en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/2390592 Comments by drr5159 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/04/17/voices-from-the-classroom-152/#IDComment343047249 Dean Rice 904224666 drr5159 First of all, I am not religious. My opinion was from the start that homosexuality is not a choice. My views did change slightly however; Sam stated that a minority of gays do choose to be so. I was surprised and had never thought of this, but now that Sam brought it up, it makes sense. There are some people out there who want to nonconform for the sake of nonconformity. Or people who want the experience or simply do not care. However, the vast majority of homosexuals were born that way. The real reason I felt compelled to answer this question is a related point. I believe the question of whether homosexuality is a choice or not is irrelevant. Whether it is a choice or not, everyone should have the freedom to do what they please. There is all this controversy over the question of the whether being gay is voluntary or not. I do not think it should matter. People should be able to do what they want with their sexual lives. Whether it is a choice or not, people’s sexual orientation is their business. Also, people should be able to marry whomever they want, regardless whether it is a person of the opposite sex, and regardless of whether their love or sexual desire towards that person was chosen or chance. Who can reasonably infer that feelings of love for some one else are all choice or all chance? It is a combination and it is more complicated than just generalizing that homosexuality is an orientation you are born with or something you choose. However one becomes gay, it is who that person is and they should be respected and accepted no matter what the circumstances are that make them who they are. Homosexuality may be genetic, it may be hereditary, it may be a mutation, it could have something to do with nature and, for some, and it may be a choice. Whatever the cause, it is peoples’ right to live their lives how they want and marry who they want. Studies have shown that it is almost certainly something you are born with. Although, no queer gene or combination of genes have been found. The brain, and specifically how the brain works with sexual desire and what one looks for in a mate, is so complex that it may be impossible to discover a specific biological cause to homosexuality. Just like some one’s personality is more that the some of the components that make up their brain. Somebody’s sexual orientation is pivotal to who they are as a person and should be accepted the same way a persons personality type is accepted. For those who say homosexuality is unnatural, many other animals have members of their species that are gay. Some examples given in class were dolphins, dogs and rams (perhaps it is a mammalian thing). Clearly homosexuality is natural because it exists. Fri, 20 Apr 2012 01:16:24 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/04/17/voices-from-the-classroom-152/#IDComment343047249 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/04/10/voices-from-the-classroom-144/#IDComment337899824 Dean Rice drr5159 904224666 There are many psychological and sociological reasons why people could witness something unjust or horrific and not do or say anything. The evidence for this phenomenon is tried and tested. There are so many variables to an issue like this; it could be something remedial as some one’s mood that day or several environmental factors. Also, some people are predetermined to be more extraverted or just minded and are there for more likely to take action. However, the main two terms that explain this phenomenon are “The Bystander Effect” and “The Diffusion for Responsibility.” The bystander effect is the inclination to do nothing and watch as one witnesses a crime or wrongdoing. In this sense one becomes a bystander and will do nothing to help. It is almost a trance that one falls into and is inclined to become helpless and complacent. Diffusion of responsibility pertains to the amount of people that are witnessing the event. The more people that are witnessing an event the more diluted the responsibility is. In other words it is spread out among more people so each person bears less responsibility. So, the more people, the less likely a person is to do something. This is why in CPR training one is taught to point at some one and tell them specifically to call 911, because if one just yells out to a crowd of people to call 911 it is likely no one will. The idea is “I do not have to do it, some one else will.” However, this state is immediately broken when somebody does jump into action. As soon as some one begins to help then the crowd is likely to follow. This is not because people are bad; it is because people feel socially inclined to not get involved. They are hesitant to jut into something that is not their business. We would all like to think that we would act differently, that we would immediately help if we see a crisis or crime. However, studies and real life instances have proven otherwise. In the 1970s, a girl was brutally stabbed to death in plain view of many apartments as several people watched. Nobody did anything to help as she screamed for help. Even after her assailant left, the bystanders left her to bleed to death. Also, a study was done to see if people would help if a purse were stolen in plain view. As expected, most trials, nobody did anything. But, when an actor was planted to yell “hey!” people would jump into action to retrieve the purse almost without fail. I am fairly certain that if I saw an obvious crisis or unjust act that I would do something. Of course, so does everyone else. I hope I am the exception, but there is no way to be sure unless such an event arises. The reason people do not act to help in these situations is just human psychology. For whatever reason it is deep seeded in our psyches. Fri, 13 Apr 2012 03:39:09 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/04/10/voices-from-the-classroom-144/#IDComment337899824 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/04/12/some-thoughts-on-the-righteous-mind/#IDComment332803739 Dean Rice The first idea proposed in the video was that conservatives understood how liberals thought and felt about issues better than liberals could for conservatives. In other words, conservative can empathize with liberals better. He made an analogy that humans have three receptors for color; what he did not know is that these are called cones and there are three types that are especially sensitive to certain wavelengths, but they all have a range. He went on to say that that one cannot imagine what it would be like to see in infrared or ultraviolet the same way that liberals cannot imagine what it is like to think conservatively. Of course this is not rue because we have cameras and other devices that can put infrared and ultraviolet light into terms our eyes can see. But arguing the semantics of the analogy aside, the idea has another fundamental flaw. It is easier to empathize with something that is easier to understand. Liberalism has diverse ideas and values; however, it all follows a thought pattern that makes sense and champions ideals that are core to being a compassionate human. Conservatism is full of contradictory ideas and is muddled by blind religious adherence. In this way it is harder to empathize with because it simply makes less sense. It is more about retaining tradition and dogmatic ways of thinking and believing than truly analyzing an issue and deciding what is fair and best. I also call into question the accuracy of the study this man describes. He is obviously conservative and before the study was ever done or even created he had probably already made up his mind and was looking for a certain outcome. It is very possible that the study was designed or administered unfairly. The example he gave was absurd: when a liberal is asked if conservatives believe that conservatives value justice the liberal replied no? Everybody believes they value justice and everybody knows that everybody believes they value justice. Nobody, conservative or liberal, is stupid enough to think otherwise. If that was truly an example from the test than I am sure there is something off about it. I am not a radical liberal; I am a moderate leaning left. The problem is republicans are not even conservatives, they are another breed, they do not follow the true foundations of what conservatism is. So I must almost always side with the democrats since there is no other relevant party. When it comes to social issues however, there can be no doubt I am far on the left. He brings up an idea about teenagers being able to find an abortion doctor without permission from their parent. He says this is unacceptable because