Firstly, there is no reason for the cartels to stop growing at least some “crops” after legalization. A large portion of their product will find itself in Mexico, Central America, or even Europe and Asia. The cartels can also mobilize to produce other drugs instead, most notably methamphetamine and cocaine.

Second, the organizations behind the drug cartels are typically often involved in many other forms of forms of raising revenue. For example, kidnappings for ransom are especially notorious in Brazil. Kidnapping a wealthy native or a foreigner can bring in a ton of money for little work.

Obviously, new venues will arise from legalization for meeting the demand for the drug which will severely cut the amount of money drug cartels can rake in. While the immensity of this blow will be notable, a residue of demand will remain even in an America with legalized pot. Under the scenario of marijuana being prescribed by physicians, anyone who cannot get that prescription will naturally turn to the very same drug dealers they are familiar with today. Were marijuana to be regulated like wine, those who are underage will, too, be in a very similar situation.

Another issue that arises is where the marijuana will be grown. In order for the drug cartels to feel a diminished demand, the growing of the plant must become legal as well. Obviously, if the drug cannot be grown on a massive scale to meet the demand of those who continue to smoke pot after legalization, or if supply does not meet that demand, the black market will step in to fill that gap.

The drug cartels, the small rural families who actually grown the crops, and the middlemen in between are currently better equipped than all others in producing marijuana. They also have the most to gain from its sale. It is likely that, even with legalization, drug cartels will continue to survive.

Leibniz, on the other hand, was very much concerned with particles. In his thesis entitled The Monadology, the philosopher described how he believed the world to be: a static and finite set of matter. How does Leibniz account for differences between the world as he defines it and for the appearance of change within it? Leibniz describes the monads as a quasi-particles that maintain a connection to a higher power. These monads strive to be like god which causes them to shift in observable appearance. To Leibniz, the world is a definable set of matter with no change in the orientation of the matter that composes the objects we see. However, it appears to be the very opposite (of having change and an infinite possibility).

This is similar to those toys that have many rows of small metal rods in a rectangular shape that you can use to create impressions of physical objects. You press you hand against the metal rods, pushing an impression of your hand into the device. Much in the same way, Leibniz’s universe is like the toy which takes upon itself the impression of god. The monads strive to take a form similar to god, which causes our static world to contain room for some sort of change. (The particles do not move around but, rather, change in this unique characteristic.)

I am, admittedly , a creationist – I believe that man create god. By creating an idea of something so far above and beyond the realm of possibility and devoting oneself to this impossible fiction, we give our own creation immense power. We surrender our will and the responsibility of our actions to a being we might as well have crudely drawn on a sheet of paper. (A fictional character in the ether of the universe is after-all  just as real and all-knowing as one I drew with squiggly lines.)

Because we are afraid of being ourselves and of having to take responsibility for our actions, we create something that cannot be wrong. Mankind created god in order to have someone to blame for both the great and the dammed; because an infallible being will lead the way for all people to behave a certain way without the need to justify itself; and because human beings are aware of their puniness and minuteness but are too scared to admit it. Man is a sad, scared, stupid, unreasonable, and needing for something to make him feel better about himself and that is where a god steps in.

By examining the many cultures of the past and present, we can clearly notice that the religious and mythological beliefs represented the morals and values of the respective peoples. Tales of god-like beings spread across continents and survived centuries for functional reasons. Religion was used as a way to influence the behavior of other people according to what the culture required. For instance, the worship of a river was a direct acknowledgment of the dependence on the water the river brings. It was, and remains to be, a form of control despite the lack of necessity for such a belief system in today’s time.

This form of control is a method used by cowards who are too feeble or too misguided to defend their reasoning with pure reason alone. They turn to the majestic as a means to skip over the need for an argument entirely. Why engage in debate about whether abortion is right or wrong if you can simply cite a holy book that you claim is without fault. Voodoo, astrology, and healing crystals have as much say in reality as “god” does.

Cowardice is the fuel that keeps religion burning. Fear of the unknown, of the absurd, of death, of the other all cause anxiety for man. With god as the explanation  for all things, there is no accountability and, in turn, no longer a fear of doing what could be considered wrong.  We naturally create moral guidelines for others in everyday life when we make our own decisions but religion today has gone out of control. The tall walls that maintained society in years past have turned into jail cells that keep people from exploring new ideas and developing the ideals to accompany the developing world.

