Archive

Posted on

Confirmation Reflection Letter by Charlotte Wade

Dear Bishop Garcia,

“God loves you.”

This is the statement of love that I get from my grandparents every time I see them.  In fact, they only recently started saying “I love you” to me, without the intercession of God. Thus, needless to say, God and religion have been a large force in my life. Baptisms and first communions and even funerals, the few I have gone to, are celebrations when the whole family comes together. However, I think for a long time this was all religion meant to me–a few rituals and a time for me to see my family. I have taken significant pride in my contribution in church as an altar server, but I didn’t know precisely what any of it symbolizes and what exactly the Church’s teachings are. I knew to treat others the way you want to be treated. I knew to offer up your sufferings for your sins, which was told to me by my mother any time I was in pain or complaining.

Recently, I have come to really appreciate all the teachings that the Catholic Church has for us as followers. The unending and undiscriminating love preached from the Gospels and Catholic social teaching have inspired me to think deeper about my actions, my understandings, and my relationships with others. Not too long ago, I heard something that really struck a chord with me:

when you are in a relationship, you may be tempted to think it is a give-and-take relationship when really, it should only be giving, you giving all you can with nothing expected in return.

The unselfish and pure love and respect of the Catholic Church I think is demonstrated in those few words. Keep giving what you can, being the best version of yourself you can be, and expect nothing back.

Confirmation class has really given me a chance to think about my role as a person under the teachings of the Catholic Church, and I am excited to live my life out in a kind and loving way.

 

Sincerely,

Charlotte Wade

 

Posted on

Confirmation Reflection Letter by Taylor Moises

Dear Bishop Garcia,


 I have grown up as a Roman Catholic. I was baptized as a baby and received First Communion and did First Reconciliation in second grade. I go to church weekly and have participated as an altar server, lector, and usher. I also have gone to a Catholic school for thirteen years. Because of my schooling and religious parents, my knowledge of the Catholic Church is pretty vast. The majority of my relatives are Catholic, and my friends from childhood were also primarily Catholic. Filipinos and Mexicans are traditionally Catholic, so at my Catholic School in Salinas, Madonna del Sasso, and as a part of a Filipino family, it was the norm for people to be Catholic and less common to be protestant or unreligious.

Being raised in an environment primarily made up of Catholics, and growing up learning almost all there is to know about Catholicism and scripture, I have strong roots in my religion.


 Beginning in my teenage years, however, I began questioning my faith. This is the common time for kids to reassess values and beliefs, in attempts to differentiate what we believe from what we have been told to believe by our parents. I started going through this process in middle school, when I started to feel distanced from God. I realized I had stopped praying to Him as often as I used to when I was a child. It had been a while since my nightly prayers with my parents before going to bed. I would only pray sporadically when I wanted something from God, rather than just talking to Him or praising Him.
For a while I tried to resolve my faith issues, and at one point during my freshman year I decided I wanted to be known as the girl in my class who had the closest relationship to God and her faith. Although Catalina is a Catholic school, fewer of my peers here are Catholic than were at my elementary school. Perhaps as result of that, I felt closer to God when I was ahead of my classmates in Scripture class, since I already knew the ins and outs of the Bible and Catholic traditions. However, again after my freshman year,

I realized I wasn’t actually closer to God; I only knew Catholic traditions and what to do in mass better than others who do not have the same background as mine.

Again, I struggled with my faith and felt lost from God, especially as I learned about the scandals the Catholic Church has been through in history classes and through media outlets.
I knew my school offers Confirmation every two years, and I knew my parents wanted me to get confirmed, but because of my growing weariness from my religion, I had been waiting to tell my parents I did not want to get confirmed. However, my parents were not backing down. While they will occasionally let me skip Sunday mass when I’ve been overworked from school or extracurricular activities, they were not going to let me go unconfirmed. I joined the Confirmation classes grudgingly, along with my other classmates.
However, my reluctance was misplaced; Confirmation has strengthened my faith and has been a wonderful experience I am forever grateful I went through. Mr. Riley, our advisor, relayed to the others and me early during the process–in response to my concerns about my struggle with my faith–that

“faith is a personal, ongoing process.” This simple statement opened my heart to a willingness to work for my relationship with God.

By giving my faith back to me and making it less about the Catholic Church as an institution, I have been able to pray for myself and do things at my own pace. With my long commute to school, forty-five minutes each way, I take some time while I drive to thank God for ten things and ask God for his blessing for ten other things or people. Additionally, during these past few months, Confirmation has been my weekly moment when I get to gather with my friends and just get to be in their presence. Some of my best friends are going through Confirmation with me, and it is such a joy to go out to dinner before Confirmation meetings or stay late afterwards talking with them. Confirmation has confirmed my faith within me, and it has given me precious time to spend with my best friends. Although it was hard sometimes to stay late on a school night, having this repetitive carved-out time to reflect and talk has been a much-needed experience during my very busy schedule. I’m forever thankful for this opportunity and look forward to completing this process on Saturday.

