As a consumer of many forms of entertainment, I've seen and have been affected firsthand by regulations and censorship in all media outlets.  From TV to movies to video games, I've seen content pushing the envelope and censors pushing right back.  The FCC, MPAA, and ESRB, just to name a few, are slowly tightening their grasp around free speech in the media.  Government agencies and media watchdogs haven't entirely crushed the rights of entertainers, but they have been slowly trimming off the morally repugnant fat off its sides for years to the point where the media has become an entity of two formats; compliant to standards and a thorn in the side of those who wish to remove violence, swearing, smoking, and arguably anything that isn't politically correct from all forms of entertainment in the name of utilitarianism.

         Yet, as people continue to argue for censorship, they are arguing away their own rights.  The basis of censorship is to rid all forms of consumable, degrading material from society.  In other words, cut out everything that makes people feel bad from all aspects of life.  This is the primary problem with censors; it is possible for anyone to take offense to any word in the English language or any action that could be conceived.  The most compelling example of this is in the television show South Park.

         Admittedly, I am biased towards the series because I find it hilarious as well as interesting.  The show has transformed from what could be entitled toilet humor to witty political satire.  The show has amassed a strong following for its humor as well as its ideology.  The show constantly points out various opinions that seem to be common sense and logical for many people, but aren't represented in mainstream culture.  For this, the creators, Matt Stone and Trey Parker, have gotten a bad rap for saying things that seem tasteless and doing shows about issues that few other people are willing to touch.  Because of this, I was not a very big fan of the show in the first few years that it aired.  Even four years ago, I was unwilling to watch it because I felt, because I had never viewed the show and only listened to outside comments about it, that the show was nothing but immature toilet humor; something that I didn't want to consume.

         Yet, as the years passed, I grew very fond of the show because I watched it, laughed at all of the silly and dirty antics of the characters and thought about the message that it was sending.  But there are many people who still refuse to see what the creators are saying in the episode and instead choose to focus on foul language and other offensive items in the show.  The one episode that particularly comes to mind aired shortly after Muslims began rioting after a Dutch newspaper printed the infamous caricature of Mohammed with a bomb as his turban.  South Park's network, Comedy Central, refused to air an image of Mohammed on an episode for fear that extremists may retaliate and possibly take lives as a result of their actions.  Therefore, Mohammed did not appear on the show.  However, the end of the show was marked by a mock video of al-Zawahri and bin Laden enacting their revenge by airing a video of President Bush, Jesus, and several Americans defecating on the American flag and each other. The whole purpose of the episode was the reveal the hypocrisy of following our respecting the wishes of one group of people out of fear while ignoring the wishes of other groups. Comedy Central censored the image of Mohammed because they felt that people could be killed as a result.  However, the creators wanted to air the image because they understood that it would be cut from the final broadcast, thereby revealing the blatant hypocrisy not only of the network, but of censorship all together.  In short, the show can defile and deface everything for the exception of a few scared cows. Comedy Central practiced the art of picking and choosing that which is acceptable and that which is not.  The moment this occurs, our society has become broadly hypocritical; accepting some forms of entertainment, but not all.

         Even though South Park continues to fight censorship, it has forged a path for itself since the first episode aired in 1997.  However, their path has only been for themselves and the true realization of the content of their shows.  Other forms of media are still suffering from the epidemic of censorship to this day.  Imus' recent comments have lead to his immediate downfall and removal from both television and radio.  Studios make films more violent and sexual before their submission to the MPAA in order to push the envelope and include scenes in an R or PG-13 film that normally wouldn't have been there.

         In an age where all forms of entertainment are under attack by politicians and those who seek power, it is important to fight for all speech; even if it doesn't include our views.  Our nation has viewed the era of book burning.  It is imperative that we do not allow any such crime happen again.  Perhaps we can maintain accountability for what we individually consume, rather then regulating what every one consumes.  If you don't like what you see on TV, don't watch it.  If you find a movie to be gratuitously sexual, don't go see it.  If a video game seems to be advocating violence, don't play it.  We shouldn't be able to control others and what they consume.  We should only have that ability for ourselves.

         The words Church and State are basically inseparable in modern politics.  It seems with terrorism at the forefront of seemingly all political contests, the concept of religion in politics has been propelled to the front of the debate.  In the past few years, simple phrases such as "Under God" have been challenged openly in Federal Courts in order to pursue a ruling that would suggest religious discrimination in the government's practices, which would be inherently unconstitutional.  However, the rulings have been overturned and "Under God" remains in the pledge of allegiance as well as on American currency.  From an absolutely displaced perspective, was this ruling correct?  Furthermore, where does the line between Church and State lie?

         These questions are difficult to answer, as everyone has their own inherent biases regarding religion.  However, there must be a definitive answer to this question, as no question exists that doesn't have an absolute answer.  The ruling in the case brought by Michael Newdow was absolutely correct, both legally and ethically.  First, let's tackle the legal aspect of the debate and then delve into the ethics of the issue.

         In an open letter, Dr. Michael Newdow wrote the following:

         "The First Amendment states 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.  As I understand it, this resulted from the Framers' awareness of the persecution and animosity that inevitably accompanies state religions. With this in mind, they made the decision to ensure religious freedom by keeping the government out of that sensitive area. Personally, I think this was a good idea. And even if I didn't, it's one of the fundamental rules of our society. Thus, when I see our Pledge of Allegiance containing the words "under God," I see a gross violation of one of our foremost Constitutional mandates.”