Entering a new era requires a new system of ethics, a new set of answers to the questions people will encounter throughout their lives. Religion has only answers for generations that are long lost and serves no purpose for us today.

Being away from the densely populated boroughs at the times gave some perspective on the matter – New York state is comprised of many right-leaning Jesus freaks. As Politico points out, the glee with which this bill was accepted in New York City is not present in more rural towns across the state. Even those who’s job it is to accept same-sex marriage will cling to their bible and seemingly nonsensical sense of repulsion to the act of same-sex relations.

A woman who works as a town clerk refuses to sign marriage licenses for same-sex couples because of her religious beliefs and, what she apparently believes is, her freedom to discriminate based on sexual orientation. If a police officer chooses to not help a person based on their race or if a school does not allow a student to enter because of his or her gender it would be very clear it would be because of ignorance and bigotry and such action would be met with fervent rebuke.

However, religion is like a drug that retards the user from being able to act with logic and reason. This woman and many like her see themselves as being above the law that they were hired to uphold. While discrimination of race and gender of course still exists but those who commit these acts are rarely as self-inflated as proclaiming that they are just in their decision to do so.

Obviously, the majority of New York state is at least tolerant of homosexuality if not entirely in support of equal rights. (Does anyone else feel that the discussion of whether some people should be granted the same rights as every one else based of some arbitrary characteristic is depressing?) And, I am not suggesting that those who do not live near New York City are bigots. What I am suggesting is that religion allows communities to feel justified in openly expressing revulsion towards homosexuality.

I suggest that those who feel that they cannot do their job as a result of a conflict with the legal rights of others and their own religious views should quit. The state does not make room for religious intolerance. If you want to exercise power to exclude others then perhaps a move to a different state is in order.

The universal coverage of the death is accompanied by the near-universal aversion from using anything other than the world “death” when alluding to the circumstances. Osama bin Laden is dead, has died, is no longer, etc. I believe that there are two possible reasons for this.

First, those writing the headlines may fear that using a term like “murder” or “killing” may allude to the notion that the man did not deserve to be murdered or killed. Fear of being painted unpatriotic can ultimately blend all articles, journals, newspapers into a single, nearly identical call for celebration. Criticisms, if the name is even appropriate, remain but, like the monotonous headlines, are nearly identical across the board: Will this really make the United States safer? How will this affect U.S.-Pakistan relations? Could Osama have been taken alive?

The second possible explanation for this trend is mere linguistics. No one cares about the circumstances of how Osama bin Laden died; they just just needed to know that he did. Using words like “kill” or “murder” attaches a meaning to the situation whereby the death was the result of violence inflicted with intention to end a life. This is obviously correct of bin Laden and his assassination but, again, no one cares. “Osama bin Laden Dead” is the headline because that is what millions of people have been waiting to hear and, most of all, because that is the most important aspect of what occurred.

I do, however, think that a plain term like “death” is far too simple to explain the series of events that took place. To quantify the death of bin Laden as victory, justice, or what have you is expected but the underlying connotations of such a death appear to end there. Americans rejoiced in the streets. Champagne was poured over the hearts and minds of many New Yorkers who joyfully gathered in throngs to share in the jubilee. This, they believe, was a triumph.

Unfortunately, the battle against Osama and terrorism in general will not end here. Moreover, the war on terror is now so long and distant that it has become far too foreign for many American civilians to understand completely. This was the death of a mastermind but, also, of just one man. The battle will continue as it has for the last decade with or without Osama. The celebration comes after an unbelievable amount of resources were invested, thousands of lives were lost, and entire nations turned to ruin. The death of Osama may be a momentous occasion but winning, within any reasonable reflection on the war on terror, stopped being possible a long time ago. We have been digging a grave too deep to escape out of but are now singing and dancing after striking gold.

Today news on the television and radio has become concerned with whether the photo of Osama – a post-mortem visual of the man with a bullet hole in the head – should be released to the public. I originally thought the issue was raised by those who did not believe that Osama was, in fact, dead and demanded to see the photo as the pivotal piece of evidence. Knowing full-well that the military would go through great lengths to assure themselves that the deed had been done and that the man they killed was actually bin Laden, I thought it be best to keep the photo from entering the news-stream. This was partly out of the cautious concern of how the image may fan the flame of extremists – especially after the internet had its dirty, sordid way with it.