Sincerely,
Taylor Moises

Posted on

Social Media Diet by Isabelle Redfield

screen-shot-2017-03-01-at-10-20-24-am

I felt consumed by my online life, profile appearances, and the carefully-picked, highly-thought-out, edited pictures that showered my days. Considering unfollowing someone is the equivalent of saying, “I really don’t care about you.” I found myself seeing posts from acquaintances I could have sworn I never agreed to. Inevitably, I lost the daily interest to keep up with so many people’s manicured lives. I wanted to take some time for myself.

The bathroom, Chapel, formal dinners, the laundry room, a five-minute walk around campus, lunch with friends. These are just some of the many unnecessary appointments I made certain my phone joined me for. A well-worn love quote, “You’re the first thing I think of each morning when I rise; you’re the last thing I think of when I close my eyes,” essentially illustrates my former affinity towards Instagram. After turning off my morning alarm, Instagram was the first app I opened. At night, after setting my alarm, it was the last app I closed. One Sunday evening, I made a spur-of-the-moment decision to delete every last social media app my phone held. My fingers worked hastily.

Once the deed was done, I put my phone down, and something in me, even if it was minor, shifted.

Though my act was a seemingly insignificant and rash adjustment, my life felt very different. Logistically, I hardly ever had to charge my phone. Until now, I was convinced my iPhone 6 battery was faulty; I’ve since figured out it’s me, not you, Apple. This realization is still slightly difficult to accept. My mornings became more peaceful, I paid attention at the lunch table, and I couldn’t be disappointed by a lack of notifications–there were no tagged memes to be notified of. I poured my time into my friends, myself, and my schoolwork (not that there was much). The items scattering my various to-do lists were checked off immediately, and I finally started going to bed at a reasonable hour.

Other than WSJ articles, there was simply no reason to sit on my phone anymore. Each day I got hours of my life back.

Since even in the most boring of moments resorting to the ‘explore’ page on Instagram was not an option, I instantly became productive in my free time.

Whenever I had the urge to type “Faceb-” into my search bar, I clicked on this blog instead. Any time I had nothing to do in Environmental Science, I clicked on this blog. I replaced scrolling with writing. As I think anyone will agree, there’s something so satisfying in the production of tangible work.

I missed two things while on my short-lived diet. Naturally, I missed the hilarious life moments I’d normally capture through Snapchat. I was forced to take camera roll pictures and send them in group chats. Perhaps I lived slightly more in the moment, but my humor proved less effective. Secondly, I genuinely missed the search bar of my Facebook. Random questions like, “Where does she go to school again?” or “What’s her boyfriend’s name?” went totally unanswered.

I was reminded daily that our generation’s main form of communication is through social media. Of course, I talked to dozens of people via text and FaceTime over the two weeks. Not that I questioned my friendships, but it was reassuring to see these relationships prove stronger than a mere like or comment.

Best of all, I felt autonomous. I didn’t feel excluded.

Instead, I felt a kind of purposeful and peaceful detachment. By the third day I had no urge to get back online.

I’ve always gawked at the few people my age whose lives exist purely offline. Only after my digital “cleanse” did I face the simplicity and beauty my everyday life presented me with, but that I typically ignored.

I’ll leave you with advice you’ve heard before and will hear again. This is because it is pure:

Our accounts are highlight reels of the most photogenic, manicured, and bright times in our lives.

With that, we still reconstruct, censor, and doctor our most “postable” of moments. Almost nothing on a screen can paint a full picture. As much as I try, neither my pictures nor my writing will tell all. This is the way social media goes, and we’ll accept it. However, we must not lose ourselves in a series of small squares.

Posted on

US-Chinese Power Relations and Threats: Moving Forward by Loleï Brenot

China does clearly pose a threat, not yet major, to the United States, due to this rising power. To manage this and keep civil relations between the two countries, our President-elect must practice great caution and respect moving forward in economic and political dealings with China.

The Economist article entitled “The Dangers of a Rising China” aptly points out, “Chinese leaders’ history lesson will have told them [that] the relationship that determines whether the world is at peace or at war is that between pairs of great powers. Sometimes . . . it goes well. Sometimes . . . it does not.” Currently, many are concerned about American relations with the world at large, particularly China, due to the recent presidential election. The recent resurgence of Chinese economic and trade power due to a rapidly rising population has led to predictions pointing to China soon overtaking the US in terms of economic power. What this means for the United States is yet to be seen; however, China does clearly pose a threat, not yet major, to the United States, due to this rising power. To manage this and keep civil relations between the two countries, our President-elect must practice great caution and respect moving forward in economic and political dealings with China.