              The first gross misinterpretation that Dr. Newdow makes regarding the First Amendment is that he only accounts for the beginning of the sentence.  The rest of the First Amendment reads as follows:

 

“...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

         First, the Pledge of Allegiance is in no way, shape, or form a law.  It is recognized as the national pledge by the Federal government.  Secondly, the First Amendment states that Congress shall not intervene legally regarding the banning of individual religions and religious practices.  In fact, all people, including members of Congress, are given the right to freely practice religion, no matter which religion they choose to follow.  All people are free to practice their religion without the intervention of government.  Congressmen can legally meet and decide to use the words “Under God” in the context of currency and the Pledge of Allegiance because the words are in reference to the legal and ethical roots of the nation as well as the fact that Congress is not composing legislation advocating any particular religion or denouncing another.  Saying that the United States is one nation under God simply acknowledges the Judeo-Christian roots that the government’s laws are founded upon.  The founding fathers’ interpretations of religious practices are very good, as Dr. Newdow points out.  However, the interpretations of religion and its role in government of the founding fathers are strikingly different than those of Dr. Newdow.  The American colonies were essentially founded upon the desire of England to expand its empire, as well as British men and women seeking to escape the British government’s ever-growing persecution.  The difference between the British government and the government constructed in the Constitution is that the British government actively supported the Church of England through forced taxes as well as attendance to religious services.  The American government was established to prevent this state sponsored persecution, not to root out religion in all aspects of life.  This concept is heavily overlooked by many politicians and activists because it seems that any reference to religion in regards to a public officer crosses the line between Church and State.  The government is not forcing every citizen to recite the Pledge of Allegiance or believe the two word slogan that has caused such an intense uproar.  Americans are free to practice or even not practice, that which they believe is true.  Anything short of this would be a staunch violation of the First Amendment.  Just as Dr. Newdow does not have to say “Semper Fi” or “I’m lovin it”, he does not have to say “Under God”.

The concept of separation of Church and State is actually derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptist Association.  The bulk of his letter reads:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

The wall that Jefferson is discussing is not the free exercise of religious belief in government, but rather, the legal intervention of government in a particular religion.  Simply put, the government has no authority under the Constitution to ban or support any religion through legislation.  Jefferson, as well as the other founding fathers, was well versed in the study of religion and brought the principles of Locke and other Enlightenment philosophers to the forefront of politics and government, advocating the free practice of all beliefs without the interference of the government.  The Constitution was composed to avoid Theocratic government, which clearly is not present in our legislative or judicial branches.  American laws, though heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian and historical law, are not based on religion solely.  Laws exist not to punish those who have no religion, but protect those who are innocent.  The United States government is composed of a doctrine, sacred in its own right, which is free of all bonds of intolerance.  Let us promote freedom in all aspects of life, even in religion.  Let us advocate freedom of religion rather than freedom from religion.

         Anthropogenic Global Warming.  The War on Terror.  The Kennedy Assassination.  September 11th.  What do all of these broad topics and events have in common?  To the average observer, there isn't too much that could link these four items together.  However, with the progression of modern politics, these four items have a lot in common.  They are untapped sources of political power in their respective times.  They all feed the fear of that which is unknown.

         The fear of these unknowns are everywhere.  There are phrases that surround our lives that we've instinctively internalized and unconsciously recognize as full, undoubted truths.  Global Warming can potentially wipe out a large portion of life on Earth.  It is urgent that we sharply cut carbon emissions and slow down deforestation.  Terrorism will destroy the free world if immediate action is not taken.  It is urgent that the military takes the fight to the terrorists rather than the terrorists bringing the fight to domestic soil.  John F. Kennedy was a man of epic proportions, becoming the youngest man ever elected to the Presidency.  Because of this, a conspiracy had to exist in order to assassinate him.  It simply could not have been committed by a single person from a book depository building.  September 11th seems but a vague memory to many people.  Watching the airliners topple the World Trade Center towers and destroy a wing of the Pentagon seemed to be a highly unlikely event in hindsight.  Did you know that steel melts at a temperature higher than the temperature which jet fuel burns?  There must be a bigger explanation and more people responsible than simply 19 highjackers!

         The hype and hysteria that is vented out through various sources is the critical downfall of our society and political system.  Claims of the disastrous consequences if action is not taken regarding Global Warming and Terrorism, as well as all conspiracy theories surrounding the Kennedy assassination as well as 9-11 are examples of how big events require an even bigger explanation of their existence.  The sense of urgency that is felt by most people regarding Global Warming and Terrorism is carefully placed there by politicians and bureaucrats.  Without urgency what are we looking forward to?  What are we resolving?  What is the next step in human progression?

         The fear that ensues as a result of urgency is troubling as it forces certain perspectives on people in times when logic points one way, but those in power are point another.  For instance, after September 11th, it was logical for people to want to seek retribution for those unlawful, unjust, and unethical actions that were committed.  However, is it logical to allow our fear of another September 11th take hold of both our Federal domestic and foreign policies?  Using fear and urgency as a guide to action is perhaps the most illogical activity that is actively pursued promoted by politicians.  And, when one listens and picks apart their words, politicians are in constant pursuit of the next threat.  Some have made it environmental issues.  Some have made it terrorism.  Some, government.

         How then, might you ask, can people get away with selling a particular issue off as more urgent than it really is?  The answer is simple.  Referring back to Kennedy's assassination and even the events of September 11th, people seek to answer events on the global stage with causes on the global stage.  For instance, it is perplexing to many people that Lee Harvey Oswald could have acted alone in the assassination of Kennedy.  One man couldn't bring down the American President.  Because of Kennedy's importance as a politician on the global scale, a welder from Dallas, Texas could not be the one responsible for the President's death.  Likewise, the images that appeared on September 11th painted a picture of conspiracy to many people.  How could 19 men topple two 110 story towers, crash four planes, and murder over 3,000 people in a single day within hours?  The answers that many people seek, particularly from such sites as 911truth.org, are attempting to explain a large event with equally proportioned causes.  Humans simply have difficulty accepting a simple explanation for a complicated question.