I now know that the issue goes far beyond the idiotic scrutiny of non-believers. As Jon Stewart pointed out, if images of the war go unpublished and, therefore, unseen, those of us who were not there to be victims to the violence that our country was involved in will fundamentally fail to understand not just the consequences of war but the price of it as well. His quote is as follows:

‘Maybe we should always show pictures. Bin Laden, pictures of our wounded service people, pictures of maimed innocent civilians. We can only make decisions about war if we see what war actually is – and not as a video game where bodies quickly disappear leaving behind a shiny gold coin’

His sentiment is one I share and his argument is convincing. War has become a Disney Land version of itself with mascots and rides that do not realistically resemble the true agents of the violence that occurs daily. Our exposure to conflicts in Vietnam and the Gulf has been displaced out from the schools and newspapers into movies and video games. Children will associate war with games like Call of Duty before they ever even think of the real conflicts and actual victims.

I naturally sway in favor of freedom of information, including graphic images in a time of war. However, the U.S. government holds the right to withhold the right of its people, and the right of world’s population, from seeing the notorious photo. I believe President Obama’s decision was based on interests in national security. However, as Stewart suggests, it is also part of the growing division between ordinary people and the actions of the military that serves them.

The UNICEF United States Fund had their annual meeting on Friday, April 29th at the Sheraton Hotel. This meeting welcomed employees, donators, volunteers, and all others who have an interest in the work that UNICEF is doing abroad. Through a mixture of presentations from special guests, collections of images and videos, and even an emergency simulation, the meeting not only delivered a poignant message about their goals for the coming year but also revitalized the sense of urgency and a sense of hope.

Roughly 22,000 children under the age of 5 die every day – UNICEF has set a goal to reduce that number down to 0. They hope to acheive this with a two-sided approach: to eliminate maternal and neonatal tetanus, and to re-structure UNICEF’s scope of operations in order to reach those who are hardest to reach.

It is, at times, easy to forget that the United States is one of the few nations in the world where poverty, disease, and a lack of resources aren’t devestating agents of everyday life. The statistics alone are overwhelmingly clear: tens of thousands of women and children die every year in a country from diseases that are non-existent in the United States; 70 percent of a nation’s entire population are living in poverty; there are huge gender disparities with young girls being abused or explouted because they have no birth certificates.

These facts may be bullet points in a presentation but they reflect actual instances of people who truly need aid. UNICEF is one of the leading organizations that provide that aid. Their work is neither easy nor cheap, however. UNICEF is expected to spend $468 million this year on their operations – a task not possible without the help of those here.

Those millions were attained thanks to partnerships wit large corporations like Google, American Airlines, IKEA, and USPS to name a few, and thanks to campaigns that set out to reach the avewrage individual. You may already be familiar with programs like Trick or Treat for UNICEF which uses small orange boxes to collect change for funding, or the UNICEF’s Celebrity Tap project which seeks to widen the availability of clean water.

The president of UNICEF, Caryl M. Stern, and the guest speakers at the meeting made these points abundantly clear but also made a point to remind the audience that progress is being made. Thousands of deaths are averted each day thanks to innitiatives to provide education, nutrition, and sanitary conditions to those who need it most.

They are even using novel ideas like a School in a Box or a school and and a library on a boat – a necessity in an area where monsoons are expected during the rainy season – to ensure that children have the oppertunity to learn. Iodine deficiency has been dramatically reduced while malnutritien is being combatted with a product called Plumpynut – foodstuffs that the New York Times has hailed as possibly ending malnutrition.

As Stern points out in her introductory speech, “there is always a ball” regardless of how bad it may be. Children are still young and fun-loving in poverty or after disaster. Twenty two thousand of these children are at risk every day. Reducing that number to zero may be absurdly optimistic but that sentiment might just be appropriate in the face of absurd impossibility.