Chinese manufacturing and production has a current, crushing hold over the entire world that would be difficult to overcome, should Chinese global relations sour. As was pointed out in the Economist article entitled “Made in China,” Chinese global manufacturing, currently at nearly 25%, has risen dramatically since 1990, when it made up under 3% of global manufacturing output. This very rise in production is what has catapulted China to the top of the power spectrum, as the world relies on Chinese products, with China supplying nearly half of the world’s products. This hold over the world is why US-Chinese relations must remain strong, as China has an extreme power hold on the United States in terms of manufactured goods, similar to the leverage of oil-supplying countries. However, it must be kept in mind that while China’s economy as a whole may overtake the United States’, the country’s prosperity will likely not be as widely shared as it has been in the United States, with many Chinese citizens still living in rural poverty. This is a possible major threat to United States power, although not a direct one, as complete reliance on the Chinese can lead to extreme problems if a disagreement were to occur.

Already since the election of President-elect Donald Trump, waves have been made in regards to Chinese-US relations.

Already since the election of President-elect Donald Trump, waves have been made in regards to Chinese-US relations. Although a phone call may seem trivial, a call between Trump and Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen reported by The New York Times has had the world on the edge of its seat, as Trump hints about recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign state, rejecting the decades-long “One China” White House policy, in efforts to make trade and other agreements. This American threat to Chinese power and sovereignty could possibly lead to China becoming a greater threat to the US, if it exerts its extreme power over America more fully. Trump’s already bold moves have threatened to send the world into a tailspin of anxiety, speculating as to what will come next. Professor Wenran Jiang of the University of Alberta points out in a Globe and Mail piece that “Mr. Trump has again demonstrated that he is perfectly willing to disregard traditional foreign-policy norms in Washington, even with a country that has enough military and economic might to challenge U.S. global supremacy.” The Obama Administration has also spoken out against Trump’s actions, noting that the decades-long, bipartisan-supported “One China” policy should not be used a a “bargaining chip” in American-Chinese relations, as reported by the States News Service. Additionally, the Chinese government’s response to Trump’s phone call with Taiwan was not one of ease, as the government stated that it is “seriously concerned,” as The Independent reports.

These actions of President Trump are only a taste of what is to come from his administration in the next four to eight years. While such an extreme statement is a bold way to begin the period immediately after his election, one should expect nothing less from a figure like him. But whatever the shock value of moves like the Taiwan call, there is likely definite forethought and an agenda behind any such action on President Trump’s part. CBC News reported International Studies Professor Wang Dong of Peking University pointing out, “‘This is a very deliberate move, calculated to test China. If China reacts strongly, then he might back off a bit. But if he perceives China to be soft, he will become bolder.’” While the President’s actions may appear to be brash and uncalculated, if Professor Wang Dong is correct, Trump’s dealing with China in the coming years may adapt and be influenced greatly, being less black and white than it appears, and making the threat of future relations souring quickly perhaps less immediate.

Nonetheless, moving forward, it is likely that President-elect Trump will continue to uphold his appearance of dealing with foreign policy in a manner similar to his business dealings, in hard-hitting and direct ways. This can be viewed both positively and negatively, as, while more may be done, the reactions of other countries cannot be gauged completely prior to these actions, and one can only hope that our future president does not ruin relations that have been carefully constructed. However, it must be kept in mind that China is a soft but rising threat facing the United States, as its power continues to grow, and great caution will be required in dealings with it.

Posted on

What’s Yours is Mine as Well by Jenna Downs

I, the props mistress, have the job to single out, create, and search for approximately four hundred knickknacks and doodads.

The current show is You Can’t Take It With You, I, the props mistress, have the job to single out, create, and search for approximately four hundred knickknacks and doodads that are hung and set on every surface of the set. Every drawer is filled will papers while every nook contains something unusual. Behind the set lies two full prop tables lined with butcher paper outlining each and every prop that gets brought on and off stage.
The prop house (or just up the wooden stairs in the maintenance building) has dust coating the floor and the beams hanging low enough that you run the risk of bumping your head against the old wood. Piled from floor to ceiling, on every landing, are mementos from each show Catalina has put on. Hobby-horses and wooden half trees I painted from Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat, casino chips from Guys and Dolls, saloon swinging doors from Scapino!, flower darts I made for Into the Woods, wooden train cut outs from Schoolhouse Rock Live, big, lumpy suitcases from The Diary of Anne Frank, and a dagger alongside a bag of chunky glitter from Peter Pan are just a few things I can recognize. Up in boxes high on the shelves are patriotic paraphernalia, burlap sacks, bedding and pillows, every kind of telephone you could imagine, books of all shapes and sizes, tea cups with saucers, camels without candleholders, fake rats and parrots, umbrellas of every color, old radios and record players, fake flowers bursting from buckets labeled “nature,” it’s all there and waiting for the right show to come around where it could be dusted off and set under the spotlights.

