Let's be controversial, Pro-lifers.

For all the death that goes on in the world, there are those that can be prevented. That is the aborting of the those not yet considered citizens. For every argument there is known to be a definite right and a definite wrong. Or at least very strong an avid supporters on both sides. One side so blatantly hideous and on the reciprocal something seen as near Godliness. I'm not here to determine where this action falls on the line morality. I can only state my opinion from my few years of life experience and observation.

I find this stifling of human life a terrible thing. I do. The life was created and therefore has the right to develop fully and live. That's how I feel. But here comes the complicated thoughts I have that get caught in the crosshairs. What about the US Declaration of Independence? You might say to yourself, what does this have to do with abortion? Here amongst the inalienable rights given to each and every individual, the Declaration states that we each have the right to "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Right there in the beginning. Let me focus on the right to the pursuit of happiness. There are those out there who frankly do not deserve to have a baby. Specifically those people who see a child as a social accessory, a monthly child-support check or a welfare hand-out. Selfishness such as this is quite saddening. These babies deserve to have a life in "pursuit of happiness". With a life in any one of these situations, these kids have a doomed existence as a burden for a nanny or a daycare facility. This doesn't even take into count the thousands who didn't want a baby to begin with. How much worse it would be to be born into a home in which you were both unwanted, and neglected. Not just in a physical way. The law requires you at least have to feed and shelter the kid. But where's the law that there must also be love? There's not one. This is no life to have. I see no happiness here. And if this trend should continue, the baby will then grow into a neglected teenager. A kid without a loving home and a future to be fated with internal trouble. Maybe I'm being overdramatic, but I've seen it happen.


I find the idea of murdering a baby that looks like a baby, repulsive. Therefore my approval of abortion is approved only at a very, very early stage. Within the week of conception is the only point with which i agree with it, where no cutting is involved. This covers a Friday night lapse in judgement, simple stupidity on the part of an irresponsible person, and rape. This is the only point in which I will mention these instances. I think the bottom line is that if you cannot physically care for a child or simply you do not want one, you can't properly give it the care it needs; violating it's rights as a person. There are those out there who just want to "let the babies live". Let them live? Sure, by outlawing abortion you will let these babies "live". But will they really? They can grow up in their drug-addicted parents homes. They can live their childhood in a room with other toddlers in daycare. They can come home every day from school to an lonely, empty house while their parents work. They can live their lives each and every day knowing they are a burden. A mistake. A friday night mess up. Those out there picketing their signs and yelling their insults, maybe they were an almost abortion. When legally allowing abortion, you'd be hard pressed to enforce a discretionary law as to who and who cannot have one. Maybe some actually should, while others should follow through. But who should say?
For the cause, let's outlaw stupidity as well. Many people would be offended, but I say we go for it. It might stop the need to have abortions in the first place.

We'll tax your beer, we'll tax your sin.

Move over parents, big brother is stepping in again. First they will deem what is "pleasurable", what is "sin" and then they'll tax these guilty pleasures in an attempt to initiate change. In the article "Obama says higher taxes on soft drinks should be explored", I found this new proposition another alarming attempt at the government sticking its unwanted foot further into our homes. First it was alcohol, then cigarettes, now sodas? "I actually think it’s an idea that we should be exploring," President Barack Obama said in an interview with Men’s Health magazine. For the record here, sodas have already been removed from schools in an attempt to "thin-out" the student population. Instead they've been replaced by diet alternatives and juices that may boast quite similar sugar content. But that is beside the point, in this article the idea has been proposed to actually up the cost of this item deemed as a "luxury". We'll pay for our "pleasures" through our pocketbooks it seems. I say we question these so-called "sin taxes". These are generally put on items that could "cause harm to people, such as alcohol or tobacco, and are geared to increase tax revenue and cause a slowdown in consumption"(Tinsley). But is this what they're actually doing? Are they slowing down consumption? Are these taxes succeeding in their purpose? And yet again this year the Senate Finance committee has proposed up-ing taxes yet again on on beer, wine and hard liquor. Really what needs to be said here, is that people will buy what they want to buy regardless. Niccotine addicts will buy their tobacco. Drinkers will buy their alcohol. Kids will guzzle their sodas. Who hurts here? I say the citizens do. The lower income families especially. "A tax on juice drinks and soda would further squeeze hardworking families already struggling to pay their bills and keep their health coverage...there could not be a worse time to ask them to pay more for the simple pleasures they enjoy," said Susan Neely, president of the American Beverage Association. This hardly seems fair.