parents do not want their kids being able to pic a surgeon on their own. The logic is the parents might say no or disapprove. He acknowledges this but never answers the dilemma: yes, what if the parents say no? If the teenager is in a position where she can tell her parents, she certainly will, then the parents will pick a surgeon together. This only applies when the teenager is in a position where she cannot or will not tell her parents. In which case she should still have the right to control her body. Fri, 6 Apr 2012 04:20:50 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/04/12/some-thoughts-on-the-righteous-mind/#IDComment332803739 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/03/22/voices-frorm-the-classroom/#IDComment322948129 Dean Rice Drr5159 904224666 The question that Sam and this girl raised is irrelevant. Of course it was immoral to take the chair (America) in the first place; and while it may be unreasonable for the granddaughter to give up the chair completely, of course it is fair, moral and the right thing to do for her to share it and give the Native Americans at least a fraction of the wealth that America has afforded the White people. That is without question the moral thing to do. However, that is not a question that has to be asked. The question is whether it is at all possible that such an act could ever happen. I believe not. As Sam stated, if you sit in Soc 119 at Penn State, chances are you are among the richest and best off on the planet. We all preach global that we should help the impoverished of the world, but how much would any of us really be willing to give up? Do not misunderstand, my parents donate to charity and I intend to donate to charity when I actually have money as a successful adult. But only to the degree that would not change my lifestyle. That is the same for almost everybody; they will help as much is convenient for them. So, how much would any of us give up for global equality? I would not give up my family’s multiple cars, acre property with a comfortable four-bedroom house, my laptop, my HD TV, my respectable wardrobe, or anything that would be noticeable for me. Just as the US as a country is not willing to give up anything she has, nor would I want her to. We should be doing everything we can to maintain our rightful place as the richest and most powerful country in the world. To do that we need our oil (at least for now) and the numerous other recourses we control. We give the second most foreign aid out of any country. Sam mentioned in class that while we spent the second most on aid, we are seventh in what we spend as a percentage of our GDP. However, I think it is incorrect to look at the amount we spend as a percentage of our GDP, but rather as a percentage of our government’s spending power. The US government is extremely small as a percentage of our economy size. Our GDP is approximately 14 trillion dollars, the government has only one real income and that is from tax revenue. The government takes about 2.5 trillion in taxes. That means our government is 17 percent of our economy. Republicans call for a smaller government; the truth is our government is already exceptionally small for a first world country. Perhaps too small, because after receiving 2.5 trillion dollars in taxes, the government turns around and spends 3.5 trillion. This means we want the services that a larger government can provide, but are unwilling to pay for it. The budget deficit is about 1 trillion and because of that we have a national debt of over 14 trillion dollars. Of course this is oversimplified, there are several reasons we are in debt such as runaway and corrupt spending, wars, and the ponzi scheme that is social security. My point is that we actually cannot afford foreign aid, or any unnecessary spending. We are the richest nation in that we make the most money as a nation. However, we are the poorest nation in that we spend the most money as a nation. We should see to ourselves before anyone else. Fri, 23 Mar 2012 21:45:29 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/03/22/voices-frorm-the-classroom/#IDComment322948129 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/03/15/voices-from-the-classroom-123/#IDComment317854721 My perspective on war has not really been changed. Many would consider my views Machiavellian and also Marxist. Let me start out by saying I do not support war and I am not a war hungry person. However, once in a war, we must fight to win at all cost and with as little damage to our own as possible. I didn’t say it in class, but of course I value the life of an American more than a foreigner. Not only that, but I value the life of an American infinitely more that that of a foreigner. At least at the policy making level, the only thing that should be taken into account is what is best for US soldiers, the American people, and America’s interests. All else should be irrelevant and not taken into consideration in the slightest. To succeed in anything, one must be on one’s own side. That goes double for a nation. The fact of the matter is I’m on my side and I want my own country to succeed in every way possible. I do not think the number should be 29 to save 1 American soldier. There should not even be a number. The policy should be “what ever it takes” to save 1 American life. Because in war, your countrymen’s life is not only worth more than that of the enemy’s, but it is also worth more than anybody’s. If one does not accept that reality, than how could one possibly bring oneself to take the life of a stranger? Not only do I support this mentality in war, but I also support it in all policy making (perhaps not to the same extreme). I believe the US should dominate both militarily (not with wars but by having the strongest military and by maintaining global presence) and economically. The goal of economic domination should also be achieved by any means necessary. Policies and trade practices must be conducted for the best benefit of the US, not fairness. Every country in the world attempts to enter trade agreements and implements policies that are best for them respectively. I would agree with any economic policy, trading practice, or trading agreement that is tipped unfairly towards the US. The global economy is not a free market system and it never will be. More powerful economic countries will always rig the system for their favor. The US is no different and should continue attempting to do what is best for the US and only the US. I do not support taking advantage of lesser-developed countries; I also do not support developing them. They were doing fine while they were isolated, it was only after they entered the global market that their troubles started. Fri, 16 Mar 2012 21:38:38 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/03/15/voices-from-the-classroom-123/#IDComment317854721 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/02/16/voices-from-the-classroom-108/#IDComment299533815 Dean Rice I believe the reason certain sports are dominated by certain races or ethnicities is due almost completely to cultural and socioeconomic reasons. While there are phonotypical genetic differences that may incline certain races to certain sports, I think they are so minute that they cannot account for the racial imbalance in numbers there are in certain sports. Culturally certain races tend to play certain sports for recreation. They start at a young age and practice because it is a staple in their culture to do so. Their father played, their older brother played, now they play. At the local public facility, the gym, the street, where ever they can. They play simply because they are expected to and are exposed early to it. As with most sports, practice and dedication is the pivotal factor that determines success. Because there is a greater number of youth that play a sport of a certain race, it is more likely for there to be more professionals who play that sport of a certain race. Black people tend to be exposed to basketball as a youth; white people to baseball, tennis, hockey or golf, youths in Brazil tend to practice jujitsu. It is all based on what sport is popular in a particular ghetto. For the same reason Asians generally do not get involved in athletics. In Asian culture it is more important to focus on schooling. There are some sports that Asians are good at, like table tennis, archery, and now, point guard for the Knicks. However, for the most part, Asian youths are not pushed into athletics by their parents or feel any cultural pressure or drive to play a sport. The other reason is socioeconomic. For many minorities, access to education is difficult. They are hindered by poor schools, and parents who can not afford to send them to college. For many of these minority youths, they look to athletics as their only chance to make