In the case of this show, a very specific list of items was provided for the Properties Mistress. Chinese inkwells and the small bearded head of a man were just two of the items I could identify that I did not have among the numerous shelves. I was then put in the position to use what could be salvaged and completely transform it into something different. I repainted a plastic skull to make a ceramic dish to hold various kinds of taffy. Paintings and pictures were pulled and loaded into the golf cart to be pulled apart and decorated to match the time period. Porcelain plates were washed and dried, silverware counted and matched–everything that was pulled out for the show had to be noted and organized in order so that we wouldn’t have to put back more than we needed to.

I was then put in the position to use what could be salvaged and completely transform it into something different.

Onstage, there was a desk whose owner was a playwriting dramatic who put every word down on paper. Naturally, that meant that said desk must have papers and letters of all shapes, colors, and sizes filling drawers, covering surfaces, and in the trunks beside the desk. When I pulled out a plastic tub of paper materials that had been accumulated of the years, I brought it back down to the stage to sift through papers that obviously wouldn’t work. I began picking up letters and noticed that beautiful handwriting and terrible scrawl were all directed toward a singular name: Naomi. Sure, I figured that just a handful of letters could have been donated to the theater department (it wasn’t that uncommon), but among the letters was various poetry from a “secret admirer,” pen pal letters from foreign countries, faded school records, and numerous post cards from aunts and uncles.

I began picking up letters and noticed that beautiful handwriting and terrible scrawl were all directed toward a singular name: Naomi.

I felt as if I was meeting someone for the first time; her writing suggested that through her creativity, she would find herself somewhere in the field of English as a career. Her family and friends from all over the states had sent postcards from museums and bookstores that would intrigue her. It was a brief meeting, almost like a quick conversation during a passing period. I had found something that was left in a bin to age in the prop house for the next decade or so.

Maybe it wasn’t meant to be found, or even to be put in the prop house, but to me, the props mistress, creation and repurposing is essential to a successful production

Maybe it wasn’t meant to be found, or even to be put in the prop house, but to me, the props mistress, creation and repurposing is essential to a successful production, and through Naomi’s contribution to the theater department,You Can’t Take It With You became an even more convincing production, and as a techie, I give you my thanks, Naomi.

Posted on

Reflection on the Women’s March of January 21st, 2017 by Jessica Almos

On Saturday, January 21st 2017, the day after the inauguration of Donald Trump, people from all over the world came together to participate in the Women’s March on Washington D.C.

On Saturday, January 21st 2017, the day after the inauguration of Donald Trump, people from all over the world came together to participate in the Women’s March on Washington D.C. Although Washington D.C. was the main event, there were marches in almost every city in the United States along with many marches across the globe. Rain or shine, people were marching. In South Lake Tahoe, which is my hometown, people were marching in snow that was up to their waists.

Everyone at these marches wanted to take action to make their voices heard. Not only were people marching for women, but also the Black Lives Matter movement, the LGBT+ community, pro-choice, climate change issues, and so many more. The vulnerability of everyone openly fighting for what they believe in created a united community all across the world. The Women’s March organization set forth the guidelines that there would be no hatred or violence, because the march’s purpose is to speak loud enough that the oppressors are forced to listen.

“Justice for LGBTQP+,” “Women for Revolution,” “No silence no violence,” and “MY body MY choice.”

One of the towns that participated was Monterey, on the CSUMB campus. When my friends and I saw that there was a Women’s March so close to us we decided immediately that we wanted to participate in it, even though it was forecasted to rain all day. On that Saturday morning we went to the art room to make various signs to carry during the march. After looking a long time for inspiration on the internet, everyone had prioritized what they wanted on their signs, saying things like: “Justice for LGBTQP+,” “Women for Revolution,” “No silence no violence,” and “MY body MY choice.” I was unable to figure out what was most important to me, so mine said “I am VERY upset”–with the “VERY” written in red.

Arriving was an experience that I will never forget. The event planners were expecting a turn-out of 80 people to come, but by the time the event had started there were thousands of people on campus ready to march. Though it was such a large group of unfamiliar people, I felt comfortable because I knew we all had a common cause–standing up for ourselves and for others who were unable to do so. I even met a woman who had a similar sign to mine that read “There are too many issues to put on one sign”.