Image Courtesy of UNICEF

Some points of evidence presented by “witnesses” (many of whom are very well known in the sector of politics) argued that it would be wrong for the council members to vote for the amendment simply because it would be a detriment to the reputation of both the council as well as to the individual council members. As with the majority of the points given from either side, this was an attempt to imply that democratic principles were aligned with a particular opinion on the matter. This was a reoccurring theme; it was the democratic duty of the council members to allow the people of New York to vote, or it would be entirely dishonest of the council members to vote on a law that directly enforces their own jobs, or it is simply the role of the council to vote on matters such as this one. Almost every point dealt with the integrity of the council as it was and as it will become.

Some witnesses made a predication that could not be avoided and is something that was definitely on the mind of the council members who remained undecided up to that point – the threat of the public. This prediction was that the support for the amendment that would, in a sense, give representatives a chance to be in office for a longer period of time would, ultimately, be a detriment to his/her political career. This is, of course, because the voters will inevitably retaliate if the amendment is passed and this can come from two different ends: first, and foremost, from the New Yorkers who simply are against the amendment and, second, from New Yorkers who are dissatisfied with this issue being handled in the government offices rather than in the form of a referendum. Therefore, if a particular council member did vote for the amendment, it might be the very reason he/she will not have the opportunity to hold office in the future. And, according to some polls here and here, I feel that this may actually be something to be weary of. In some cases, people were in favor of extending the term limits but only if they were the ones to make the decision through a referendum and a slight majority of people were, in fact, opposed to the extension of term limits altogether. Thus, those council members who did vote for the amendment did so knowing that his/her decision on this matter might decide the chances for the next election.

One question proposed during the debates is whether or not it is ethically proper for the council to be the ones to make the final decision. Those were opposed to the amendment declared a conflict of interest to be a major issue since this amendment would directly affect the very people casting the vote. The council members are, in a sense, voting to keep their own jobs. This may be interpreted as a possible ground for asserting that a conflict of interest exists but I would disagree. It is not the case that all representatives (such as the mayor) will necessarily be in office longer due to this vote – the vote merely expands the possibility for someone like the mayor to stay in office by giving him/her the choice to run for a third term. This brings the debate to a main point given by witnesses who are for the amendment: that an increase in the possible term limits expands the freedom of the public. It serves us better to have the option of electing a candidate we feel is most qualified for the job three times in a row rather than to limit the representative to an arbitrary number of years in office that we might fee is too short. And as I have mentioned previously, there is also a danger in voting to extend term limits due to public opinion on the matter. For these reasons, the argument for a referendum due to the conflict of interest of the council members has little motivation.

When Mayor Bloomberg initially called for this amendment, he defended his position and his tactics by pointing out today’s economic crisis. He claims this meltdown must be handled by those who are more experienced – It is the conditions of candidacy that are calling for council members with experience to remain in office to better serve the people. But, I have to ask, aren’t the people who are standing in line to lead this city good enough? How can we trust in the more experienced to endure through these times if we couldn’t trust them to keep us out of this position. New York, like the nation, has an increasing problem debt and house foreclosures are becoming more common in almost every borough, and, after seven years, the World Trade Center has yet to be rebuilt. New York may perhaps be in need of new and younger people to be making decisions. (After all, isn’t that the mindset for the current Democratic nominee for the presidential election?)

Let’s begin at what appears to be the immediate problem. The American government recognizes marriage as something more than just an expensive and boring dinner with bad speeches. In fact, marriage has a heavy impact on a couple’s financial status, and it imparts numerous rights to the couple with regard to each other and their family as a whole. These rights usually consist of child custody, joint finances (which, in some cases, leads to a significant decrease in the amount a couple pays in taxes), monetary assistance in the incident of death or injury of a partner, rights to make medical decisions in the case of an emergency, full inheritance when no will had been prepared, etc. What many people feel is wrong with this policy is that not everyone has the capability of gaining such rights and benefits- namely, those the church doesn’t care to see married. Certain gay rights activists argue that this is a violation of the “separation of church and state” principal and that everyone should be allowed to have these rights.

I agree that everyone should be allowed to gain these rights and benefits, I also agree there is a serious problem with separation of church and state but not in the same way as the person who is happy to see the California ban lifted. In fact, I believe that the government should play no roll in who is allowed to go through the holy act of matrimony because it is a part of religious institutions. By forcing the church to recognize a homosexual’s right to marriage is itself a violation of the principal of separation of church and state. Who is allowed to get married should be decided by the church which conducts the marriages! If those in the administrative hierarchy of the church do not believe that their religion should support homosexuality through marriage, it is unconstitutional for the California supreme court to have any power over their ability to implement these beliefs.