it. So, instead of focusing on academics, or being lazy and focusing on nothing at all, they devote their energy to sports. Unfortunately, only a small percentage will make it to a professional level. But, this does create a lager pool of particular races for certain sports. Also, some sports are more expensive that other sports. This blocks minorities that tend to have a lower family income. These are the sports that tend to be dominated by the races that have higher income. Sports like soccer, basketball, and running cost nothing, or just a ball. Sports like hockey and golf are expensive to play and therefore inaccessible to races that on average have a lower income. I wrestled in high school; the sport is dominated by mostly white kids. I believe this is because culturally, wrestling is a white sport. Most other races wouldn’t even think to go into wrestling. Thu, 23 Feb 2012 06:35:01 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/02/16/voices-from-the-classroom-108/#IDComment299533815 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/02/15/voices-from-the-classroom-107/#IDComment294501520 Dean Rice There is nothing in physics or by extension our scientific, empirical, understanding of the universe that contradicts the possibility of a higher power, energy, or even god or creator. I do not believe that science and religion necessarily have to be at odds. If once strictly adheres to the Bible then they do have to be at odds. That’s is that God is a white-bearded old guy who created Earth in six days. However, if one strictly adheres to the Bible then one also believes this: “When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property” (Exodus 21:20-21), and this “However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way” (Leviticus 25:44-46). So most readers of the Bible adhere to it loosely and understand and accept that it is a dated document. As long as you are able to accept science as an actuality you can understand that our knowledge of science allows for the possibility of a higher power or energy. The big bag theory states that everything that exists and ever will exist started in a singularity. A singularity is a point of infinite mass and gravity. This can not be pinpointed to a date because it is with the big bang that time started as well. We can estimate the universe is about 13 billion years old. How did the singularity get there? Science can not explain it, but religion can. Perhaps there is an energy or intelligence that transcends time and physics itself, perhaps that is how the universe came to be. That is why I do not consider myself an atheist. I do not necessarily believe in god; but I accept that is a possibility. The idea of god is certainly real; peoples’ faith in god is certainly real. I believe firmly in everything that physic has discovered about the universe. The universe is unimaginably big, and it is held together and works with dark matter, dark energy, gravity, and other properties I do not completely understand. One thing I do know is that god is not an old man with a beard. But god could be an energy, power, or even sentient being that also hold together and guides the universe. Perhaps god even lives within us all. Fri, 17 Feb 2012 04:27:49 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/02/15/voices-from-the-classroom-107/#IDComment294501520 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/02/10/voices-from-the-classroom-103/#IDComment289332270 Dean Rice The reason Asians defined themselves as a specific type of Asian is because we are a specific type of Asian. But it goes deeper than that; Asian is a race, Korean, Japanese, Chinese, etc. are not races, they are nationalities. Although you can categorize them as sub races of Asian, and there are phonotypical differences between the different nations of the orient, they are first and foremost nationalities. So if you call me Chinese, or Japanese, you are calling me a member of a country, culture, and ancestry to which I have no ties. I am American. When people ask me where I’m from I reply: New Jersey. But where were you born? New Jersey. But what are you? American. No, like, where are your parents from? They both live in New Jersey. You know what I mean! My mom was born in Korea. South Korea or North Korea? What do you think. However, I am not Korean, not really. It is my heritage, but I was born in the US and I’ve spent my entire life here. I am not a citizen of Korea; I am a citizen of the US. By disassociating myself with say Chinese or Japanese, I am disassociating myself with something that I am not. In fact I have China, as a country not a people. My question is: why do people never ask any other race what type of that race they are. Nobody ever ask a white person what type of white they are, or a black person what type of black they are. People will occasionally ask what type of Hispanic somebody is. But it seams to be everybody’s go to question towards Asians. Racially, I consider myself half Asian, and half Jewish. As I often have to explain, Judaism is both a religion and a race. While I am not religiously Jewish (I am not religious period) I am racially Jewish. Anything with phonotypical, genetic characteristics is a race. If you can say somebody “looks Jewish” that means there are physical traits that make that so. We are “God’s chosen people” a “people” implies a race. Admittedly, the line as to what defines a race is blurred. As Sam explained in class, it is impossible to group everybody into a neat race. As for Jews, back when it was bad to be a minority, Jews were a minority. Now that it is good to be a minority, Jews are just white people. I have only recently started checking “other” on forms where they ask you your ethnicity. I used to check “Asian/ pacific islander.” I have since decided that that is inaccurate. If the form has a line for me to fill out what I am next to “other”, I write in half “Asian half Jewish.” If there is no line next to other, I guess they form giver is just not that curious. Sat, 11 Feb 2012 03:32:16 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/02/10/voices-from-the-classroom-103/#IDComment289332270 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/01/31/voices-from-the-classroom-93/#IDComment283141950 Dean Rice I do not believe the options Sam gave are the only ones. There are alternatives to the two extremes Sam offered. First of all, I will never learn Spanish, or any other language for that matter. English is the most widely understood language in the world. It is the language of business and of international communication. Everybody all over the world learns English, and I do not believe that will change. I may sound like a dogmatic, narrow-minded American, and perhaps I am. If so, I am proud of it. I believe America is the greatest country in the world, and I believe English is the greatest language; why should I learn anything else? Just because I refuse to learn Spanish, does not mean I believe in spending billions in keeping Mexicans, or other Spanish speakers out. I do believe these illegals are more of a burden on our society than they are a help. This is only because they do not, or rather, cannot pay income tax. Because they are unable to become citizens, they cannot file tax returns. This is a problem, it is unwise to have undocumented people living in a society; at the same time they enjoy public services they do not pay for. I do not blame the illegal immigrant for this, almost all of them are just searching for honest work and would love to become a citizen, get paid minimum wage, and file a tax return. I do not see why it should be so difficult to become a citizen; anyone who wants to join our civilization should be welcome. The Romans extended citizenship throughout their empire in 212 AD. As a general rule, more citizens willing to labor makes for a stronger country. Once these people are taxpayers, they will enhance government revenue and strengthen our aging workforce. That being said, I do not think the US will become more Spanish speaking. Just as Sam said, there have been waves of immigrants in the past, and they all eventually learned English. The Hispanic immigrants will be no different. They will eventually assimilate into our society and learn English. The fact that whites will no longer be the majority soon is often misinterpreted. This simply means the population of the US will no longer be over 50% white. Whites will still remain, by far, the larges ethnic group in America. The cultural foundation of America is not in danger. The new wave of immigrants will inevitably accept American culture, and be “white washed.” In a way I do agree with Sam, I don’t believe we should fight the Hispanic immigrants, but rather we should embrace them. That being said, we should not simply open our borders to everyone. There should still