Once the march actually started, everyone moved as one unit to start marching towards the gym where the speakers would soon be speaking about various topics. I knew there were a lot of people behind and in front of me, but it wasn’t until we started going up a hill, and I could look down to all of the people walking behind me, that I realized that there were actually thousands of people marching against hate in Monterey. There were thousands of signs and t-shirts displaying what people cared the most about, all within the theme of basic human rights.

Once we got to the end of the march, we were invited to sit closer to the front to be near the speakers. Looking around at the gym, it was hard to believe we could fit all participants in the march but everyone squeezed on the floor and bleachers so everyone could be present. The speakers had so many valuable things to bring to the table about human rights and how we can come together as a community and not back down to those who think they have power over us.

The community that has arisen since the events that have caused such fear throughout the nation has given me a sense of security, and seeing this community in action helped me realize that the world has been through many rough times, but that there will always be hope as long as people come together to make their voices heard.

The speakers that  I saw made a huge impact on me. They were able to speak about what they cared about so clearly, and inspired me to work on how I present my beliefs to the world.
The community that has arisen since the events that have caused such fear throughout the nation has given me a sense of security, and seeing this community in action helped me realize that the world has been through many rough times, but that there will always be hope as long as people come together to make their voices heard. The Women’s March of 2017 helped me feel like I was a part of a movement that will influence the world, and I will continue to fight for our needs as long as it is needed. The Women’s March stood as a sign to the world that we will not give up our fight against oppression.

Posted on

The Answer to Gun Violence by Emmy Siletto

In the past year alone, according to The New York Times, 6,000 Americans were
murdered by guns, and another estimated 28,000 were killed through accidental and suicidal gun use. The growing concern over gun violence in our country has captured the attention of world leaders and caused a significant amount of political and social tension. To solve this pressing issue and end the taking of innocent lives, our country must follow in the path of other nations which have successfully reduced gun violence through regulation.


 In recent times we have seen the devastation that unrestricted access to weapons can
cause. The 2012 Sandy Hook School shooting is perhaps the most powerful example of this.

Twenty six- and seven-year-olds, as well as six adults, were fatally shot by a man bearing semiautomatic rifles and handguns.

Sandy Hook was the sixteenth mass shooting of 2012, preceding fifteen others, including the “Batman Shooting” in which a man opened fire in a  crowded Colorado movie theatre, killing 12 and injuring 70.

Despite the tragedy and shock that pervaded the national mood following these tragedies, efforts to unite and move in some way towards prevention were in vain. President Barack Obama’s response to these instances aimed to put in place reasonable gun regulations such as universal background checks. However, citizens intent on protecting their Second Amendment rights stopped all of his attempts.


 Yet the same regulations that Obama and other gun control advocates are pushing for
have been successful in reducing the gun violence in other nations such as Australia and Canada. In 1996, following the historic “Port Arthur Massacre” which took the lives of thirty-five people, the Australian government put in place the “National Firearms Agreement.” This legislation banned automatic rifles and shotguns, as well as enabled the government to buy back more than 640,000 firearms nationwide. Then Prime Minister John Howard, who was known for his conservatism and ties to President George W. Bush, stated, “All the credible research both in Australia and elsewhere shows that the gun control laws have markedly reduced gun related deaths.” And in fact, ever since the legislation was put in place under his leadership, gun related homicides decreased by 7.5 % per year. Canada is another country known for its strict gun legislation and peaceful reputation. This is not to say that Canadian citizens with a passion for hunting or a desire to feel secure cannot own a gun; it is just that the process required to obtain one is much more extensive. According to Business Insider, in Canada, it “takes sixty days to buy a gun . . . and there is mandatory licensing for gun owners. Gun owners pursuing a license must have third-party references, take a safety training course and pass a background check with a focus on mental, criminal and addiction histories.” It is these precautions which keep guns out of the wrong hands and keep citizens safe. In the United States, on the other hand, people who have been deemed unsafe to fly on airplanes are still able to purchase guns. The New York Times reports that the number of homicides in relation to the national population of Canada is nearly six times fewer than in the United States. Despite the repeated tragedies and consistent evidence in support of gun regulations, the resistance from pro-gun lobbyists continues to prevent the U.S. Congress from passing any restrictive legislation. For example, in May 2013 the Senate rejected the Manchin-Toomey bill which proposed extending background checks to internet and gun show sales, and as of right now, anyone is able to purchase weaponry through these means. One of the strongest arguments from the opposing side is that guns are essential for self-defense and home security. The idea put forth by the National Rifle Association that the “only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is good guy with a gun” has become a popular argument for those in support of gun freedom. However, FBI homicide data shows that for every one justifiable gun homicide ( in other words an act of self defense), thirty-four innocent people are murdered by guns. In addition, gun enthusiasts maintain the conviction that any movement to enact stricter regulations is an infringement upon their Second Amendment rights. This amendment states “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” and questions under what circumstances and with what restrictions the amendment should be interpreted, have been the subject of much debate. In 2008 as part of a Supreme Court case guaranteeing Americans the right to have a handgun in the home for self-protection, Justice Antonin Scalia made a point to add that “nothing, in our opinion, should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” This statement, given by a conservative justice, implies that even people from the opposing side acknowledge that the right to bear arms does not conflict with regulations meant to ensure the safety and well being of the citizens.