What we must petition to change in the American system of government is the legal status of marriage. There is absolutely no purpose for a religious practice to have any consequence on legal matters. Those who currently oppose same-sex marriage insist that homosexuals take the other route to partnership and get a civil union. The problem is that a civil union is not a federally recognized partnership and it does not benefit the couple in the way a marriage would even in the state where the union was done. A civil union is a half-ass version of marriage that has little to offer to couples when compared to marriage.

Therefore, I propose that several steps are in order for the american people and their government: First, marriage is to be entirely stripped of all legal influences on a person’s life and property. Second, the government must cease and remove any alterations to the mandates of a religious organization. Obviously, no crime committed can be excused with a religious affiliation but a religion is entitled to their desire to commit such crimes. Third, civil unions will become federally acknowledged to provide the very same rights and benefits as marriage does (as we know it to be today). Lastly, there should be no restrictions on a person’s freedom to become part of a civil union whereby these limitations are the result of characteristics with no significance to the civil union process.

Gay rights activists have to stop empowering religious ideology and practices in politics. If you want equality, you must first eliminate the entity that is responsible for placing bigotry into our laws. Once you remove religion from our laws, then you can work without ignorant and hateful resistance to your cause.

It appears to have started with a sort of infringement of land; Holy land tainted by the infidels and too many hands in the affairs of the Islamic countries. As problems began to stack, places like Egypt, Iraq, and Iran began to react to the influence of the western world with an unconventional means to regain what was lost. This reaction was martyrdom through sacrificial violence and subsequent death. It brought great attention and admiration to does who committed acts usually seen as evil. Patriotism ran like a hormone through the veins of muslim people, eager to commit themselves to their lord entirely.

It is, without a doubt, expected of western leaders to add the Islamic nations, especially those associated with radicalism, to the black book of politics. As soon as a suicide bomb reaches the 10o’clock news in America, every politician is stumbling to get attention by discussing what it means for the average American and what needs to be done. It is of no surprise that western countries began isolating Muslim countries and treating them as dogs that bite; they do, in fact, bite at the culture of the average westerner. Radical muslims threaten and terrorize and countries like America cannot bare to simply turn the other cheek. In the world of international relations, force may not be agreed upon or anticipated but is always returned.

So, we have America pushing nations like Iran. Radical Muslims react with violence, then and now seen as appropriate (depending on who you ask). America then counters with further pressure which only leads to further retaliation. They see us as immoral dictators and we see them as barbaric maniacs slaughtering innocent people. It was once the “murderous ping pong” suggested in the title but has, today, turned into a conquest to annihilate the evil enemy (which is the view shared by both parties). We both see the other as the obviously malevolent society, driven by ignorance of some high truth that only death can cure.

In my own opinion, America has to get a fucking clue and realize that long term goals are more important than immediate gratification. It has supported too many brother governments with disregard to the people of that country. What else can be the result of overthrowing leaders in order to push a friend into office simply for a short sighted goal. International allies and peace, doesn’t America consider that to be a reasonable goal? What’s the point of oil and political influence of a country that produces it if you start a war that will last for over several decades?
Muslim people have to stop complaining. It may be true that America and other western influences had a negative affect on your nation but radical religions that breed terrorism against the leaders of the world is only working against your interests. If you continue using threats and violence every time a westerner is responsible for death in a muslim land, the result will only be death for all.

Religious people in general need to shut the fuck up. Unless you prove to the world that what you say means anything more than an old book written by someone hundreds of years ago about what you have no real understanding of, keep it to yourself. The day an organized religion can significantly improve the quality of life in some systematic way that isn’t obvious and already accepted by everyone should it be even allowed to exist. So far, all that has been done by religion is limit the power of those who actually use science, logic, and meaningful application.

I’m no longer tired of the problems of religion in the world today, I’m exhausted of it. All I can think about is how bad life must have been in order for religions like Islam to become so widely loved and implemented. Fortunately, life involves time which does not stand still allowing something called information to flourish. No more do we rely on tales and mystical bullshit to make life seem interesting. In fact, making life interesting is not even a problem anymore (especially with all the war you people have caused), now we are trying to make life simply better. Please, stop fucking it up for everyone.