be a checking process, but the path to citizen ship should be much shorter and easier. However, I disagree with Sam that the cultural landscape of the US will change much. I will not learn English, nor do I think it is necessary in the least. My parents own a rooming house in Union City NJ. The most densely populated city in the US in the most densely populated state in the US. It is almost entirely Hispanic people. The rooming house business requires a great deal of communication between landlord, superintendent, and other tenants. My parents speak zero Spanish and it has not been a hindrance in the least. I would support the nation language of the US being made English; but at the same time I do not believe it is necessary. Fri, 3 Feb 2012 22:15:25 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/01/31/voices-from-the-classroom-93/#IDComment283141950 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/01/26/voices-from-the-classroom-92/#IDComment276438318 Over the past few months at Penn State there have been some terrible events. These events have tarnished the image of our school, and thereby tarnished the image of the students. This experience has taught me several things about people and human nature. Public opinion is fickle and uncaring. The masses are quick to judge, yet also quick to forget. Normal, intelligent people are ignorant about most things, and act as if they are knowledgeable about everything. They will believe the first thing they hear and never stop to question or thing critically. Now I see why large corporations and political entities are so careful to generate a positive political image. It is because people will believe anything negative and forget anything good they have heard in an instant. The masses are spoon-fed opinions by the media and they accept them readily. People put so little work into their opinions, which feed into “public opinion,” because they do not really care. They do no care because it doesn’t actually affect them. People enjoy feeling ways about things; it makes them feel important, special, that they belong. But these things are so distant from them that they can point fingers and not feel bad themselves. Because they care so little, they put no effort into finding the truth, research is no fun. The public never bothers to ask “why?” they just want to be please, to be entertained. I have also learned it can be spectacular how little people actually know. I spoke to a friend back home who thought Joe Paterno was himself a child rapist. With an obvious condescending tone, and partially concealed anger and outrage, I explained to him how stupidly wrong he was. The reaction I expected was either anger at being talked down at, or a revelation as this completely changed the facts for him and flipped what he thought was the story upside down. But instead, I got a reaction of indifference. He replied “Oh, ok.” A story just moments ago he was so opinionated about, now he no longer cares. He just accused an innocent man of child molestation, and when he is proven wrong, his response is “Oh, ok.” People will spew hate without a second thought when they thing it will not affect themselves. They do no really feel strongly one way or another; they just like hearing themselves talk. People just like feeling ways about stuff. Its fun to have an opinion, then share it with people who will agree with you. In any conversation people are just waiting for their turn to talk. Usually an individual person is intelligent, but almost always people are stupid; or at the very least, ignorant. Sat, 28 Jan 2012 02:11:52 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/01/26/voices-from-the-classroom-92/#IDComment276438318 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/01/19/alabamas-migrant-workers-colberts-perspective/#IDComment270083682 Immigration is a tough issue and has always been an issue in the United States, a country built on immigration. This nation would not be what it is without the waves of immigrant that have come over the decades. However, as Sam said, it is in our nature that once we immigrate and pass through the gates of this country, we tend to close the gate behind us. The people who have already been here have always bee reluctant to let more people come, with the exception of the American Indians. Immigration is an issue that has been around since our nation’s genesis, but now it seems to be more and more on the forefront on the mind of Americans. The right wing argues that illegal immigrants take away jobs that unemployed Americans could take. But it seams unemployed Americans would rather collect unemployment. The left argues that illegals take only jobs at the bottom rung of society and that no Americans would take. This now seams to be evident in the fact that when the migrant workers are forced out, there are no Americans who will fill the openings. The work is too hard, too hot, too long for lazy Americans. Now it appears these illegal workers are crucial for the US economy. I can see two solutions for this problem. The first is to allow immigrants to become citizens of the US more easily. Allow them to become citizens and they will pay income tax and other taxes, therefore augmenting the burden they put on society. My only problem with illegal immigrants is that they do not file tax returns. Of course, they cant, there would be nowhere for them to file it to and if they somehow did it would only get them deported. They use public services like emergency rooms and fire departments and police, which are paid for by tax dollars. Once they are tax payers they will no longer be a burden on the US public system. Immigrants will do the jobs we need done for cheap, pay tax, and learn English at the same rate that every other wave of immigrant has. In the long term, they will assimilate with American society and be beneficial to our nation just like every other wave of immigrant. In the short term they will do the jobs that no one else is willing to do. On the other hand, I am not a believer in the notion that Americans are lazy. If given enough time there will be US citizens to fill those farm-picking jobs. Whenever a new sector of work is available, it takes time for the economy and workforce to adjust. Not enough people are aware of the jobs in farm picking, and perhaps people are not desperate enough. There are hardworking Americans who need jobs and it would just take time for those Americans to find the opportunity. Sat, 21 Jan 2012 01:57:28 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/01/19/alabamas-migrant-workers-colberts-perspective/#IDComment270083682 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/18/war-through-the-ages/#IDComment145254718 The obvious trend is that wars have increased in frequency and deaths over the past millennium. This is most likely due largely to the fact that population has increased so dramatically on that time. As more people come into being, more will fight in wars, thus more will die. Also, as population increases the competition for resources intensify. More people will inevitably lead to more and bigger wars. However, this is not the only reason there are more deaths. In the recent half 60 or 70 years our ability to kill each other has grown increasingly efficient. Large-scale weapons and explosives can now kill hundreds at a time and we can whip out a city with a single bomb. We now can destroy the world several times over with just the nuclear capability of the US. It used to be the most efficient way to kill was one at a time with a spear. Unfortunately these new killing technologies do not kill with discretion. This means that most of the deaths from war are civilian casualties. In fact, in modern war, 90% of all casualties are civilians. As time goes on, it appears we are moving into a perpetual state of war. Through my life, America has been at war more than it has not. From me, our nation at war in some distant land is normal. The reason for this is financial and economic reasons, more specifically, resources. For everybody in the world to live like the average American does, there would have to be four Earths. There are clearly not enough resources for every person unless people make serious sacrifices. The strive for resources have driven most wars and is the bases of imperialism. Empires expand for labor and tax revenue, but the main advantage is the raw materials and resources that the mother country can take for itself. Resources and money are one in the same. Empires naturally expand because the more resources and people under the dominion of the empire will give that nation more wealth and power. I would not consider America an empire, although I would not be adverse to the idea. The recourses we gain only benefit a few at the top; for the most part the wars we engage in are expensive both in