To prevent the loss of more innocent lives, our country needs to unite in imposing stricter regulations on firearms.

As President Obama once said, “We’re a nation that believes in the Second Amendment, and I believe in the Second Amendment. We’ve got a long tradition of hunting and sportsmen and people who want to make sure they can protect themselves.

My belief is that we have to enforce the laws we’ve already got, make sure that we’re keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, those who are mentally ill. We’ve done a much better job in terms of background checks, but we’ve got more to do when it comes to enforcement . . .weapons that were designed for soldiers in war… don’t belong on our streets.” This quotation articulates the argument of many who feel that asking for stricter enforcement is not asking too much, especially when the end goal is protecting the lives of innocent people.

Posted on

Argument for the Abolition of the Death Penalty by Jane Shim

How curious it is that the Grim Reaper comes in all shapes and sizes? Death awaits us by some means, whether it be an axe-wielding murderer, a gusty typhoon, or the bite of a venomous serpent. Yet even more curious is another, perhaps more shocking bearer of death: the federal government itself. Capital punishment is an undeniably real phenomenon in our nation, and despite its social sensitivity, the controversy surrounding the death penalty must be engaged with a fair and unbiased approach. One should not be quick to assume that executions are performed cleanly and without bias; the ugly truth lies just beneath the surface.

Although those who have committed heinous crimes may be deserving of capital punishment, the death penalty should ultimately be abolished because in the flawed justice system, innocents are executed and people of color, the poor, and the mentally ill are unfairly tried.

For instance, racial discrimination in the justice system is a heavily biased factor in judges’ decisions that results in many innocent people being executed. According to the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (NCADP), George Stinney, Jr., a fourteen-year-old African American boy, was convicted by an all-white jury of murdering two young white girls. No confession was ever made, and although Stinney’s sister claimed that she was with him on the day of the murders–meaning he could not have committed them–she was not called to testify at his trial. The trial lasted just three hours, and the jury deliberated for only ten minutes before sentencing him to death by electrocution. Moreover, according to a study conducted by Professor Baumgartner of the University of North Carolina, the death penalty is far more likely to be used if the murder victim is white rather than black. After examining every U.S. execution from 1976 to 2013, it was found that of the 534 white defendants executed for the murder of a single victim, only nine involved the murder of a black male victim. Hence, the biases of the legal system that delivers capital punishment are a serious issue that needs to be addressed.

Above all, capital punishment should be abolished because innocent people have been and will be executed, and killing innocents is morally wrong.

Over the years, many innocent people were wrongfully convicted and executed.

According to a 2014 TIME publication that showcased a new study led by researcher Samuel Gross of the University of Michigan, almost four percent of U.S. capital punishment sentences are wrongful convictions (almost double the number of people set free), meaning around 120 of the roughly 3,000 inmates on death row in America are not guilty! In fact, many judges who give out death penalties to convicted suspects make their decision without substantial evidence such as confessions or DNA evidence. For instance, in the late 20th century, Ellis Wayne Felker was convicted for the murder of a woman and executed. An autopsy would later rule out Felker as a suspect, but it was altered by a technician. After his execution, Felker’s attorney received a box of evidence that was unlawfully withheld by the prosecution, including a confession given by another suspect and DNA evidence. Such cases reflect the injustice of the “justice” system, which leads us to the conclusion that capital punishment should be abolished.

Now, an argument could be made that murderers that have committed horrifying and atrocious murders and have an utter lack of remorse for their crimes, and are therefore deserving of death–painful death. Yet regardless of how deserving a murderer may be of capital punishment, the risk of executing innocents and unfairly executing the poor, the mentally ill, and people of color far outweighs the incomplete comfort that one receives from a criminal’s execution. If you do not take action to argue for the abolition of the death penalty, then yes, the murderer you believe deserves to be executed will indeed be executed. Perhaps you will feel wholly satisfied. Yet because you chose to support capital punishment, a poor and innocent man—one who was innocent but did not have the financial resources to hire a professional lawyer to successfully fight the renowned lawyers hired by the wealthy opposition—may be executed mere hours later. Or perhaps a death row inmate with schizophrenia, a severe mental disorder that results in hallucinations and extremely disordered thinking, is executed the very next day regardless of his mental disability. Thus, you are indirectly responsible for the death of innocents because you have supported the system that has killed these death row inmates who had a right to live. And in this sense, you are killing innocents—just as the murderer you originally believed to be deserving of execution did.