         Therefore, we seek the answers to all of life's questions, it is important to step back and answer a question truthfully rather than through our instinct.  Global Warming isn't going to end the world, Terrorism isn't going to topple freedom, Kennedy was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald, and September 11th was not caused by the government.  These issues are important, but they don't require the Armageddon type urgency in order to topple oppression and hail freedom around the globe.
    

        THESE are the times that try men's souls.  The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.  Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.  What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value.  Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.

                                                                                                                  -Thomas Paine, The Crisis

        In recent days, I had the pleasure of stumbling across a letter written by Cpl. Tyler Rock who is currently serving in Iraq in the 1st battalion of the 6th Marines.  The most striking thing about the letter is that it's far from formal.  Rather, it contains the words from a Marine who has lived through hell to tell about it.  It's entirely void of the political correction that is constantly being spewed across the news which allows him to be honest, real, and simply gritty.

         The United States' current conflicts regarding terrorism seem to be old news.  September 11th seems so distant, even though six years have not yet passed.  As the conflict continues, it is only natural for citizens to lose faith in the government, military, and ideologies, in spite of realities of the war.  I find it troubling that only the negatives of the war in Afghanistan and Iraq are published.  This is because there truly are good things that are happening in the Middle East as a result of the United States' military campaigns.  The e-mail from Cpl. Rock is an example of this.  There are good people doing good work in a dangerous and evil environment.  These men and women are to be commended for their work; servicemen as well as all Iraqis standing up for their freedoms and their rights.  The moment citizens allow their government to reach beyond their jurisdiction and do not take a stand is the moment that true freedom is lost.  No matter how much one contemplates the true beauties of freedom and all it has to offer, until thought is converted into action, liberty is merely a word; a concept.  It takes those brave enough and loving enough among us to recognize that freedom is a right worthy of pain and even death.

         For whatever reason, this basic concept, which was understood incredibly well by our forefathers who laid their lives down for the advancement and realization of the reality of freedom, does not flow through the veins and heart of America.  And Iraq is a perfect example of this.  By observing Saddam's former regime and its current state, it is entirely unreasonable to allow Saddam's atrocities to resume.  Perhaps the Bush administration did skew evidence regarding Iraq's state of weapons prior to the invasion of the nation.  However, would this invalidate the importance of democracy in the Middle East?

         The truth, particularly in Iraq's case, is that the best way to defeat terrorism is through opposites.  Instead of oppressing groups of people, support their differences and allow them to flourish.  Instead of adopting interpretations of a religious book as moral law, let us form a community and agree to moral and ethical standards we all can respect and abide by.  The true poison of terrorism is liberty, which is why democracy in the Middle East is necessary for the suffocation of Islamic extremism.  This can observed by the nature and goals of terrorism.  Terrorism exists for the sole purpose of forcing a society to adopt the principles of a particularly group through fear.  Terrorism is fueled by force through fear.  Forcing any kind of belief upon another individual is inherently the antithesis of democracy and liberty.  As long as mankind has the ability to make decisions for itself and not be ruled by fear and oppression, terrorism is no more important to the world than Sheryl Crow's proposal for paper management.  Terrorism is a spark to the sun of liberty.  Liberty will eventually engulf terrorism because of its power and because of its nature.

         In the context of Iraq, liberty is an extremely valuable ally to the entire free world.  When Iraq stabilizes, it will be the Middle East's shining city upon the hill; the proof that freedom can be found behind the mask of oppression; that good can be found in the heart of evil; that opportunity only need to be sought and grasped.  The letter written by Cpl. Rock is a reminder that in times of darkness; in times of trial, hope is ever present.  Perhaps it is found not in those buildings ruined by terrorists but rather, in the hands and hearts of those people rebuilding.  Perhaps the glimmer of hope in freedom will create a shining beacon signaling a new era of liberty.  An era ruled not by IED's, fear, and oppression but rather, by opportunity, courage, and liberty.

         I have known about your organization for a few years, mainly after 9-11.  Instead of mourning the loss of innocent life, you praised and thanked God for 9-11.  I heard about you again after the wars with Afghanistan and Iraq began.  Instead of being thankful for all the men and women who put their lives on the line, and often lost them, you chose to thank God for dead soldiers.  Why is that?  Why would you, apparent Christians, be thanking God for loss of human life as a result of war, natural disasters, and disease?  Why do you thank God for AIDs, Hurricane Katrina, and mine accidents?  What goals do you wish to achieve?

         The Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) has a relatively large following of anywhere between 80 and 150 members and is headed by Fred Phelps.  The primary goal of the church is basically to preach what they believe is the true version of the Bible.  Though they are not considered direct followers, they quote and advocate the King James Bible.  The basic summation of anything I've ever heard from their followers in interviews or have read off of their website is that homosexuality in all forms causes the fall of man.  According to the WBC, all of the great governments that have ever existed fell because of the tolerance, acceptance, and practice of homosexuality, bisexuality, and bestiality.  This is the primary basis for their teachings, as their public activism generally steers clear of preaching about any other topics that the bible covers.

        I cannot debate the finer points of the Bible with anyone, as the versions that I always studied in years past have been watered down, spoon-fed, and mother-approved.  I don't think I ever really received the full, unabridged versions of the Bible before reaching out and discovering them on my own.  What I can debate and what arguments I can present against the Westboro Baptist Church lie in my own view of ethics.