money and life for the American people. Then, we occupy and rebuild the war-torn country costing us even more. This feeds and benefits the military industrial complex, but is detrimental to the nation as a whole. Sat, 23 Apr 2011 00:38:17 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/18/war-through-the-ages/#IDComment145254718 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/11/the-cost-of-empire-soc-001-blog/#IDComment142633187 Empires were once profitable because they taxed or demanded tribute from there territories. During the Roman Empire, conquerors would return with plunder, exotic goods and slaves. A military expedition would not be viewed in terms of cost , as it is today, these campaigns would be profitable. The Romans would use the territories to their advantage through wealth gain, resource extraction, and military recruitment. These territories were not a drain on the city of Rome, they were assets. This profitable system made the Romans rich and powerful and lasted for almost a millennium. This so-called American empire is different. Our conquests bring us no plunder; it is argued that it brings us recourses, but gas process are still high and we still pay to import it. We get neither tax nor tribute from where our military is stationed; in fact we gain nothing, we only lose lives and money. This arrangement cannot be called an empire; all empires in history have been advantages for the conqueror. This is just wasteful military involvement. Our “territories” are not assets, they are clear liabilities. We spend more than our means on wars that will gain us nothing. The best way for a foreign country to galvanize its economy is to get in a war with the US, lose, then have the US rebuild your country better than it was. The war and rebuilding is all at taxpayer expense with money the government does not have. At least if we are doing all this costly work to police the world, the world should like us for it right? That’s stupid, everybody hates police. We spend money we don’t have, on wars and military bases that don’t help us, and the world hates us for it. It the US is going to have any chance from saving itself from her debts, military spending must be cut significantly. We have a debt of 14 trillion and that goes up by about a trillion a year. The amount it goes up by is also going up. Investment in new technology and weapons systems should not be cut; research and development is vital to out military dominance. The strength of our military must be not only maintained, but increased. Our current defense policies only make our armed forces weaker. Wars is a huge part that’s must be cut. Unnecessary bases redundant systems are others. There is huge waste in the defense budget that needs to be addressed. Thu, 14 Apr 2011 00:54:06 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/11/the-cost-of-empire-soc-001-blog/#IDComment142633187 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/07/4827/#IDComment141129428 If Republicans truly believed in a free market and no government interference in the economy, the oil subsidies would be removed. U fortunately they only believe in a free market with markets they do not have a stake in. Despite the rising price of gas and oil, Big Oil has reported astounding profits. At a time when most people are tightening their belts, the oil companies are getting rich. This would not be a problem if the oil industry was just doing well on its own, but this is not the case. Not only does Big Oil pay little to no tax, they are actually subsidized by the government. At a time when the deficit is growing the government is actually paying oil companies. Tax dollars are paying companies that would do just fine on their own. Instead of giving tax breaks to oil companies for making oil, perhaps they could receive tax breaks to pioneer alternative fuels. Alternative fuels are not a viable replacement for fossil fuels because very little money has been put into their development. If there is anything that businesses respond to, its money. These companies would be able to develop alternative energies with their deep pockets and vast resources far better than small private researchers, and the joke of an investment the government has made in alternative fuels. These subsidies were implemented at a time when the oil industry was just developing and perhaps needed help from the government. Now Big Oil has a stranglehold on congress (as many congressmen are oilmen) any president is powerless to try to repeal these subsidies. A vast majority of Americans support the stoppage of unfair advantages to oil companies. Every American is actually paying these companies with their tax. Unfortunately our government is too corrupt and inefficient to get such things done. Another method used by the oil company is one that was specifically discussed in class. The oil industry cuts large check in the form of campaign donations. No politician can get elected without a campaign, and those are expensive. This system is legalized bribery, and the oil industry has used it to great success. Due to this, the government would rather cut police, fire, and education rather than oil subsidies Sat, 9 Apr 2011 00:57:32 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/07/4827/#IDComment141129428 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/30/so-what-your-take-on-those-inequality-classes/#IDComment139274803 The extreme distribution of wealth is troublesome to me as I’m sure it is others. Such a spectacular percentage of the wealth is controlled by the top 1% of Americans. This figure is hard to believe and raises serious questions about our system. I think some of the wealth should be redistributed; of course, I am a hypocrite. I will most likely enjoy a pretty optimistic life. My parents are paying for my college and what I have was not earned by me. I am doing and have done pretty good in school and so far that is my only life achievement. I will inevitably inherit wealth that I have not earned, and I would not be so quick to give that perk up. Is inheritance fair? From the outside looking in we see people inheriting millions or even billions, and we feel that it is unfair. However, parents have always wanted to give all they have to their offspring. And who has the right to tell them they can’t? I will get it from my parents, and I will give it to my kids. I would be furious if either of those processes were interrupted. The wealthy are wealthy because of lineage, just like the royal and noble were royal and noble because of linage. It seems inevitable that there will be an elite, then a mass of commoners; it is the nature of human society. At least one that is not heavily regulated. In many European countries socialism is practiced. Everyone is taken care of and well off. However, Americans are appalled at the idea of socialism. I agree, to achieve this society where there is no poverty and wealth is distributed evenly, everyone has to pay an income tax of 50 to 60%. This is necessary to maintain an even distribution of wealth because it is natural for some people to earn higher incomes and become the elite. Our capitalist mentality does in fact drive a stronger economy as a collective. While at the same time making huge gaps in wealth distribution. A phenomenon like Facebook could not happen anywhere else in the world, because there would be no incentive to think of and make something like that. In a place where 60% of the profits from Facebook would go to tax to redistribute wealth, there’s no point to succeed because you will do no better than the guy who is doing absolutely nothing. Having a ruling elite comprised of 1% of the population does in fact make for a powerful economy. We are in an economic downturn right now, but the US economy is the largest economy in the world; larger than the second and third largest economies combined. We also have the largest imbalance of wealth distribution. Despite this, Americans life pretty well as I see it. That’s not to say some of the wealth should not be redistributed; tax on the wealthy should be heavier, but it needs to be smart tax. One reason the wealthy are and stay wealthy is their ability to avoid tax. May parents avoid paying many taxes that are intended at being geared towards them. They do so legally and by being smart. When I receive my inheritance, I will pay no estate tax, because I will inherit assets, not cash. There are many classic taxes intended at the wealthy that the wealthy easily avoid by putting their wealth in different forms. Tax on the extremely wealthy must be carefully laid so that the exact effect intended by the tax is achieved. One of the best ways to distribute wealth is not by taking from the very rich, but instead to make the lower class earn more. Financial techniques historically have been taught by parents and are