What people fail to realize is if there is an offensive word about a minority group that they assume its offensive, that group gets to decide the rules for that rule no matter what other parties say. So for example, Jews and “K*ke” their “rule” is nobody can say that word. For blacks, the “rule” is black people can say n*gga and only black people. Nobody can say n*gger. And the reason why black people can say n*gga is because they took back the meaning of the word but I digress. This is what a majority of people accept, though there are exceptions. Now, no other group of people gets to just say that the minority group is overreacting because the offensive word isn’t about them.

The way our tax system runs is pretty odd in my opinion. If we are truly an equal system, then why is the rich of our country has to pay a disappropriate amount of taxes. As of now, the people considered rich are less than 10% of the population. This 10% of the population has to pay for a majority of taxes. While this is happening, the lower classes, under the leadership of liberal in America want to tax the higher classes ever more. What I fail to comprehend is why the richer classes have to pay more in taxes.

Ones wealth should not determine how much money he or she should have to pay. Just because one shows initiative in society and advances to the higher classes should not dictate how much he or she pays. Because someone is rich, one should not have to pay more, for the most part, riches are earned, whether if they are earned by the person or by someone preceding them. Wealth should not be the reason why the government can take away that very wealth. 

After a bad experience with someone, people react differently. Some people hold grudges. But is it the best thing to do?

After a bad experience, it is natural that one is still upset. It is a part of our human nature to not forgive immediately. There is not a person who can instantly forgive another person after a negative experience and continue to move on unaffected. This process of finding a way to get over the pain that develops might take months or possibly even longer, depending on the situation. Some people have trouble with holding on to bad memories and try not to release their emotions to others. I myself am guilty of doing this very same thing. Without expressing feelings through some outlet, whether one decides to make it personal and not tell others (even though telling friends is sometimes the best thing to do, because friends support one and help they do well) or shares it could make one hold on to anger and resentment longer. Eventually after the months of resentment, one has to realize an important fact:

this process is one of healing. Holding on to resentment is counter-intunitive for healing. When one realizes that instead of confronting the one who caused the pain, talking to the person in question and finding CLOSURE is healthier and heals you. By doing this action, it makes you able to finally move on from the hurtful experience in a mature way. This gives one options: One could pursue a friendship without the “baggage” from the painful experience.

By being mature and talking things out, one can finally move on from any painful situation in complete confidence that he/she did the right and fair thing for both parties.

Even though we are a country that has separation of the State and the Church, how feasible is that idea? Religion has been the cornerstone of our nation. In fact, the Declaration of Independence states: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” This means that because all men are created equal BY THEIR CREATOR with certain rights that their creator gives them such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of liberty, governments are made to protect the freedoms of individual Americans. The Declaration of Independence also states that governments derives their power from the consent of the people. The Declaration of Independence also states that: “it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” The document clearly defines the government as “guards” to guard the freedoms given to us by our creator. Without recognition of the fact that we receive our rights from our creator, the whole Declaration falls apart. Religion, whether it would be Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, etc. has been the base of our declaration of our freedoms and our country. The constitution states: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” In this expert of the constitution, it in order to form a more perfect Union… secure the Blessings of Liberty. This expert is also related to the Declaration of Independence’s purpose of the government. I believe that the founding fathers intended our government to not be a “big government”. I believe that our freedoms are only rights because we have a creator to bestowed them to us. This means that we as a nation cannot completely separate the church and the state. We cannot completely separate both of them without destroying the fabric of our nation. Without God, why do we, as a people, have rights? Where do we receive them?

Parents seem to have a way to punish their children: Either by rewards, punishments, or neither. These ways are inefficient and are terrible ways to raise a child because they have serious negative disadvantages.