         The church's view of the United States is that it fosters those sinners whom God sees as an abomination and therefore, unfit for heaven.  These people, casually and affectionately referred to as "fags" and "sodomites",
are bringing the wrath of God's destruction upon Americans for not obeying God's law, namely not rooting out a suffocating homosexuality.  Their line of logic continues to state that God has been punishing American's for this apparently hellish act through war, disease, and disasters.

         The reason I laugh at WBC instead of become angered by their statements is because there are ideals in life that trump their pseudo-religious debaucheries.   The  most prevalent of these can be found in the words penned by Thomas Jefferson and John Locke before him.  Every man has the unalienable right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.  No matter the judgment of God, if we deny homosexuals their basic rights to life and freedom, then we have failed to uphold the highest moral truths that our nation stands for.  The concept of freedom and letting people do with their lives as they wish is the ultimate moral obligation of humans.  Biblically speaking, the King James Bible states in Genesis 1:27 the following verse.

    So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

         The very essence of creation is freedom and the ability for man to choose his own path in light of the fact that his creator gave him the ability to do so; to choose right from wrong.  If God wishes to condemn me to hell on the basis that I believe that all people have the right to make their own decisions, to believe what they want to believe, and to be as they wish to be, then so be it.  I would rather be in Hell then worship a God of slaves.

         Every now and again in the course of reading news and following current events, one will find an article that has such an incredibly, indescribably silly headline, that it makes you laugh but, at the same time, shake your head in disbelief as someone sat down at a computer, carefully and logically wrote the article, submitted it to their editors, and had the article published as a respectable position.  I came across one of these headlines just moments ago and felt compelled to respond to it:

Blaming Charlton Heston

With a view to Monday's deadly shooting rampage at Virginia Tech, European newspapers are blaming the lack of gun control measures in the United States and implying that Charlton Heston is indirectly responsible for the scope of the killings.

         Naturally, gun control advocates will use the events at Virginia Tech to their advantage.  One of the arguments that I have already come across states that, had the Federal Assault Weapons Ban been renewed in 2004, the recent shootings at Virginia Tech would not have occurred.  I want to address this argument first, before I begin to delve into a more philosophic discussion of gun ownership.  According to several sources, including CNN, the gunman responsible for the shootings was carrying two different types of pistols; a Walther .22-caliber semi-automatic and a 9 mm Glock 19.  Both weapons are semi-automatic pistols.  However, they were not affected by thefr Federal Ban, because they did not meet all four requirements to ban a pistol.  In short, had the ban been renewed, the incident still could have occurred, as the gunman followed all legal procedures necessary to purchase the weapons as well as the fact that the pistols were not one of 19 weapons banned by the Federal government in 1994.

         With that important piece of information out of the way, it is also important to delve into more of the philosophical side of the debate regarding gun control.  Guns should be legal.  Besides the whole second amendment debate, owning a gun should not be illegal.  By owning a gun, would it violate anyone's right to life, liberty, or property?  Absolutely not.  Guns, and really any weapon, are only as destructive as their owners intend for them to be.  For instance, a gun owner who enjoys legal hunting purchases a large caliber rifle for the sole intention of roaming the woods in search for the perfect buck.  This gun owner threatens not a single person.  However, he is the one that is facing the consequences of such frivolous legislation as the Federal Assault Weapons ban, due to one primary reason; crime will always exist.  Firearms did not create crime.  Crime was attracted to the gun, particularly the advancements in technology which made pistols smaller, easier to control, fire at a faster rate, be extremely accurate, and carry a clip with numerous rounds in it.  If guns did not exist or, in our modern, more realistic scenario, were banned, crime would still exist.  Those who want to commit crimes such as murder and theft will do so with the aid of other weapons.  Because an item is dangerous does not necessitate its legislation and regulation.  Common household cleaners are toxic and, if ingested in plenty, fatal.  However, there is no legislation on the table to ban or regulate these cleaners or kitchen knives.  Why is that?  Why are guns the primary target of a campaign to apparently curb violent crimes?

         I don't know precisely what the reason is, but I believe that I would be safe to guess that the gun control movement is another attempt to politicize a non-political issue.  The government simply has no business legislating my ability to purchase a gun.  I will never turn it against a few citizen.  I wouldn't even think about such nonsense.  But, because there are people that think about the act and also perform it, legislators have found it necessary to introduce bills to congress that wouldcon take away these rights.

         This is entirely illogical, because of the nature of crime.  Crime exists because a person desires to commit an act which violates the rules and standards of his or her government.  If a person wants to commit an illegal act, logically, what would stop them from committing another, less punishable illegal act in conjunction with the initial crime?  In this case, why would a person who intends to murder someone worry about whether or not their gun was registered with the government?  There is no logical progression in the line of gun control activists' thinking.  We as a society need to start placing the blame of true problems on those who actually cause them.  We need to begin to realize that all people have control over their actions and reactions in all situations and stop blaming inanimate objects for ruined lives and deaths.  Guns are not responsible for the atrocity that occurred at Virginia Tech.  Rather, an individual wielded those weapons on his own accord.  He had the choice to stop his actions at any moment.  The guns, on the other hand, could not.    

         The push for alternative forms of energy has been felt stronger in the past few years than it ever has before.  With people such as Al Gore pushing a political agenda to lower carbon emissions and adapt a newer, cleaner fuel driven lifestyle, alternative energy sources have hit the forefront of environmental topics.  Politicians are pushing for energy reform namely by legislating the economy.  Many environmentalists and average people find these actions to be noble or at least acceptable to some measure.  However, is there any real justification for pushing legislation which would expediate the natural and inevitable development and implication of alternative sources of energy into society?  Many politicians want you to believe so, and their actions will pull directly out of every American’s pockets through taxes and would cause a disruption in the economy.  If we allow alternative energy to develop within the natural laws of economics, then the best and most reliable energies will become as standard in society as gasoline.

