Trayvon Martin & Hate Crimes

“We are all connected —to each other biologically; to the earth chemically; and to the rest of the universe atomically.” – Neil deGrasse Tyson

Geneticists have discovered that, regardless of race or ethnicity, humans are a lot more alike than originally thought. In fact, it has been estimated that all humans alive today descended from a population of approximately six hundred individuals in South Africa. That being said, why do we insist on dividing and grouping ourselves? I would like to address the controversy surrounding the death of Trayvon Martin. My condolences go out to his loved ones.

First and foremost, we should be mourning the loss of a human, not fighting against each other about race related details. The reports on the news have only served to be divisive. My last intention is to sound insensitive, but if Trayvon Martin is no longer with us, does it make a difference whether George Zimmerman is racist or not? Let us presume George Zimmerman is not racist. Would that make the crime less tragic or offensive? Does it make the loss of Trayvon Martin less important? I do acknowledge the possibility that Trayvon Martin might still be alive. But there is no way we can determine whether George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin because of the color of his skin.

People are saying this is offensive because a man who committed a hate crime is not in jail. But why is a homicide related to hate, particularly racist hate, more offensive than a regular homicide? Does this make a psychopath’s homicide okay? Hate is a strong emotion and psychopaths are incapable of feeling deep emotions; therefore, psychopaths would be very unlikely to commit a crime based off hate (I am not saying all psychopaths commit homicides, for the record). So, does the intent of the crime alter the severity of the homicide? I do not think that hate crimes should be the basis for determining the severity of a punishment because they are essentially thought crimes. We cannot punish people for their thoughts or emotions during the time of the crime because it is indeterminable. Zimmerman’s innocence or guilt should be based off of whether he acted in self-defense. If he did murder Trayvon Martin in cold blood, then he should unquestionably be punished. But this should only be done after a fair trail is provided.

I cannot fully understand what makes this case so different from other hate crimes committed. Why did the president only address the crime committed to Trayvon Martin? Would it still be a hate crime if George Zimmerman were the same race as Trayvon Martin? I am not downplaying the severity of homicide or the death of Trayvon Martin but I am questioning because according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), there are actually more black on black homicides than white on black homicides, as well as more white on white homicides than black on white homicides [1]. Are those reports upsetting? Why are perceived hate crimes more likely to receive attention? I believe that a crime is a crime is a crime…regardless of the motive.

The main point I would like to get across is that George Zimmerman has a right to a trail. If we believe that it is fair to pick and choose whom we are going to convict without a fair trial, we are disregarding true justice. Do you believe it is more tragic to let a guilty man walk from a death sentence or sentence an innocent man to death? If we do not value the right to a trial, we are increasing the chances of punishing innocent individuals. It is simple for us to see the unfairness behind King Henry VIII’s motivation and power to declare his wives as “traitors” and kill them when he wanted to marry someone else. This is only one example of how the presence or absence of due process can be a matter of life or death for innocent individuals. That is why we should trust our current system. At the end of the day, I understand that death elicits strong emotions, so the outcry for justice is natural. However, let us not mistake justice with our preconceived beliefs about a particular incident. I urge you to uphold due process of law because convicting a person without a fair trial, even if they are guilty, is undoubtedly primitive.

[1] http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_06.html

Student Loan Debt & Ron Paul

Link to The Prospector article: http://www.utepprospector.com/ron-paul-is-wrong-for-students-1.2793333#.T0d9vXkYnbw

In response to the article titled, “Why Ron Paul is wrong for students” I would like to thank the author for addressing her concerns; however, I would like to provide an opposing argument.

Although Ron Paul promotes limited federal government involvement, he understands that many people are dependent on government programs. The Paul campaign released this statement about federal student aid [1]:

“To recognize that we are bankrupt and we must have drastic change in this country is not to say that certain programs Americans have come to rely on will be gotten rid of overnight. Paul is certainly saying no such thing. But the costs must be addressed—and not simply what the government spends, but the massive debt incurred by those in this country who just want a college education. To be sure, the countless Americans who are now slaves to education-related debt can tell you there are substantial problems with our current system. Ron Paul simply wants to fix them.”

Therefore, I would like to explain Ron Paul’s arguments about the problems with the current system in place. First of all, inflation of college tuition (the rate of the rising cost) on its own has “outpaced” other goods since the 1990s. This means that college has become more expensive than other fundamental goods and services expended, such as housing, energy, and health care [2]. Specifically, College Board figures show that college tuition inflation is 2.67% higher than general inflation [3]. Why is college tuition overinflated though? The author acknowledges that federal aid contributes to the rise in tuition but does not elaborate on the reason. Data suggests that schools increase prices based on the amount of grants they receive in aid. For example, a school would raise tuition $66 for every $100 they receive in student aid. More support was demonstrated in a collaborative study conducted at both George Washington University and Harvard, which found that for-profit schools that were eligible for Title IV programs (grants, loans and work-study) charged tuition 75% higher than for-profit schools that were not eligible for Title IV programs. In other words, the for-profit schools receiving federal aid raised tuition at a much higher rate than for-profit schools not receiving federal aid [4]. Therefore, it appears that federal aid is taking away the incentive for schools to keep tuition low and affordable for students.