Consequently, although those who have committed murders may indeed be deserving of death, the death penalty should ultimately be abolished because of the risk it poses towards the innocent, poor, mentally ill, and people of color. Capital punishment must be abolished because of the shockingly high number of innocent, poor, mentally ill, and people of color that are unjustly tried and executed in the flawed justice system. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, the total number of death row inmates is 2,905. Who knows how many of the 2,905 are innocent or wrongfully convicted?

So, an alternative solution to capital punishment is life imprisonment for the murderer and financial support for the family members of victims. One may argue that it is unreasonable to waste money by keeping a murderer alive through life imprisonment when it is cheaper to execute the prisoner. Yet it is considerably more expensive to execute a criminal. In fact, according to “Executions Cost Texas Millions” from the 1992 Dallas Morning News, each death penalty case in Texas costs taxpayers about $2.3 million, which is about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. By abolishing the death penalty, the leftover money can be contributed to the families of victims and to the poor and underprivileged.

One may argue that avenging victims by killing their killers gives peace to the victims’ loved ones, and that monetary value is by far not enough to compensate for a priceless life. That position, alas, is erroneous. It is true that a life cannot be repaid in full, and it would be cruel to attempt to do so. But although the family members and friends of victims may be haunted and unfulfilled by the thought that the killer is still alive in prison rather than dead by capital punishment, they may be comforted by the knowledge that they were able to save the lives of many innocents. Revenge may offer some satisfaction for the family and friends of victims, but it is impossible for this satisfaction to last forever. If taking a life is wrong, taking a life in return cannot be right. In other words, two wrongs do not make a right. So the next time you weigh the pros and cons of capital punishment, remember the words of Mahatma Gandhi: “An eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind.”

Posted on

NSA Domestic Spying by Taylor Moises

Balancing national security and protecting individual rights while maintaining the United States’ democracy is a major problem. According to our Global Issues textbook, the United States is the “best example of a presidential democracy” that should have checks and balances and clear separation between executive, judicial, and legislative branches; nonetheless, the government is riding a thin line with programs such as PRISM and other bulk collections of American citizen correspondents that seem to undermine our constitutional liberalism, which is the commitment all fully developed democracies have to “protect individuals’ rights, freedoms, and dignity from abuse by the government, institutions, society as a whole, and other individuals,” as written by Richard Payne.  The National Security Agency and some conservative politicians, such as Rand Paul, argue that the price we must pay to have a secure nation is impeding on our individual rights, but is it unconstitutional and does it chip at our democracy? With fear of terrorism and fear for our national security, we tend to sacrifice our individual rights and, furthermore, our democratic ideals.

Americans take pride for being champions of individual rights. Ever since our humble beginnings, we have been concerned with our personal freedoms such as our freedom of speech, religion, and personal property. Thanks to the Bill of Rights and James Madison, Americans are ensured protection of our individual rights as a part of our democracy. However, the major impediment to maintaining individual rights is the ensuring the greater good of our nation as a whole.

National security can hinder our individual rights and furthermore hinder our democracy.

The most significant threat to America’s national security occurred on September 11, 2001 when members of Al-Qaeda hijacked planes that crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. John Green explains, “There was a shared sense of trauma and a desire to show resolve brought the country together.” Americans became overtly fearful of terrorists, which evolved the notion of perceiving all Muslims to be terrorists. President George W. Bush was able to pass the Patriot Act without much opposition. According to the USA Today article “Patriot Act Blurred in Public Mind,” most people supported the general idea of the Patriot Act two years after it was passed. However, “confusion about what the law says and does [complicates] the debate whether the White House and Congress . . . went too far by passing a law that may threaten civil liberties.”

Now, fifteen years after the 9/11 attacks, the Patriot Act is less supported because the initial urgency is no longer relevant.

Additionally, the more we unpack what is in the Patriot Act, the more concerned the American people become with its insurgence on our individual rights.