The benefits of establishing an alternative energy based society are innumerable, and it appears that the world is on the verge of making this transition.    Yet, what exactly is an alternative form of energy?  According to Paul Rosenberg, to be considered an acceptable form of alternative energy, five requirements must be met.  First, the energy must be of sufficient quality, especially if it’s seeking to replace oil or coal.  Second, it must be easily deliverable to the point of use.  Third, it must be readily available.  Fourth, it certainly must be affordable.  And finally, it must be cleaner than oil or coal in order to be beneficial to the environment as well as to be considered as a replacement for fossil fuels (1).  There are four ways to harness energy that are primarily being focused on; hydrogen, solar, geothermal, and wind energy.  All of these sources are renewable and don’t emit any sort of pollutant into the environment.  Hydrogen fuel, though still not mature enough to be incorporated into society, is proving to be the main fuel source of the future.  It is “pollution-free” and “carbon-free” and if its efficiency and affordability match that of oil-based products, then it will quickly be endorsed by governments around the globe (Brown 117).  Both wind and solar energy are also important energy sources of the future.  These are clean sources of energy, as they do not burn fuel and release harmful byproducts into the atmosphere.  Also, because they exist in nature, they are very abundant and as a result of their properties, nearly infinite.  As long as the sun burns and the wind blows, humans will have the ability to harvest these natural resources to our advantage.  Also, below the Earth’s surface, energy could be tapped and harnessed in order to provide energy for humanity.  This type of energy is known as geothermal energy.  Geothermal energy, much like solar and wind energy, is virtually infinite.  Therefore, we could use as much as it needed and never run out of it.  These reasons are why alternative energy sources are becoming popular.  They are clean and safe for the environment, but they also seem to have an edge over the slow decline of the oil and coal industries, which are proving to be far most costly than we have previously expected (Brown 100).  Yet, the cost of alternative fuels is crucial to their survival.  If they are not affordable, it really does not matter how clean or efficient the fuel is.  People simply won’t be interested in any new form of energy (Rosenberg 12).  In recent years, the United States federal government has stepped in and has begun to provide incentives for various states regarding the development of alternative fuels.  Grants, loans, tax incentives, rebates, and discounts are just a few of the incentives that are offered through the government (Incentives and Laws).  The only constraint on the further development and implementation of alternative fuels into society is its costliness.  Yet, what is more costly; alternative fuels or the environment?

Since the market is more of a controlling entity than humans could ever think they are, we should allow alternative fuels to be integrated into society under the control of the free market.  This will allow for the least number of people to become unemployed as well as incorporate the benefits of clean, efficient fuel into society.  If the theories of demand are correct, then alternative energy will be expensive and limited in its early stages.  However, once it begins to develop and more is produced, then the price will dramatically fall (Hubbard and O’Brien 66).  Since more alternative fuels will be affordable and readily available, two of the initial five requirements of an acceptable alternative fuel are already satisfied.  It is important to allow the market to take control of the issues concerning the energy industry.  In theory, the most affordable and efficient energy source will have to emerge because a vast majority of people will not purchase something that is more expensive than gasoline.  It wouldn’t make sense to expect an average person to switch to an expensive, alternative energy fueled vehicle simply because it’s better for the environment.  It makes far more sense to expect people to react to the market and the prices of various fuels whenever they are making the decision regarding what type of vehicle or house they should purchase.  As oil reserves become lower, the concept of demand will come into play again.  If there is a limited supply of oil, then the price of oil will go up (Hubbard and O’Brien 66).  It is important to focus on what is right in this issue.  It is right to let the market rearrange itself so that unemployment does not skyrocket and so that most humans have the ability to feed, clothe, and house themselves.

Though evidence suggests that human involvement in the Earth’s natural cycles tend to have a negative impact, it is important to analyze every aspect of the issue and uncover what is most important.  On one hand, it is important to protect the Earth and to create environmentally sound policies.  However, it is just as important to make sure that businesses are able to run and that people have jobs.  If the average worker cannot feed himself, he has no incentive to work any more (Hubbard and O’Brien 5).  This is the most important idea regarding environmental issues: incentive.  This is why the market must be given the chance to rectify human environmental damage.  If people are given an incentive to protect the environment or make purchases, they will do so.

Brown, Lester.  Eco-Economy.  New York: Norton, 2001.

Dresselhaus, M.S. and I.L. Thomas.  “Alternative energy technologies”.  November 11, 2001.  November 6, 2006.  http://moab.colorado.edu/GEOL1110/AlternativeEnergy.pdf

Hubbard, R. Glenn and Anthony Patrick O’Brien.  Macroeconomics.  Upper Saddle River: Pearson, 2006.

“Incentives and Laws: State Summary”.  U.S. Department of Energy.  November 6, 2006.  http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/progs/in_matrx.cgi

Rosenberg, Paul. Alternative Energy Handbook.  Lilburn: Fairmont, 1993.

         Existing as a member of the youngest generation of individuals generally is not a good place to be.  Young people have the widest, and usually most radical, viewpoints.  Many are idealists and see corruption in every aspect of their lives.  I see idealists heading to Washington with a glimmer of hope that they, with their ideology, vigor, and resolve, can change not only American politics, but the world as well.  Every day that I go to school and observe things that my peers are doing and saying, I see this spark of idealism in today’s youth.  Granted, this isn’t such a bad thing, but often times, reality takes a back seat to their construed views of life.

