She knew what was important in her life, which was for the children she taught to have the opportunity to continue to play and learn music. Her fight was not to change the circumstances, her fight was to continue life. She did not let the fighting affect her role in society, and in turn, helped her students retain a type of normalcy. We don’t think about this type of war. The constant struggle, with bombs exploding and people dying all around, to continue to live your life is not a battle you think of when you think of war. It is easy for us, as Americans, to continue to live our lives. Other than a possible friend or relative we know who is serving as a soldier, we can detach ourselves from the wars our country is fighting. While I can sit here and read about the economic effects of the war o U.S. stocks, there are the music teachers of developing countries teaching the piano in war zones. There are still the women who are singing lullabies to their children to mask the distant sounds of missiles bombing the nearest city. In this time of social unrest in many parts of the world, it makes you wonder who is actually responsible for making the world run.

When we think of war, as Americans, we picture our soldiers fighting in a foreign land. We picture battles between our military and the opposing countries military. While many may say that this is the extent of fighting in war, it is not. The speaker speaks of the other side of war. She talks about the war that happens because of the military war. This war is fought by civilians, mainly women, and it is a fight to keep their lives and their culture. The story of the music teacher walking to her school amidst snipers, putting her life on the line every day, for the children. Now, when you think about a war, you don’t think that a music teacher can make any kind of difference. But she did, without firing a single bullet. Her fight was not for one side or the other, but was for the continuity of life.

I believe that inequality in social classes will always exist. The United States government has set up a system that will inevitably have extremes on both sides. We live in a capitalist system, which basically means that money is the ulterior driving force behind all aspects of government. You can’t be surprised that, when politicians get into office, they are inevitably going to help the people who got them there, and the people who are going to keep them there. Yes, you can say that the system is based on “bribes.” I understand what that comment means, but I am not angry at it. I don’t see any other political system that would run more effectively. As much as you want to say our system is corrupt, the fact still stands that the United States has one of the highest standard of living in the world, as well as one of the richest countries in the world. Obviously, in class, you mockingly call the US the “greatest country in the world,” but you cannot deny that there are many worse places to live. Yes, our government is run more for the interests of the wealthy than for the interests of the greater public, and yes, the richest companies experience tax cuts at higher frequency than the majority of our country. These are problems that can only be fixed by major changes in our government makeup, the type of changes that do not happen, unless in the wake of revolutions. The idea seems ridiculous, and it is, because most of the public is terribly under informed. Most people hear “more tax cuts for the rich” and they get pissed, and that’s the end. As an individual, there is no sense of “maybe I can change this.” There is a collective feeling that what is happening is wrong, but what am I going to do about it? Massive change does not happen without careful organization and execution. While the corporations in America pretty much run the country, I feel that the situation we have is better than having a over bearing dictator making the decisions.

llions of homosexuals who are shunned by their parents for the orientation. If it is simply a choice, who would choose to be shunned? Sexual orientation is a biological trait. My personal arousal does not come because my parents taught me to be aroused by the female body. I learned that one on my own, believe me. I cannot see the reason of a life sentence without parole. It goes against what the prison system is set up to do. It is a reform system, and even if that reform takes twenty or thirty years to take place, you cannot deny that it has. Yes, I do understand that there are people who do not deserve to be release from prison. However, you cannot determine how a person will reform, or when. Hearing the professor speak of his meetings with you, I can tell that he believes that some of you should be released. He expresses his trust for you as individuals, and even speaks to your personal character. I believe every prisoner should be eligible for a second chance.

When a felon receives a life sentence, one can only assume that he committed a heinous crime, murder being a common thought. I understand your frustration being stereotyped and lumped into a category of murderers. However, most who receive life sentences were involved in a crime that ended in fatality. I’m not talking to your position in particular, as I do not know your situation. I believe that our legal system is constructed to send the most criminals to jail for the longest amount of time possible. One can argue this point however you may, but the reality is our prisons are full, and our taxes are paying for it. At a time when Pennsylvania has a Governor cutting my university’s appropriation in half, our state should not be paying to care for reformed prisoners. The idea, ridiculous as it is, is that a child won’t learn about opposite sex marriages, or will be raised by their parents to be gay. Sexual orientation is not something someone can persuade, or raise you to have. The proof should be the mi

So if the sexual orientation of your parents does not affect your sexual orientation, than what is the argument for not letting homosexuals have children? Will their children be unproductive members of society? Zach Mills is clear proof that that is not true. We are caught up in analyzing at homosexuals’ ability to raise children, but shouldn’t we look elsewhere. Just because I have a penis, my partner has a vagina; We are automatically allowed to have children. It doesn’t matter if I am addicted to drugs, have no job, have no love or respect for my significant other, and live off of government welfare. Give me a wild night and nine months and I’ll have another person depending on my worthless self.

Sexual orientation is not something someone can persuade, or raise you to have. The proof should be the millions of homosexuals who are shunned by their parents for the orientation. If it is simply a choice, who would choose to be shunned? Sexual orientation is a biological trait. My personal arousal does not come because my parents taught me to be aroused by the female body. I learned that one on my own, believe me. So if the sexual orientation of your parents does not affect your sexual orientation, than what is the argument for not letting homosexuals have children? Will their children be unproductive members of society? Zach Mills is clear proof that that is not true. We are caught up in analyzing at homosexuals’ ability to raise children, but shouldn’t we look elsewhere. Just because I have a penis, my partner has a vagina; We are automatically allowed to have children. It doesn’t matter if I am addicted to drugs, have no job, have no love or respect for my significant other, and live off of government welfare. Give me a wild night and nine months and I’ll have another person depending on my worthless self.

Zach Walls lays out a compelling case for the rights of homosexuals to marry, and reap the benefits of the laws for married couples. Obviously, coming from a household where the parents are lesbians, he is very passionate about the subject. I agree with him on the stance he is making. I believe that to question the ability of homosexuals to raise children is ridiculous. Adopting a child is a long and arduous process, where social workers will break down every aspect of you and your partner’s lives. You must meet every requirement placed by the state in order for an underprivileged child to join your family. This is true for both hetero and homosexuals. The difference for homosexuals is the stigma placed before them, that they cannot produce “normal” children because of their sexuality. The idea, ridiculous as it is, is that a child won’t learn about opposite sex marriages, or will be raised by their parents to be gay.

However, I know most of my friends and colleagues would do the same thing I would. I feel like most of my classmates would react similarly. In fact, most of the people I know, or have even met, in my life would act similarly to me. Even the people that I know who are assholes, the worst they would do is say, “sorry kid, get away from me.” It takes a certain breed of human to think, “I’m going to steal this kid.” I believe, and statistics will back me up, that there are far more helpful people, than people who would want to steal your kid. Personally, I have spent most of my life making sure I do not end up with a child, so the fact of stealing one would take any kind of fun of having one and throw it out of the window.

News broadcasts, such as this, pertain to extraneous circumstances that do not happen every day. They report these stories often, and I can see no other reason for it than to induce fear into the viewer. For those of us who are not from New York, we see this as, “wow, next time I take my child to New York City, I will not let go of their hand.” However, statistics show that you are more likely to get hit by lightning than to be a victim, or relative of a victim, that is involved in child abduction. We see news stories like this one, and we think “New York, watch out, someone’s going to take your kid.” I tend to try to think about it in a different way. I’m not talking to exactly this scenario, where the abductor attempted to grab the child right out of the parent’s hand, but more to a lost child scenario. If I was walking through a public place, and a child came up to me and told me he/she had lost their mother, I would undoubtedly stay with them and try to find their parents. Many people will say, “Understandable, but not everyone is a good person like you,” and I completely understand this.