In a free market environment, competition would help reduce prices so students would be able to afford tuition on their own. Prior to federal government involvement in higher education, tuition was something students could carefully consider before deciding on a certain college. Therefore, colleges had to make sure they charged reasonable and affordable tuition rates in order to remain competitive. It seems strange now, but students used to be able to afford their tuition without help from parents or the government. How was this possible? Well, one example is that they had the option of working a summer job to save up for fall and spring tuition. College used to be that inexpensive before the Higher Education Act of 1965!

Nowadays, paying college tuition without student loans seems impossible. Aside from needing government assistance, we do not have the option of going to college at our own pace. For example, financial aid requires students to attend full time in order to receive grants, loans or work-study benefits. Students are faced with a busy, stressful schedule if they also work a full-time job. Financial aid’s six-month grace period is another factor I find to be constraining. The six-month grace period does not provide students the option of taking off more than six months from school because they would be required to begin repaying their loans. There are three exceptions when one cannot find a job after graduation or if he/she takes a break from school: forbearance, deferment, or going back to school. I understand the rules are in place for a reason (e.g., prevent people from taking advantage of the system) but I would like to point out how these rules make college a bit more complicated than it should be. Financial aid restricts our ability to decide the amount of hours we want to take and our ability to take off more than a semester for whatever reason (e.g., family emergency). I speak from experience. I had to push back my undergraduate graduation date to make sure I did not have a six month gap (to preserve my grace period) between undergraduate and graduate school. Therefore, I took unnecessary classes to comply with full-time financial aid status and incurred more student loan debt.   

Moreover, the author said she was thinking of the “here and now” but the truth is that our present reality consists of hyperinflated college tuition, 1 trillion dollars [$1,000,000,000,000] worth of student loan debt and no jobs. Student loan debt is something U.S. taxpayers cannot sustain or afford to bail out. Perhaps our generation will be called upon to make sacrifices. These sacrifices will not be in vain though since they will lead us towards restoring economic prosperity. If previous generations had taken future generations (our generation) into consideration, we would probably not be in this mess. I believe that accepting things for what they are is better than having colossal student loan debt and a degree in a weak job market. By accepting the reality of our situation we have the ability to restore our country for future generations. Nelson Mandela said, “Sometimes it falls upon a generation to be great. [We] can be that great generation." I strongly believe we can have a positive impact on the direction of our country by bringing awareness to the flaws in the higher education funding system.

If you still believe it is not in our best interest to get rid of federal student aid, I do not blame you. Our generation grew up in a time of government assistance. Yet, I do feel it is our duty to investigate what caused the problems we face today. Why are we in an economic crisis? Why are we fighting unconstitutional wars? Why are we sending foreign aid to other countries during a recession when the money could do so much at home? What role does the Federal Reserve play in devaluing our currency and exacerbating inflation? What is the inflation tax? These are but a few of the questions we should be investigating. Ron Paul addresses these issues. He speaks the truth and the truth is not always pretty or easy to hear.

The author believes it is “obvious” Dr. Ron Paul has never been in our shoes. This tells me she is comfortable with relying on her preconceived opinions. It is actually no secret Ron Paul was born to a poor family during the Great Depression. Dr. Paul also paid his own way through college and medical school. It seems to me he is well aware of the challenges and difficulties that come with seeking higher education.

Moreover, I vehemently disagree with the author when she says that any student who votes for Ron Paul is shooting themselves in the foot. I am a student and I have come to support Ron Paul by reading his books and investigating his policies. Ron Paul’s platform must be looked at holistically in order to appreciate its fairness and practicality. I understand how a cursory inspection of the single issue of federal student aid can turn off some individuals but I would like to point out that Ron Paul is more concerned with fixing our foreign and monetary policies than cutting federal student aid. You can view details about his Plan to Restore American at ronpaul2012.com [5].

Personally, I was first drawn to Ron Paul for his peaceful, diplomatic foreign policy. His respect for the Constitution and 20-year record in Washington indicate he would never start an unconstitutional war. This is important to me because unconstitutional wars have cost us thousands of lives and trillions of dollars in the past decade alone. As students and citizens, we should be concerned about these types of issues; college is a choice but war is being forced on citizens even when the reasons for the wars are lies (e.g., weapons of mass destruction that were never found in Iraq). I would also like to point out that Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate that has spoken out against the newest provision to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) [6], which disregards some of the basic principles of a free society: habeas corpus and due process of law (Subtitle D, Section 1021).  Yes, President Obama signed a waiver for U.S. Citizens, but shouldn’t we have all have been a bit more concerned about the very fact that our constitutional rights were usurped with the stroke of a pen?  I urge all students and citizens to do their own research before deciding whether they will vote for a candidate or not. Thank you for your time.