         One of the most evident indicators of young idealism is the general view of religion.  People my age tend to be at least skeptical of religion and rightfully so, as some of the most heinous crimes in history have been committed in the name of religion.  But, because someone can manipulate and transform an idea into something entirely different does not defunct the whole premise of religion and faith.  To me, being religious or being spiritual is partially about the truths of the universe, but it centers more around attunement; reaching balances and understanding one’s place in every possible aspect of life.  I’ve come to this conclusion over years of pondering the general questions surrounding the existence and nature of God.

         I was raised Catholic, according to my mother’s wishes, along with all of my siblings.  I had a strong foundation of religion until I reached the age whenever change is no longer a word but an accepted way of life.  I fell out of my views and saw them as fickle and often, simply incoherent and illogical.  I could not rationalize Catholicism or Christianity.  Therefore, I distanced myself from it.  I now believe in the existence and presence of God for several reasons.  The years of pondering the greatest questions in life lead me right back to where I began; the feelings of being incomplete and unsatisfied with both the simplicities and complexities of life.  But, in the vastness and complexity of real issues that face everyone on the face of the planet, what role does religion truly play?

         The use of religion can be divided into two categories: those who genuinely seek truth and peace through a greater power and those who exploit the variations of religion to further personal agendas.  We hear little about the unknown farmer in the American Bread Belt who attends church every Sunday and is a good, law abiding citizen.  When religion is in the forefront of the news, it is related with weapons and hatred.  This concept brings up an interesting and revealing point.  Religion is interpretive.  Religion in itself is pure and incorruptible when it seeks to answer the mysteries of the universe and to provide moral high ground for its followers.  However, it becomes distorted and perverted by those who take the teachings and create something entirely different out of them.  I know many good people of all different faiths.  Their faith isn’t the source of violence in the modern world.  If religion truly was the foundation and instigation of the wrongdoings of all people around the globe, then every religious believer would reach harmony through the political and social domination by their respective religion, rather than reaching a state of peace.

         For all the people around the world who want to condemn religion for all the problems that have been caused by it, I would like for them to understand the good that comes out of it as well.  Believing that something greater than myself exists doesn’t make me want to bomb a bus or hold a movie theater full of innocent civilians hostage.  Rather, it gives me a greater understanding of my place, as well as the places of others, within our world.  In times of great change, it is natural to feel smaller than perhaps you ever did.  The first time I truly felt this type of change, I came to terms as to my role in the grand scheme of the world.  And without an appreciation for that which I can never understand; the grander planes of our existence, I could not reach any sort of peace.

         Therefore, for all of my peers and those who believe in religion’s lack of value need to observe the differences between the people that commit atrocities in the name of religion and those who achieve selflessness and love through the same faith.  In short, religion can be evil as well as divine.  It is the individual, not the faith, which differentiates actions that are good from those that are not.

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
                                                                                              -Winston Churchill

         Many political analysts who are not as main stream as others have argued against the American political system, which revolves around the Republicans and the Democrats and have branded it as a gag on full Democracy.  In many ways, it truly is, as elected officials act as delegates and not representatives of their respective districts.  The merits of a representative and delegate oriented political system is debatable as both forms of representation have their benefits.  Regardless of which approach is best, true democracy does not exist whenever the only candidates that have an ounce of a chance to win an election have to pay their dues to either the Republicans or Democrats.  Though third parties have been on a steady rise particularly in the past 30 years, they are still not the political powerhouses that the two main parties are.  This is an incredibly easy assumption to make.  Every Presidential election is down to two men, with a third candidate potentially "stealing" votes from the Republican or the Democrat.  When approaching an election, the general mindset of Americans as to either vote for the Democrat or the Republican, completely stomping out any possible competition from another voice.  The two party system is the antithesis of the ideals of democracy and liberty.

         The two party system that we deal with seems to be the worst possible development, ignoring socialism, that a government could possibly engage in.  But the truth of the matter is that it isn't.  Besides the comic relief that ensues as a result of political correctness, smiles for the camera, and other various charades that politicians display, something good can be found within the wreckage of American politics; the lack of extremes.  By only having two viewpoints emerge in the political arena, more extreme, and often, louder voices are at least silenced into agreement with party bosses.  Political extremes are essentially non existent with two polar opposite parties.  This idea is mostly a good thing.  I would rather politics experience a cycle between two somewhat moderate sides then random changes which would include the most radical political theories human minds have ever conceived.  When it comes down to it, American politics follow the laws of the economic theory known as the Game Theory.  Economic theory states that in an Oligopoly, two firms would collaborate in order to maximize their profits and optimally produce less in order to reach this maximization.  However, in reality, both firms would pursue a dominant strategy in order to maximize their own profits.  As a result of this, both firms increase their outputs and, consequently, decrease their profits.  This concept, for general learning purposes, is displayed in a comparative grid.

	Kleenex: Produce 100	Produce 200
Scott: Produce 100	K: +100 S:  +100	K: -100 S: +300
Produce 200	K: +300 S: -100	K: +0 S: +0

         This example is very simple, but effectively illustrates the theory.  In short, both firms will produce 200 items in attempts to dominate the market, and eventually reach state that is undesirable, but not nearly as undesirable as the outcome could be.  I like to equate this theory with politics and the two party system.  Optimally, the American political system should incorporate thought from the entire political spectrum.  However, the threat of dangerous political radicalism is ever present and constantly growing.  Groups in the vein of The Patriots should never find a place in American politics due to their gross interpretations of the Constitution and of liberty itself.  Therefore, the Republicans and Democrats, though often foolish and misguided, constitute the best non-dangerous political scenario that could be created.

Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered weak and weary,
Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore,
While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,
As of some one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door.
`'Tis some visitor,' I muttered, `tapping at my chamber door -
Only this, and nothing more.'

         The general approach to any conflicts surrounding Iran by the United States and Great Britain has been wrong in several senses over the past few years.  The Bush administration’s foreign policies revolve around catchy slogans and threats against countries who do not bow to the few demands of the American government.  Where the administration and Congress come up short is in the attempt to adequately recognize Iran as a threat to global liberty.  Sure, I’m not a fan of the Iranian government and their recent actions in the Persian Gulf are disgusting and disgraceful at best.  However, they’re not on the same playing field as the major powers around the world.  Iran is playing their games on a field fit for nations such as Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea.  All of these nations could be potential threats to all concepts related to absolute freedom.  Yet, they remain as merely a thorn in the side of giants.

         With every article about President Ahmadinejad that I read, the more I begin to see him as representation to nothing particularly special.  His dissident actions have stirred up controversy around the civilized world, but in reality, what has placed this man on the same scales as the major powers of the world?  His threats of an era of holocaust of Jews and other apparent infidels still have not come to fruition.  Perhaps he personifies a fear of state-driven terrorism and international change.  However, he is nothing more than the raven from Edgar Allen Poe’s famous poem.     

And the raven, never flitting, still is sitting, still is sitting
On the pallid bust of Pallas just above my chamber door;
And his eyes have all the seeming of a demon's that is dreaming,
And the lamp-light o'er him streaming throws his shadow on the floor;
And my soul from out that shadow that lies floating on the floor
Shall be lifted - nevermore!

         The presence of the raven in Poe’s poem signifies, to the absent or weak minded, a great threat to the narrator.  The bird in reality can be harmful, but it certainly isn’t to be as feared as other, far more dangerous animals in the wild.  I see this similarity in the growing powers and potential threats of Iran.  Can Ahmadinejad be dangerous and pose a threat to the free world?  Absolutely.  There is no question in my mind that Ahmadinejad, like the raven, is not an innocent character in the grand scheme of the world.  He is an active participant in the way that we approach foreign policy and in the way we allow him to subtly dictate our government’s actions.  But yet, he is only as big of a threat as we wish him to be.  Just as the narrator is afraid of the raven’s shadow, so too are we of even a slight possibility of Iran becoming a nuclear power; of Iran’s growing shadow.

         But, just as the narrator could easily destroy the raven if he so desired, any powerful nation could easily dismantle the Iranian regime.  Rebuilding the toppled government and establishing peace is and would be an entirely different process and theory, however.  Ahmadinejad is simply a man and is not nearly as dangerous as he appears to be.  He is only as dangerous as we allow him and the shadow of the Iranian government to be.

         Therefore, with the further development of American foreign policy with Iran, it would be best to approach Iran and Ahmadinejad in their true forms rather than other forms in which they present themselves.  In ten years time, Iran could be playing ball on the same field as the United States, Great Britain, and other super powers.  However, in the time being, they are dabbling in games which they have no chance of winning.  No matter how many threats or accusations that men such as President Ahmadinejad can make towards the United States in particular, it is important to understand that until these statements transition from thought to act, they are no more than that.  Though he should be held accountable for absolutely despicable acts that he and his nation have committed, he should be given no more attention that he rightfully deserves.  If a new age of holocaust does in fact come for non-Muslims as a result of aggression from nations such as Iran, we can address the problem in a sufficient fashion.  If Iran does in fact dare to instigate conflict, quoth the raven, ‘nevermore’.

         I’ve always enjoyed learning about and discussing history as it plays a role in the development of our future.  I am particularly fond of Russian history as it is simply a prime example of how political ideology can create a stranglehold on a people to a point where the government’s rigid structure is a necessity for its people.  The development of the Russian and Soviet governments over the past 150 years is almost a mystery.  All of the pieces fell into place, with a good deal of help and manipulation by party members, for the Bolsheviks during the rise of Soviets in the beginning of the twentieth century.  The entire span of Soviet history is fascinating and it still undoubtedly affects Russia to this day.  Speaking on a strictly economic level, Russians still have a dependence on the government for basic survival, though not quite as strong as in the past.  Government subsidies act as a crutch for the poorest Russian citizens, which is an example of the ever present legacy of the Soviet Union over 15 years after its fall.  There is also a lingering fear of long term investment in Russian firms.  Soviet goods, because of the nature of the government and economy, were unreliable, scarce, and undesirable.  This sentiment has carried through the fall of the USSR to Putin’s Russia.

         Similarly to the Russian economic status, the leadership has also experienced little change from Gorbachev, Yeltsin, and Putin over the past two decades.  Gorbachev’s initial reforms were created in order to grant brief economic freedoms in order to reestablish the Soviet economy and then return to socialism whenever the time was right.  However, his reforms, in conjunction with the growing pressure of the free world, helped to set reforms in motion that would change the face of Russia.  However, it would change the face rather than the character.  Little could change over 60 years of ideologically driven governmental policies.  Socialism and the pressure of Communism was the blood of the Soviet Union; the life force.  To rid the empire of these two driving ideologies would be to kill it altogether.  This is ultimately why the Soviet face suffocated; freedom.     