Many parents use punishments as deterrents for children who act out. This method of parenting has its advantages, children and teens are less likely to act out if there is a punishment for actions. However, it has some negative side-effects. It teaches kids that every action has negative consequences, which in fact is completely false. Another more serious and immediate concern is that the kid/teen tries to go around the rules and that is a bad practice. The worst effect of this method of teaching is eventually, the kid, to be frank, just does not GIVE A FUCK.This phenomenon is known as the pinnacle of passiveness. The child/teen reaches a point of realization that the parent cannot do any more punishment to a child, there is a limit to the amount of punishment one can receive. Once one realizes that, the deterrence is effectively eliminated and thus anarchy and destabilization of the family arena. To reach this point, there must not be a strong attachment to things, people, or time that can be taken away. Adding on to this, once these things are eventually taken away, which is the effect of any punitive form of parenting, the child/teen must not revert to desire these things. Attachments are the bonds that are used to tie down and punish teens. Once a teen transcends these desires, he/she is free from parental oppression.

Parents also use incentives, rewards to give teens incentives to work hard and do well. This parenting technique is effective from the start, letting teens feel appreciated and helps guide teens and helps them do well. Eventually however, this makes teens succeed for the sole purpose of receiving the rewards bestowed by the parents. Instead of working for the primary sake of working and doing well, students work for rewards, which is also not accurate, because in life, one must work for the sake of working, or for rewards that come in the future or possibly never come. Adapting to the new environment could prove troublesome to these class of people.

Parents who use neither methods do not run into the same problems that the other teens under the other methods of parenting run into, but at the same time, with not punishments and no rewards, the student would be more likely to not succeed without boundaries.

The best way to parent a child is to make a clear distinction between the parent and the child; making it clear what rights the parent has and what rights the kid has. Parent-kid relations are like a chain: the child is subservient to the will of the adult; at the same time, the parent has the responsibility to take care of, listen to and respect the kid’s ideas. Both parties have the obligation to tell the truth and to have trust between both parties. If this chain is broken, all bets are off, and neither party is responsible to the other one. For example, if a child respects a parent, and the parent does not respect what the child has to say, then the child has no obligation to fulfill the role he/she has. One cannot expect obedience from another person, if respect is not given to both parties. At the same time, this does not mean that the child and the parent are equals. As long as respect is mutually given, the child must obey the whims of the parents. Finally, it is crucial that rewards and punishments are balanced. There should be less punishments than rewards in a healthy parent-teen relationship. The most punishments there are in a relationship, the likelier for the child to reach the pinnacle of passiveness. The perfect balance does in fact vary from child to child.

This method of parenting is superior to a more punitive method or a more incentive-based form of parenting.

Egypt has been freed from the rule of Mr. Mubarak, the leader of Egypt for the past 30 years. Now Egypt has protested and Mr. Mubarak has resigned from his position of authority. Has this action paved the way for Egypt and other Islamic countries to seek reform and eventually democracy? Or, has this action just moved Egypt from one dictator to another, or even worse, opening the area for the radical party, the Muslim Brotherhood and eventually creating chaos?

Currently, the army has control over Egypt. There are still disgruntled citizens, seeking reform. It is entirely possible, and even is a possibility that the army will simply refuse to give up power. For every protest, the people must have the support of the army. With a new dictator with the army to back up any ploy to fill the vacuum of power left by Mr. Mubarak, a dictator would theoretically have control over the people while having the power to crush any movements. Does the general have the power to give up power?

Another specter would be the radical’s involvement in this transition of power. The radicals make up a minority of the population of Egypt. But, these radicals have accomplished many things, such as the assassination of the leader before Mr. Mubarak. This group cannot be underestimated. Even though a hostile takeover by this group is not likely compared to the other possibilities, instability is another possibility and most likely a goal of the Muslim Brotherhood. With instability, this creates uncertainty, and thus drastically changes the whole global market. Any problem with the Suez Canal would drastically hike-up the oil prices from what they are now. 

The final possibility, which also a possibility is more reforms, leading to a democracy in Egypt. The average Egyptian citizen definitely wants change and economic reform from the problems that have plagued many countries because of the financial meltdown in 2008. The people’s will is powerful and it is entirely that the Egyptian people get more freedoms and eventually a democracy. 

As of now though, it is entirely foolish to presume that any course of action can be accurately predicted. I do not believe that I or anyone in fact knows which course of action Egypt would take. These are just three of likely possibilities. In reality, there are a myriad of other paths that can be taken by the Egyptian people. I guess time will tell the truth.