only known to wealthy parents. These techniques are no secret, but the lower class simply do no seem to be aware of them. This knowhow should be taught in school; knowledge of how to invest money, what forms to have wealth in other than dollars, and a general understanding of the market as a whole. Banks are essentially where poor people store money that isn’t properly invested. If we intelligently tax the extremely wealthy (top 1%, cause I don’t want to be taxed more) and educate the lower class, America’s economy and her people will be richer. Which leads to a sub point, global redistribution of wealth. Most of the world is third world, and the entire world is far poorer than us. While we are not the richest nation per capita and our government is heavily in debt, far more of the Earth’s wealth and recourses is controlled by the US than any other country. Our government makes several times more money than any other government; unfortunately it also manages to spend many several times more than any other government. I firmly believe that the power and wealth enjoyed by the US and other first world countries should not be given away or redistributed. First of all, it never will, the average American’s standard of living would drop dramatically. To help the third world, we should instead leave it to the private sector. If the average person truly cared enough there is enough disposable income in the West to improve the lives of citizens of the third world dramatically. It should not be government sponsored. I think people would care if awareness was raised, and they would contribute more. People are too distant, people have to be really shown and made to understand the intense destitution of some of these people. The government however, should worry about poverty in America, not oversees. Sat, 2 Apr 2011 02:52:30 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/30/so-what-your-take-on-those-inequality-classes/#IDComment139274803 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/30/so-what-your-take-on-those-inequality-classes/#IDComment139271592 The extreme distribution of wealth is troublesome to me as I’m sure it is others. Such a spectacular percentage of the wealth is controlled by the top 1% of Americans. This figure is hard to believe and raises serious questions about our system. I think some of the wealth should be redistributed; of course, I am a hypocrite. I will most likely enjoy a pretty optimistic life. My parents are paying for my college and what I have was not earned by me. I am doing and have done pretty good in school and so far that is my only life achievement. I will inevitably inherit wealth that I have not earned, and I would not be so quick to give that perk up. Is inheritance fair? From the outside looking in we see people inheriting millions or even billions, and we feel that it is unfair. However, parents have always wanted to give all they have to their offspring. And who has the right to tell them they can’t? I will get it from my parents, and I will give it to my kids. I would be furious if either of those processes were interrupted. The wealthy are wealthy because of lineage, just like the royal and noble were royal and noble because of linage. It seems inevitable that there will be an elite, then a mass of commoners; it is the nature of human society. At least one that is not heavily regulated. In many European countries socialism is practiced. Everyone is taken care of and well off. However, Americans are appalled at the idea of socialism. I agree, to achieve this society where there is no poverty and wealth is distributed evenly, everyone has to pay an income tax of 50 to 60%. This is necessary to maintain an even distribution of wealth because it is natural for some people to earn higher incomes and become the elite. Our capitalist mentality does in fact drive a stronger economy as a collective. While at the same time making huge gaps in wealth distribution. A phenomenon like Facebook could not happen anywhere else in the world, because there would be no incentive to think of and make something like that. In a place where 60% of the profits from Facebook would go to tax to redistribute wealth, there’s no point to succeed because you will do no better than the guy who is doing absolutely nothing. Having a ruling elite comprised of 1% of the population does in fact make for a powerful economy. We are in an economic downturn right now, but the US economy is the largest economy in the world; larger than the second and third largest economies combined. We also have the largest imbalance of wealth distribution. Despite this, Americans life pretty well as I see it. That’s not to say some of the wealth should not be redistributed; tax on the wealthy should be heavier, but it needs to be smart tax. One reason the wealthy are and stay wealthy is their ability to avoid tax. May parents avoid paying many taxes that are intended at being geared towards them. They do so legally and by being smart. When I receive my inheritance, I will pay no estate tax, because I will inherit assets, not cash. There are many classic taxes intended at the wealthy that the wealthy easily avoid by putting their wealth in different forms. Tax on the extremely wealthy must be carefully laid so that the exact effect intended by the tax is achieved. One of the best ways to distribute wealth is not by taking from the very rich, but instead to make the lower class earn more. Financial techniques historically have been taught by parents and are only known to wealthy parents. These techniques are no secret, but the lower class simply do no seem to be aware of them. This knowhow should be taught in school; knowledge of how to invest money, what forms to have wealth in other than dollars, and a general understanding of the market as a whole. Banks are essentially where poor people store money that isn’t properly invested. If we intelligently tax the extremely wealthy (top 1%, cause I don’t want to be taxed more) and educate the lower class, America’s economy and her people will be richer. Which leads to a sub point, global redistribution of wealth. Most of the world is third world, and the entire world is far poorer than us. While we are not the richest nation per capita and our government is heavily in debt, far more of the Earth’s wealth and recourses is controlled by the US than any other country. Our government makes several times more money than any other government; unfortunately it also manages to spend many several times more than any other government. I firmly believe that the power and wealth enjoyed by the US and other first world countries should not be given away or redistributed. First of all, it never will, the average American’s standard of living would drop dramatically. To help the third world, we should instead leave it to the private sector. If the average person truly cared enough there is enough disposable income in the West to improve the lives of citizens of the third world dramatically. It should not be government sponsored. I think people would care if awareness was raised, and they would contribute more. People are too distant, people have to be really shown and made to understand the intense destitution of some of these people. The government however, should worry about poverty in America, not oversees. Sat, 2 Apr 2011 02:39:46 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/30/so-what-your-take-on-those-inequality-classes/#IDComment139271592 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/30/so-what-your-take-on-those-inequality-classes/#IDComment139266374 The extreme distribution of wealth is troublesome to me as I’m sure it is others. Such a spectacular percentage of the wealth is controlled by the top 1% of Americans. This figure is hard to believe and raises serious questions about our system. I think some of the wealth should be redistributed; of course, I am a hypocrite. I will most likely enjoy a pretty optimistic life. My parents are paying for my college and what I have was not earned by me. I am doing and have done pretty good in school and so far that is my only life achievement. I will inevitably inherit wealth that I have not earned, and I would not be so quick to give that perk up. Is inheritance fair? From the outside looking in we see people inheriting millions or even billions, and we feel that it is unfair. However, parents have always wanted to give all they have to their offspring. And who has the right to tell them they can’t? I will get it from my parents, and I will give it to my kids. I would be furious if either of those processes were interrupted. The wealthy are wealthy because of lineage, just like the royal and noble were royal and noble because of linage. It seems inevitable that there will be an elite, then a mass of commoners; it is the nature of human