If these politicians are so concerned with the health and future of today's youth, why have physical education program requirements been cut? These same lawmakers have removed the requirement that students must have health education courses before they can graduate. That's why this soda tax was propositioned in the first place; to benefit the youth. Obesity may be on the rise, but in my eyes the way to combat this is through education. Higher taxes are a burden, especially when the money is then spent foolishly on more government programs full of inadequacy. "We all want to improve healthcare, but taxes don’t make anyone healthy." That's the bottom line here.

Music that makes you dumb.

Today, I read a pretty intriguing article on the correlation between people's music tastes and their intelligence. Perhaps not as much intelligence, but their test taking skills as judged by the SAT, juxtaposed with their corresponding band preferences. In "Music vs. Intelligence" I found it funny how routinely certain genres appeared to fall at the base of this chart. Popular music artists that fell under the genres of "HIp hop" and "R&B" commonly fell at the bottom. Despite the chart included in this article, the author fails to make an undermining conclusion to these findings. With this presented information, one must ponder much like the chicken and the egg debate. Is it our intelligence that drives our choice in music? Or is our intelligence already determined, thus music is the varying factor that raises or lowers this standard?

I have reason to believe that both sides of this debate may have valid standing in their arguments. Much like newspapers today, which are written on the level as to be comprehendible by as young as 7th graders, mass radio is dumbed down to a very basic level. As a self-proclaimed connoisseur of all things music, I find the depth of these widely regurgitated "Top Hits" sickening. The lyrics fall flat. Overall their subject matter is animalistic and appealing to very basics of the human psyche. Talking about "getting wasted", "booties", "chicks" and "getting some" and you'll be covering all the bases of what people want in music. Not quite. Looking at this music from a stylistic stand point, simply the subject matter, the template is simple. The message is one sided. The beat may be "sick", but the lyrics have no more depth than Paris Hilton. Metaphors are limited to "lollipops" and "egos". Voices are reduced to synthesized substitutes for talent. I'm just using some simple deductive reasoning here, but dumbed down music = a dumbed down bunch of people.

Now before you go getting all offended, let's take on this argument from the opposite side. Those of the population who have been deemed "above average" and/or "intelligent" by means of SAT scores, let's say they're disgusted with the current state of the radio medium. Their "intelligence" has turned their interests into a direction of less trodden music territory. They have made the decision to turn to music with more depth. The kind that intrigues them, perks their interest with lyrics that speak to them. Did the music make them smarter? Gee, they haven't even listened to it yet. They just knew they wanted something different. This perhaps gives kudos to the theorists who believe that intelligence deems music choice. On the other hand, this might aggitate those mothers who feel "fill-in-the-blank" music stunted their child's intellectual growth. Thus meaning their chid was just always on that intelligence level to begin with. Hmph. What a debate we have.

Perhaps I lean towards the side of those who believe that based on your innate intelligence level, you choose your music. It is not the music that chooses you, or the music that makes you "dumb or smart" as the article suggests. Undeniably music is powerful. It speaks to the listener. It suggests lifestyles and I may even go as far and say it unconsciously influences us. As a people we are drawn to the things that most intrigue us and music is no different. Music should challenge us, change us, and speak to us in ways words solely cannot do. It is an undeniable and inescapable force that is everywhere. It shapes us emotionally, so it is no wonder we question its affect on us intellectually.