mother, it wasn't even a real hug, just an arm around the shoulder and tight squeeze. "It's hilarious to the point of ridicule," her mother said. "I'm still dumbfounded that she's having to do this."

The school ordinance states, "Displays of affection should not occur on the school campus at any time. It is in poor taste, reflects poor judgment, and brings discredit to the school and to the persons involved." The superintendent is standing by the decision and thinks the punishment is fair. You can read more of the article here.

This is absolutely ridiculous. Are we getting to the point in this nation where we can't show any affection towards one another? I'm not even talking about affection towards a significant other, but to friends and even teachers. If we can't give hugs, then what is next? Shaking hands? Saying hello?

My favorite teacher in high school, on the last day of school before he retired, came around to each person in the class, gave them a big hug, and told us that he loves us. He was the greatest teacher that I ever had, and what about that brings discredit to the school and the persons involved? Nothing. These school administrators need to get their heads out of their butts and realize that these kids are people, just like they are, and they are going to be taught that it isn't okay to show any affection towards anyone at all, and that would be a real shame.

The parents of the student are going to the next school board meeting to ask them to review the policy and more specifically define "public displays of affection," and I hope they succeed, but this shouldn't have been an issue in the first place. People in general need to focus on what is really important in a school, education, and leave what the kids are doing as they are exiting the building alone, so long as they aren't bothering anyone else.

Stephen Colbert Abandons White House Run

According to Breitbart.comStephen Colbert, host of the Colbert Report on Comedy Central, announced Monday that he will no longer pursue his presidential aspirations. This comes after the South Carolina Democratic Executive Council voted to keep him off of the state's primary ballot by a vote of 13-3.

"Although I lost by the slimmest margin in presidential election history—only 10 votes—I have chosen not to put the country through another agonizing Supreme Court battle," Colbert said in a statement. "It is time for this nation to heal."

Colbert intended to run only in his home state of South Carolina, a key primary state, and he wanted to run on the Democratic and Republican ballot, so he could lose twice. He later decided not to file with the Republican Party, since it required a filing fee of $35,000, much more than the Democrat's $2,500.

While I do find this whole thing is pretty funny, I really don't think that the presidential election is something to make a mockery of. Even though he had no intentions of winning, he still would have had votes cast for him that could have been used to support a serious candidate, and with the close elections we have had in the last decade, a few thousand extra votes can change who will become one of the most, if not the most, powerful people in the world.

Now I am sure this has caused a few more people to pay attention to the presidential election, it has caused a distraction from what is really important, the stances that the serious candidates take on the issues. I hate to act like the old fogy who ruins everyone's fun, but there are other ways to have a good time without detracting from something as this. I am hoping that, by writing in this blog, our words will spark an interest with someone who completely hated politics before, but now will pay a little more attention because they see how important their civic duty truly is.

The international space station

Recently there was some trouble on the international space station in regards to one of the solar panels. As of Saturday this problem was fixed and the solar panels are being deployed as planed. This news event brings to light what I believe is one of the greatest moments of diplomacy in human history. The project that was started in 1998 and slated for completion in 2010 is the joint effort of countries all over the world. Even our cold war advisory Russia is in on the project. The fact that two countries can go from a 40 year nuclear standoff to collaboration on a space station in less than 20 years shows the progress that our world could make. Maybe in another 20 years there will be an international moon base. Regardless of the specifics the possibilities are endless of what can be accomplished through international collaboration. By spreading the cost of such monumental projects amongst multiple nations we can accomplish feats that no single countries budget committee would approve.

Media Censorship

A recurring theme that I have noticed over the last few years is one of media censorship. It seems like every time that someone uses a “curse word” on television a federal case is made out of it. My opinion on this matter is that words in and of themselves have no power without context and thus no word should be considered inherently inappropriate. For instance even the f-word which is considered the most inappropriate word of them all can be taken to mean a variety of different things based on the context. Another factor to consider is these words can be used to portray a particular artistic vision. By removing these curse words the artistic vision in some cases is skewed or not fulfilled and thus not only is it a censorship of speech but also a censorship of art.

Most curse words are simply words from older languages with common meaning that when translated were given vulgar connotations. When it really comes down to it curse words have similar meanings as other words and we have just placed them into a category of inappropriate. So it would seem that if we simply removed the broad language censorship from television and radio and replaced it with contextual censorship (to limit conversation on vulgar topics, much like there is a line between art and pornography but yet no color of ink is in and of itself banned) we would then over time remove the vulgar and inappropriate connotations from these words we so fear and they would no longer be considered inappropriate.

Why tax cut's do not actually favor the rich

Recently I stumbled upon this analogy for our tax system explained in simple terms written by Dr. David R Kamerschen a Professor of Economics at the University of Georgia.

“Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
a. The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing
b. The fifth would pay $1
c. The sixth would pay $3
d. The seventh would pay $7
e. The eighth would pay $12
f. The ninth would pay $18
g. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59 ... ratios from our existing tax system

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." Dinner for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free, but what about the other six men, the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share"?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to eat their meal.

So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so:

a. The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings)
b. The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings)
c. The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings)
d. The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings)
e. The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings)
f. The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings)

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more savings than me!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!”

While this explains our system in a humorous way the message is anything but. When ever there is a story on the news about some politician who supported “tax cuts that favor the rich” it is simply a spin put on the story to attract more viewers. In truth tax cuts favor the poor, as do taxes. Being economically conservative I believe in a fair and flat percentage tax system for everyone who makes more than a certain amount, so when I hear stories about tax cuts favoring the rich I feel that people really need to be enlightened about who our system really favors. It is a classic move to gain votes, tell the poor that the current system favors the rich and that you plan to fix the system. After all as human beings we are more than happy to place the blame for our own problems on anyone else. So when a politician comes around and says it is the fault of those with more that you have less, as humans we happily let ourselves be fooled into this false notion and place our vote behind the so called reformer.

State of Emergency!

Pakistan's President, Pervez Musharraf, has very recently declared a state of emergency. He stated that Islamic extremism caused him to take such measures. What does this mean for his country? Well for starters; the constitution has been suspended, troops have been deployed in the capital, the independent media has been silenced, politicians opposing Musharraf have been rounded up, phone lines have been cut, and the nation's chief justice has even been replaced. Seems more like a dictator taking over than a state of emergency.

The "emergency" is apparently due to Musharraf's leadership being threatened by reappearance of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto. Other threats to Musharraf worth taking not of is a fairly defiant Supreme Court, and increase in Islam in the area. From what I've gathered, this isn't so much a state of emergency for the people of the country, but an emergency for Musharraf's future as leader of the country. Being one of our key allies in the War on Terror in the area, this whole ordeal holds a lot of importance for the United States.

Many political officials in other countries are getting involved in this, seeing this as a very dangerous situation. The U.S. is asking Musharraf to bring back democracy to his country, and Britain is also getting involved. As most of you know, Pakistan is a very important to both the U.S. and Britain in regards to stopping terrorism, making them a very important ally. This whole state of emergency could blow the whole relationship open though, as I don't think we could as easily validate our alliance with a country who basically threw democracy out the window because their leader is afraid of losing power.

Personally, I find this whole thing very interesting. What to do, what to do. By openly criticizing Musharraf we risk losing him as an ally. However, by allowing this to continue, more rights could be taken away form the population of Pakistan for an extended period of time, or even for good. Personally, I kind of find this pathetic. To me it sounds like this guy is afraid and can't get his country to think like he does. To combat this scenario, he chose to put the whole place on lockdown until everyone decides he's awesome again. If it was up to me, I'd demand he give them their rights back and restore the constitution. Thankfully, it isn't up to me, and people with more tact and charisma are in charge of our international affairs. I only hope they make good decisions and don't lead our country into even more violence.

How Lower Taxes Leads to Lower Unemployment Rates and More Tax Revenue for the Government

With all of the talk of how bad the economy is right now and the recession that is supposed to be here any day now, the United States has posted yet another month of job growth, according to Yahoo! Finance. 166,000 previously unemployed workers found work last month, leaving the national unemployment rate at 4.7%, a pretty low number when looking at it from a historical standpoint.

What is the cause for the job creation? I think a major factor is President Bush's tax cuts that were put into effect a few years ago. Some might wonder what that has to do with unemployment figures, but you have to look at the big picture. Companies are taxed, just like individuals, based on their incomes. Normally, they have a much larger incomes than individuals do, so they are in a higher tax bracket. Now when taxes are cut, companies have a larger share of their profits to use how they please, and many of them use this opportunity to hire more workers.

But if we cut taxes, how is the government going to have enough money to operate, seeing that we already have a huge deficit? Simple: the more jobs that are created due to the tax cuts, the more people that are paying taxes, rather than receiving unemployment benefits. Therefore, paying less taxes gives more money to the government by having more people contribute through income taxes.

There does, however, have to be a limit on how much we can lower taxes for this effect to work. If we lowered it to zero, then no matter how many jobs were created, no revenue would be brought in. There has to be a happy median to satisfy both sides of the equation. I think this has yet to be found, and more revenue would be raised if taxes were lowered again. This is only coming from a college student, but there are many people out there who agree with me. Hopefully, something will be done soon to fix it, as the state of the American economy depends on it.