Brave & Free

Mother: A female parent; especially, one of the human race; a woman who has borne a child; correlative to son or daughter. -Webster's 1828 Dictionary  In this essay, I want to specifically address the "dog mom" trend. The paw print-embellished bumper stickers, t-shirts, and coffee mugs are merely the outward reflection of three deep-rooted problems.   First of all, the perceived value of human life is going down. Abortion and euthanasia are obvious results. Although God created humans precious in His image, we don't treat each other right. Human life is the greatest blessing we can have, regardless of health. Disease or health conditions, including in the unborn and elderly, do not make a human lesser.  The culture downplaying the importance of parenthood may also be partially to blame for this "dog mom" fiasco. Once upon a time, it was common for family to be the center of a young person's dreams, and for a career to be the tool that could make it possi...

Legislative quotas will not help equailty and are undemocratic.  I do not believe that legislative quotas are important for equality and development.  First of all, men and women are created equal, but different. Thus, great care must be taken in discussions centered on gender. Men and women are both simply human, but they also have different roles.  To begin with, legislative quotas exclude candidates based on sex, even if they are otherwise qualified. "Quotas are against the principle of equality for all, since women are given preference over men," (Dahlerup).  This does not help anyone, male or female. If one woman and three men in a district want to run for a Senate seat, a legislative quota automatically gives her an unfair advantage. Consider the values and thoughts of the individual. These are what matter, not his or her gender.  Additionally, it is possible for leaders to represent their constituents well regardless of gender. A man can advocate for his ...

I have chosen Argument 2, which is that "The United States and China Can Coexist Peacefully." I have two reasons to believe this, the first of which is simple. Argument 2 is right because it is happening now. The United States and China are coexisting peacefully as I write this.   My second reason is more complex. Although they have different types of government, China and the U.S. have many similarities.  Both countries persecute religious groups for their faith. China kills Uygher Muslims and oppresses Christians, and the U.S. locked worshippers out of churches in 2020. It is worth noting that at the moment, China and the U.S. do not persecute religous groups with the same degree of severity. However, the American dike has a hole in it and will follow China's lead if no change occurs.  Furthermore, both countries are able to order their populations to imprison themselves. The first shutdowns in the U.S. were issued by states beginning on March 15, 2020, and some states ...

This is the first essay in my new series, IR Debates. If you didn't catch the introductory article, you can read it  here .  I am arguing for Argument 2, which is "States Are Down, but Not Out."  First of all, States are much older than any IGO, NGO, or MNC. Since they have been around for so long, they have fluctuated. Anything that lasts for thousands of years must change. Nonstate actors gaining influence is merely one of these changes.  Iceland is one example of a country that has changed. Settled somewhere between 870-930 C.E., it has experienced colonization and independence, paganism and Christianity, need and abundance, and monarchy and oligarchy. Additionally, it endures infamous earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. But through all of this, it remains the Republic of Iceland.  Secondly, there is something to be said for doing things the way they have always been done. Society likes to stay the same because change comes with struggle. And for states to be...

Hello readers! It's been awhile, since I've been busy with school. Yesterday, when I was deep in the writing process of an essay on international relations between China and the U.S., I realized there was no good reason for school to keep me from running the blog because I could work some of my assignments into it! I'm taking an Intro International Relations (IR) online college course this semester that requires two papers every week. They are bound to be occasionally controversial, inflammatory, and strange.  I'll simply publish those.  In order to look at these essays the right way, I need to give you some context. All of the papers come from an online discussion board that students are required to participate in twice weekly.  The subject matter stems from our textbook, which contains debate sections at the end of each chapter. We are told to pick one of two sides, write at least three paragraphs in support of it, and submit it to the discussion board for the whole c...

An insane doctor in a stained, white lab coat stands before his worktable, on which is laid the gargantuan body of a hideous monster. He cackles madly as he pulls a lever down, and the grisly beast jolts and rises to stand on two green feet with bad toenails. The monster stares stupidly at the doctor for a moment, then utters three fateful words: "I. Kill. You." He beats the doctor over the head with a chair in less time than it takes to say, "unethical medical experimentation," and breaks a window to reach the outside world, where he will murder as many people as possible. This is not Mary Shelley’s story of Victor Frankenstein and his creature. There are three major differences between the modern stereotype and the original novel: the Creature’s appearance, nature, and the character of Victor.  Big. Green. Smelly. Not the Creature. Shelley never referred to him as green. He is probably grayish, if he isn’t a human skin tone, since he was crafted out of pillaged pi...