[1] “Ron Paul is Not ‘Ending’ Student Loans” via http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2011/10/24/ron-paul-is-not-ending-student-loans/

[2] The Atlantic Wire http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/08/chart-college-tuition-will-not-stop-rising/41325/

[3] FinAid http://www.finaid.org/savings/tuition-inflation.phtml

[4] “Why College Aid Makes College More Expensive” via http://www.smartmoney.com/spend/family-money/why-college-aid-makes-college-more-expensive-1330033152060/#article_tab_article

[5] Ron Paul’s Plan to Restore America  http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/

[6] National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS.../pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf

My Thoughts on the U.S.'s Foreign Policy

As humans, it is wise to master the art of self-defense. Therefore, it is reasonable that we expect our government to protect us from foreign and domestic threat. However, wise individuals do not pick fights nor are aggressive. There is a more successful way to address problems: words. That being said, why should it be any different for our government? In the past several decades, the United States has mostly engaged in unconstitutional wars, neglecting the process outlined in the Constitution of the United States [1]. If the wars were “just,” why would government officials ignore Checks and Balances [2]? Why is our government quick to engage in preemptive wars instead of first taking a diplomatic approach? But even so, our government must have an excellent reason for risking innocent lives, right? These are only a few of the many questions anyone should posit.

 I have found that minding my own business is an effective way to avoid conflict. However, our country has taken a different approach at addressing conflict. It seems that our government strongly embraces militarism [3]. Could this be a contributing factor to the animosity felt by other nations? Could our sense of entitlement for natural resources from other countries also be a problem? Might our foreign policy actually lead us to initiate unconstitutional wars? Is it possible that some of our foreign interventions bring about “blowback”[4]? If you think about the grand scale of things, it makes sense that the consequences of our foreign policy would cause retaliation from individuals living in the very countries we occupy.

Some might disagree and proclaim that freedom is not free and we must remain on the offense to protect our country. Even so, let us take a step back and analyze the situation. Does having numerous military bases around the world make us freer? Do these unconstitutional wars make us safer? Perception will undoubtedly garner different answers. However, since the 9/11 attacks, our liberty has become more limited. Consequences of the 9/11 attacks have resulted in the Patriot Act [5] and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Why should we have to comply with legislation and programs that directly violate our liberty? The Patriot Act is controversial because it is said to undermine our liberties by allowing the government to access private information otherwise deemed unconstitutional. The TSA allows for full body scans and pat downs. These travel procedures might seem justified because it provides a sense of security during airplane flights. But what is actually at stake here? Where do we draw the line?

As recent as December 16, 2011, Congress passed a provision to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and President Obama signed this new provision into law on December 31, 2011. Essentially, this new provision robs U.S. citizens of a trial and does not require for actual charges to be filed against them to proceed with indefinite detention. Once indefinitely detained, citizens may be transported to prisons overseas for as long as they are deemed a threat. This new provision to the NDAA is disregarding the basic principle of habeas corpus [6] and due process of law [7]. The aforementioned revisions are arguably a recipe for a plot straight out of a dystopian novel [8]. Benjamin Franklin once said, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” So are we allowing ourselves to be fearful to the point that we are effortlessly giving up our liberty?

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the United States’ foreign policy, it is indisputable that innocent lives are being lost. As the wise statesman, Dr. Ron Paul, once said, “Unless we… understand that life is precious and we must protect life, we can’t protect liberty.” It appears the government feels justified in limiting our liberty while simultaneously risking lives. Does that sound like a sour deal? So, at the end of the day, we should take a step back and really consider whether our government is correct in suggesting that the pros of our foreign policy outweigh the cons. You decide.


[1] Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution provides Congress the power “to declare War,” whereas Article II, Section 2 says the President “shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.” Thus, every time the President declares war without getting a majority vote in Congress it is unconstitutional.
[2] Checks and Balances is the “Separation of Powers” aimed at preventing any of the branches from gaining too much power. Our government consists of three branches: Legislative Branch, Executive Branch, and Judicial Branch.
[3] Militarism is the belief or desire of a government or people that a country should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively to defend or promote national interests.
[4] Blowback is the unintended consequences of foreign operations.
[5] H.R. 3162, the USA Patriot Act is a law passed as a result of the 9/11 attacks with the intended purpose of enhancing domestic security against terrorism. Details about this legislation can be found via the Library of Congress http://tiny.cc/w7jc8
[6] Habeas corpus is a writ requiring a person under arrest to be brought before a judge or into court. This is done to secure the person’s release unless lawful grounds are shown for their detention.
[7] Due process of law highlights a citizen’s entitlement for fair treatment through the normal judicial system.
[8] Dystopian society is an imagined place or state in which everything is unpleasant or bad, typically a totalitarian or environmentally degraded one. An example of a dystopian novel is Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell (1949). This is compared with utopia, which is an imagined place or state of things in which everything is perfect. The novel, Utopia (1516) was written by Sir Thomas More.