         However, history proves that it was, and still is, difficult to transform society from socialism to capitalism.  It was so incredibly difficult for Russians to abandon the socialist mindset of the Soviet Union that President Yeltsin almost lost his reelection in 1996 to a Communist Party leader.  Socialist and Communist ideals were still the norm through the 90’s partly because of Yeltsin’s radical reforms and partly because of the general mindset of Russians.  Yeltsin still teetered on the edge of severe unpopularity until his resignation in 1999.  He believed that Russia could be saved from left wing idealists through Vladimir Putin, rather than by himself.  As Putin took the reigns of the government, he was able to bolster enough support to win the election in 2000 and maintain control over Russian politics for a new, moderate generation.  But, since his election to the presidency, his moderate stances can and ought to be questioned.  Putin is arguably restructuring the Russian Federation into a government strongly resembling the Soviet Union.     

         The basic structure of the government is not as free as it appears.  Putin maintains complete control over governors of every district because they are not elected to their positions.  Rather, they are hand picked by the President.  Though the Russian parliament is politically diverse, the ones who make the biggest, and often, most crucial decisions for Russia

         To some, this may not seem so bad.  Putin does not appear to be any sort of major threat to the freedom around the world whenever he makes the occasional appearance on the news.  He doesn’t seem harmless, but he doesn’t seem out of line like some leaders we read or hear about every day of the week.  But yet, in the past few months especially, there are peculiar events that are occurring that are tied back to Russia, the Kremlin, or the FSB.  The poisoning and death of Alexander Litvinenko is a direct indication that the Soviet Union and the KGB have returned and are a force to be reckoned with.  Though the exact facts of the story are rather muddy and there is no clear cut answer to the questions surrounding the former FSB agent’s death, the entire situation, particularly the use of polonium-210 as a poisoning agent, is quite peculiar. have direct influence from Vladimir Putin

         This leads back to Putin and his plans for the future of Russia.  Being the former head of the KGB as well as a member of the Party and the KGB for most of his life, Putin has undoubtedly been indoctrinated very heavily with the propaganda and ideology of his superiors.  If the entire nation is still on economic crutches as a result of dependence on the Soviet Union, could one man be falling onto the same path as every General Secretary of the Soviet Union?  Is Vladimir Putin destined to socialize the Russian Federation?

         It is difficult to say for sure, but Putin’s liberal reforms, control over several industries as well as questionable involvement in the deaths of Alexander Litvinenko and journalist Anna Politkovskaya are all indicative of a new age for Russia and Russian politics.  However, this new age, if it comes about, will be anything but new to mother Russia.     

         Every now and then when I'm going through the daily routine of reading news, I'll find the new article either about new smoking bans in restaurants or about some proud citizen trying to beat the bans in their own unique ways.  But the thing that has always, and will never cease, to amaze me as that it doesn't seem as though there is a big push to stop public smoking bans.  Granted, there are movements trying to repeal legislation banning smoking from public areas.  However, the movements aren't championing the support that say the anti-war movement has.  Perhaps to many people the basic right to smoke is not comparable to other issues both foreign and domestic.  But, the crucial idea that many people are missing is that bans on smoking is a direct violation of the three principles that John Locke first theorized during the Enlightenment Era and the similar principles that Thomas Jefferson penned in the Constitution.

         Simply for clarification, the founding fathers, Jefferson in particular, were in agreement that every person had the right to life, liberty, and property.  Jefferson changed property to the pursuit of happiness for his own political reasoning.  The fundamental principles of the nation are founded upon the simplicity of the ideals of liberty; that all men have the ability to live and function in a free society.  Throughout American history, Locke's principles were skewed, misused, and often times lost all together in order to further various religious, economic, or social agendas.  This same gross misuse is occurring in our own time in various ways.  Smoking bans are one of several examples but it's one that always gets my blood boiling.

         I admit, I am not a smoker in what is now considered the traditional sense.  However, I believe there are fewer things finer than having a discussion over a good cigar or a pipe-full of fresh, aromatic tobacco.  To be honest, I find cigarettes generally rather disgusting.  I don’t like the taste, the smell, or really anything about them.  Cartoon-wise, though, Joe Camel was always one of my favorites, but even he fell to the Federal government.  This is due to the fact that there are people on both sides of the aisle who are involved in all levels of government who feel that it is their explicit duty to stomp out all of that which they feel is undesirable or incorrect.  Smoking is a great example of this.  Legislators, particularly in cites currently, are steam rolling over all forms of personal rights in the name of others’ rights.      

         But wait just a second, Jack.  How can any governmental body legislate something that weighs two clear cut rights against each other?  Where is the rationalization for smoking bans in the name of public health?

         The rationalization, as I view, it is that legislation in the name public health, the common good, the utilitarian decision tacks on political points for a legislator.  Why else would restaurants, bars, and similar establishments be forced to disallow patrons from engaging in an activity they want to engage in? 

         The heart and soul of the Constitution, as well as with the simple act of smoking, is defining the individual’s rights.  I say if you want to smoke, go for it.  Why should I or the government hold you back from doing as you wish to your being?  If lawmakers can actually rationalize, write, and pass legislation that prevents an individual from doing harm to themselves, will we all soon end up in giant padded bubbles and forced into Veganism?  Logically, though perhaps funny and a good premise for a Jake Gyllenhaal movie, the entire idea could happen.  Our lives are being legislated by what lawmakers feel is best for us.  I think that I have a better grasp on what is best for myself than anyone in Washington that comes to mind.

         Strictly speaking on the philosophical principles of men such as John Locke, by banning smoking from both public and private enterprises, one is actively disapproving the basic freedoms of all people.  If bars or restaurants wish to allow their patrons to smoke, why should the government disallow this common agreement?  If customers don’t approve of the smoking and the atmosphere of the bar, they would not return, logically causing losses in profit by the bar owner.  Owners exist to please their patrons and to keep them happy.  Unlike what many of our legislators believe, they are not trying to destroy the American public cigarette by cigarette.