The Patriot Act lost some of its support when Edward Snowden leaked the National Security Agency’s secret collection of data of millions of Americans’ private phone calls and exposed the unprecedented power granted to the government. While American citizens were more open to the impediments on individuals’ privacy and freedoms, we were not fully aware of the NSA programs that deter the function of liberal democracy. On The Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, he explains that Section 215 of the Patriot Act, nicknamed the “Library Records Provision,” allows the government to request any “tangible things for an investigation to protect against international terrorism” from businesses by petitioning the FISA Court (This has also been confirmed by Jeremy Diamond of CNN). Moreover, this allows the NSA to collect metadata, which is all the information surrounding a call including the caller’s and receiver’s numbers, time, location, and duration. The Bush Administration defended the metadata analysis program by saying its effectiveness depended on bulk collection, though the CNN Politics article by Jeremy Diamond shows that the Bush Administration conceded, “the vast majority of [data collected] will not be terrorist-related.” The ability to monitor our private conversations seems to impede on our democracy, so the main question is: do we, as the collective American people, believe domestic phone call surveillance’s national security efforts outweigh the infringements it causes on our individual right to privacy?

There is still opposition on whether or not Section 215 of the Patriot Act is constitutional or beneficial in fighting terrorism. Last year, Congress faced the decision to either let the key section expire or to renew it or attempt to reform it, making the NSA get a warrant from the FISA court to collect data on an individual, as shown on the CNN Politics website. Opposition to reforming the Patriot Act cites the necessity of bulk collection to fight terrorism, especially with the growth of ISIS, and argues that it is a key tool in national security. Reformers refute this saying domestic surveillance is not beneficial when combatting terrorism. The Judiciary Committee website states that on June 2, 2015, President Obama signed the USA Freedom Act thus reforming the Patriot Act: ending bulk collection, preventing government overreach, and allowing challenges of national security letter gag orders. However, there are still some who believe the passing of the Freedom Act was detrimental to national security and that the facts were not fairly presented. Senator Rand Paul cited “even the most vocal defenders of the spying program have failed to identify a single thwarted plot,” but National Review journalist and strong supporter of the NSA metadata program, Fred Fleitz argues that the source Rand Paul cited goes on to say it is “valuable when it is the only means to obtain certain information.” This illustrates that balancing national security and protecting individual rights is still highly controversial and that finding the correct balance is an essential question when characterizing our democracy.

As mentioned before, the question of balancing national security and protecting our civil liberties is complicated and there is no clear-cut answer. NSA spying and the approval or disapproval of the American people is a great example of this dilemma. After the terrorist attacks of 9/11, Americans were much more willing to give up their individual rights for national security. However, as the threat of terrorism grows less prevalent, we are less inclined to sacrifice our liberal democracy in order to fight terrorism.

Posted on

Christmas Break Movie Recommendation: Before The Flood By Hashini Weerasekera

When I first heard that Leonardo DiCaprio had made a movie about climate change, I can’t say it was the #1 must-watch movie on my list. But when I was given the opportunity to get extra credit for seeing it in Marine Science, I guess you could say that notion changed.

Growing up next to the ocean, conservation has been a big part of my life since an early age; and working at the Aquarium this past summer led me to feel that sustainability has really impacted my life.

I always knew climate change existed, and I didn’t doubt the theory for a second. If companies are emitting black fumes and cutting down rainforests to drill for oil 24/7, how could something bad not come from that? It was hard to watch the ice caps drastically melt, and acres of rainforests be cut down every day, resulting in thousands of animals losing their homes and nearly going extinct. I actually expected the majority of the movie to be DiCaprio telling his viewers that climate change was real, and wondering how ignorant people could be not to believe in the phenomenon. I was, however, pleasantly surprised because he didn’t push his own opinion once in the movie. Instead, he traveled around the globe for 2 years, and came face to face with climate change. I was shocked to see how small everyday things we do can damage the ecosystem so badly. For instance, raising beef hurts the environment and giant name brand companies are some of the leading roadblocks to working towards a sustainable earth. DiCaprio just found the evidence and filmed it, as his audience was in silence over shock and agony. It was interesting to see what influential world leaders like the Pope and President Obama had to say about the world we are living in today. I enjoyed hearing their opinions and ideas on ways to fix the companies and factories, and what they believed would be the eventual outcome of the human race. Before the Flood made me realize that we are already way past seeing recycling or saying no to plastic straws as negotiable issues.

I realized that the only hope is for world leaders to universally agree to cut emissions or issue carbon taxes.

I wondered if it even mattered if I used my reusable water bottle, because how can one person truly make a difference? I realized, though, that if I keep doing what is right and encouraging the people around me to do so as well, the population at large will eventually influence higher authorities to make a real change. It is up to us to come together and protect the environment we have for the future generations. And it’s actually not that hard! There are small steps we can all take to make a big difference. The key is accepting that there is a problem, and finding ways in your daily life to lower your carbon footprint or make purchases from eco friendly companies. Even if the change is small, it is better than nothing, and every little bit counts. This movie truly inspired me, and even though it put me through a lot of heartbreak, it gave me hope for our future. I highly recommend it for a great Christmas break movie!