society. At least one that is not heavily regulated. In many European countries socialism is practiced. Everyone is taken care of and well off. However, Americans are appalled at the idea of socialism. I agree, to achieve this society where there is no poverty and wealth is distributed evenly, everyone has to pay an income tax of 50 to 60%. This is necessary to maintain an even distribution of wealth because it is natural for some people to earn higher incomes and become the elite. Our capitalist mentality does in fact drive a stronger economy as a collective. While at the same time making huge gaps in wealth distribution. A phenomenon like Facebook could not happen anywhere else in the world, because there would be no incentive to think of and make something like that. In a place where 60% of the profits from Facebook would go to tax to redistribute wealth, there’s no point to succeed because you will do no better than the guy who is doing absolutely nothing. Having a ruling elite comprised of 1% of the population does in fact make for a powerful economy. We are in an economic downturn right now, but the US economy is the largest economy in the world; larger than the second and third largest economies combined. We also have the largest imbalance of wealth distribution. Despite this, Americans life pretty well as I see it. That’s not to say some of the wealth should not be redistributed; tax on the wealthy should be heavier, but it needs to be smart tax. One reason the wealthy are and stay wealthy is their ability to avoid tax. May parents avoid paying many taxes that are intended at being geared towards them. They do so legally and by being smart. When I receive my inheritance, I will pay no estate tax, because I will inherit assets, not cash. There are many classic taxes intended at the wealthy that the wealthy easily avoid by putting their wealth in different forms. Tax on the extremely wealthy must be carefully laid so that the exact effect intended by the tax is achieved. One of the best ways to distribute wealth is not by taking from the very rich, but instead to make the lower class earn more. Financial techniques historically have been taught by parents and are only known to wealthy parents. These techniques are no secret, but the lower class simply do no seem to be aware of them. This knowhow should be taught in school; knowledge of how to invest money, what forms to have wealth in other than dollars, and a general understanding of the market as a whole. Banks are essentially where poor people store money that isn’t properly invested. If we intelligently tax the extremely wealthy (top 1%, cause I don’t want to be taxed more) and educate the lower class, America’s economy and her people will be richer. Which leads to a sub point, global redistribution of wealth. Most of the world is third world, and the entire world is far poorer than us. While we are not the richest nation per capita and our government is heavily in debt, far more of the Earth’s wealth and recourses is controlled by the US than any other country. Our government makes several times more money than any other government; unfortunately it also manages to spend many several times more than any other government. I firmly believe that the power and wealth enjoyed by the US and other first world countries should not be given away or redistributed. First of all, it never will, the average American’s standard of living would drop dramatically. To help the third world, we should instead leave it to the private sector. If the average person truly cared enough there is enough disposable income in the West to improve the lives of citizens of the third world dramatically. It should not be government sponsored. I think people would care if awareness was raised, and they would contribute more. People are too distant, people have to be really shown and made to understand the intense destitution of some of these people. The government however, should worry about poverty in America, not oversees. Sat, 2 Apr 2011 02:19:24 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/30/so-what-your-take-on-those-inequality-classes/#IDComment139266374 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/30/so-what-your-take-on-those-inequality-classes/#IDComment139264607 The extreme distribution of wealth is troublesome to me as I’m sure it is others. Such a spectacular percentage of the wealth is controlled by the top 1% of Americans. This figure is hard to believe and raises serious questions about our system. I think some of the wealth should be redistributed; of course, I am a hypocrite. I will most likely enjoy a pretty optimistic life. My parents are paying for my college and what I have was not earned by me. I am doing and have done pretty good in school and so far that is my only life achievement. I will inevitably inherit wealth that I have not earned, and I would not be so quick to give that perk up. Is inheritance fair? From the outside looking in we see people inheriting millions or even billions, and we feel that it is unfair. However, parents have always wanted to give all they have to their offspring. And who has the right to tell them they can’t? I will get it from my parents, and I will give it to my kids. I would be furious if either of those processes were interrupted. The wealthy are wealthy because of lineage, just like the royal and noble were royal and noble because of linage. It seems inevitable that there will be an elite, then a mass of commoners; it is the nature of human society. At least one that is not heavily regulated. In many European countries socialism is practiced. Everyone is taken care of and well off. However, Americans are appalled at the idea of socialism. I agree, to achieve this society where there is no poverty and wealth is distributed evenly, everyone has to pay an income tax of 50 to 60%. This is necessary to maintain an even distribution of wealth because it is natural for some people to earn higher incomes and become the elite. Our capitalist mentality does in fact drive a stronger economy as a collective. While at the same time making huge gaps in wealth distribution. A phenomenon like Facebook could not happen anywhere else in the world, because there would be no incentive to think of and make something like that. In a place where 60% of the profits from Facebook would go to tax to redistribute wealth, there’s no point to succeed because you will do no better than the guy who is doing absolutely nothing. Having a ruling elite comprised of 1% of the population does in fact make for a powerful economy. We are in an economic downturn right now, but the US economy is the largest economy in the world; larger than the second and third largest economies combined. We also have the largest imbalance of wealth distribution. Despite this, Americans life pretty well as I see it. That’s not to say some of the wealth should not be redistributed; tax on the wealthy should be heavier, but it needs to be smart tax. One reason the wealthy are and stay wealthy is their ability to avoid tax. May parents avoid paying many taxes that are intended at being geared towards them. They do so legally and by being smart. When I receive my inheritance, I will pay no estate tax, because I will inherit assets, not cash. There are many classic taxes intended at the wealthy that the wealthy easily avoid by putting their wealth in different forms. Tax on the extremely wealthy must be carefully laid so that the exact effect intended by the tax is achieved. One of the best ways to distribute wealth is not by taking from the very rich, but instead to make the lower class earn more. Financial techniques historically have been taught by parents and are only known to wealthy parents. These techniques are no secret, but the lower class simply do no seem to be aware of them. This knowhow should be taught in school; knowledge of how to invest money, what forms to have wealth in other than dollars, and a general understanding of the market as a whole. Banks are essentially where poor people store money that isn’t properly invested. If we intelligently tax the extremely wealthy (top 1%, cause I don’t want to be taxed more) and educate the lower class, America’s economy and her people will be richer. Which leads to a sub point, global redistribution of wealth. Most of the world is third world, and the entire world is far poorer than us. While we are not the richest nation per capita and our government is heavily in debt, far more of the Earth’s wealth and recourses is controlled by the US than any other country. Our government makes several times more money than any other government; unfortunately it also manages to spend many several times more than any other government. I firmly believe that the power and wealth enjoyed by the US and other first world countries should not be given away or redistributed. First of all, it never will, the average American’s standard of living would drop dramatically. To help the third world, we should instead leave it to the private sector. If the average person truly cared enough there is enough disposable income in the West to improve the lives of citizens of the third world dramatically. It should not be government sponsored. I think people would care if awareness was raised, and they would contribute more. People are too distant, people have to be really shown and made to understand the intense destitution of some of these people. The government however, should worry about poverty in America, not oversees. Sat, 2 Apr 2011 02:12:24 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/30/so-what-your-take-on-those-inequality-classes/#IDComment139264607 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/24/religion-in-the-future/#IDComment139252452 The extreme distribution of wealth is troublesome to me as I’m sure it is others. Such a spectacular percentage of the wealth is controlled by the top 1% of Americans. This figure is hard to believe and raises serious questions about our system. I think some of the wealth should be redistributed; of course, I am a hypocrite. I will most likely enjoy a pretty optimistic life. My parents are paying for my college and what I have was not earned by me. I am doing and have done pretty good in school and so far that is my only life achievement. I will inevitably inherit wealth that I have not earned, and I would not be so quick to give that perk up. Is inheritance fair? From the outside looking in we see people inheriting millions or even billions, and we feel that it is unfair. However, parents have always wanted to give all they have to their offspring. And who has the right to tell them they can’t? I will get it from my parents, and I will give it to my kids. I would be furious if either of those processes were interrupted. The wealthy are wealthy because of lineage, just like the royal and noble were royal and noble because of linage. It seems inevitable that there will be an elite, then a mass of commoners; it is the nature of human society. At least one that is not heavily regulated. In many European countries socialism is practiced. Everyone is taken care of and well off. However, Americans are appalled at the idea of socialism. I agree, to achieve this society where there is no poverty and wealth is distributed evenly, everyone has to pay an income tax of 50 to 60%. This is necessary to maintain an even distribution of wealth because it is natural for some people to earn higher incomes and become the elite. Our capitalist mentality does in fact drive a stronger economy as a collective. While at the same time making huge gaps in wealth distribution. A phenomenon like Facebook could not happen anywhere else in the world, because there would be no incentive to think of and make something like that. In a place where 60% of the profits from Facebook would go to tax to redistribute wealth, there’s no point to succeed because you will do no better than the guy who is doing absolutely nothing. Having a ruling elite comprised of 1% of the population does in fact make for a powerful economy. We are in an economic downturn right now, but the US economy is the largest economy in the world; larger than the second and third largest economies combined. We also have the largest imbalance of wealth distribution. Despite this, Americans life pretty well as I see it. That’s not to say some of the wealth should not be redistributed; tax on the wealthy should be heavier, but it needs to be smart tax. One reason the wealthy are and stay wealthy is their ability to avoid tax. May parents avoid paying many taxes that are intended at being geared towards them. They do so legally and by being smart. When I receive my inheritance, I will pay no estate tax, because I will inherit assets, not cash. There are many classic taxes intended at the wealthy that the wealthy easily avoid by putting their wealth in different forms. Tax on the extremely wealthy must be carefully laid so that the exact effect intended by the tax is achieved. One of the best ways to distribute wealth is not by taking from the very rich, but instead to make the lower class earn more. Financial techniques historically have been taught by parents and are only known to wealthy parents. These techniques are no secret, but the lower class simply do no seem to be aware of them. This knowhow should be taught in school; knowledge of how to invest money, what forms to have wealth in other than dollars, and a general understanding of the market as a whole. Banks are essentially where poor people store money that isn’t properly invested. If we intelligently tax the extremely wealthy (top 1%, cause I don’t want to be taxed more) and educate the lower class, America’s economy and her people will be richer. Which leads to a sub point, global redistribution of wealth. Most of the world is third world, and the entire world is far poorer than us. While we are not the richest nation per capita and our government is heavily in debt, far more of the Earth’s wealth and recourses is controlled by the US than any other country. Our government makes several times more money than any other government; unfortunately it also manages to spend many several times more than any other government. I firmly believe that the power and wealth enjoyed by the US and other first world countries should not be given away or redistributed. First of all, it never will, the average American’s standard of living would drop dramatically. To help the third world, we should instead leave it to the private sector. If the average person truly cared enough there is enough disposable income in the West to improve the lives of citizens of the third world dramatically. It should not be government sponsored. I think people would care if awareness was raised, and they would contribute more. People are too distant, people have to be really shown and made to understand the intense destitution of some of these people. The government however, should worry about poverty in America, not oversees. Sat, 2 Apr 2011 01:26:53 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/24/religion-in-the-future/#IDComment139252452 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/23/fear-2/#IDComment137323668 The role of a family is to provide care for the offspring of that family. Care through practical needs like food, water, shelter, safety, and security. A family must also provide love; that is the function, the purpose of a family. When a family fails to do this the results are often tragic. Weather by lack of means or lack of willingness, a kid is fundamentally unable to enter the world and society without the structure and backup that a family provides. It is unimaginable how one could live and make it through adolescence with parents that actually hate you, with a father that rapes and beats you. These horrific memories are enough to drive anyone insane. It is one thing to grow up out the nurture of a family, but a whole different story to have an entire family that actively hates you and tries to break you down. His family even tried to kill; his mother even poisoned his food. After that they longed for his suicide. It’s a case like this that makes you wonder if this Justus is just. If his story is true, I would certainly agree that his actions were within understanding. To have been treated that way by his own parents, I could seem murdering them as a logical choice. This brings into question of fault and blame. It was of course his upbringing that made him into who he is. And instead of lashing out randomly at society, he killed the people who caused his pain. Who is to blame here? In our society, we always have to pin the blame on someone. The strings that guided his life and decisions were already tried by his parents. Through their abuse and hatred they sculpted his being more than anyone else. The son that they abused finally came back and killed them. Essentially what they created and molded turned on them. So whom do you blame? The parents are dead so you have to blame the son. The choice to murder his parents was not made only by him. That decision was beat into him every time his parents abused him. Why did his parents hate him so much and not his siblings? It could be that he was an accident. It could be that it was a random hatred. It could be that has father just needed a kid to rape. Or maybe his story is false and his parents weren’t really that bad. Whatever the case, it is clear that his family failed in someway to make R. feel safe through his childhood. This would determine him for the rest of his life. Thu, 24 Mar 2011 20:31:07 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/23/fear-2/#IDComment137323668