Response to Brady's Blog

Before I respond Im just gonna say my point of view is much different, due to the fact that I have pledged and am currently a brother of a fraternity. The argument that you pay for friends is ridiculous. You pay to be able to do things with your friends and to meet new people who maybe you would never of met. We pay dues so we can go to a beach for a weekend with our friends. Especially at firman due to our rules if you want to have a party you have to have it at a off campus house. Someone  has to pay for that house so we do. It sucks but at Furman, this is the atmosphere we live in. So yes we have to pay money to be in a fraternity but it is not paying for friends, it is paying to do things with friends.

Secondly you mention the pledging process, the pledging process is hard I will admit but it is for the sake of brotherhood. I can genuinely say I know 70 other guys extremely well. It is so time consuming because we only have 8 weeks to learn about all the members in the fraternity. Think of it like teammates. You spend tons of time with your team and get know them. It is the same thing with pledging, its so you get know the members of the fraternity and your pledge brothers.

Overall you just need to think as a fraternity as a team. Just like your teammates our brothers are there to support us through everything. Help us when we are down and have fun with each other. Most kids in college never get a chance to be part of a team and a fraternity is a adequate substitute for that. Yes pledging sucks but once you get through it everyone will say that it is worth it.

In regards to the University of Oklahoma SAE issue my stance is the same I have with any issue like this. It was dumb for them to do it, it is shameful if they actually think that way but at the end of the day they have the right to say it. It might be a hard pill to swallow but if an american wants to be racist he or she has that right. In regards to the SAE insistent the nationals of the fraternity had every right to disband the charter but the university did not have the right to expel the students. It is a public institution and that means it is a part of the government. The government does not have the right to tell people what they can and can not say. People need to be protected and be able to say whatever they want. There is also a double standard in america. How can one group of people say they have ownership of a word? Just because someone is white does not  mean that he or she  can't use that word. Honestly if there was a word only white people could say people and the media would have an issue with that.  America is a the greatest country on earth because we are protected to say and think whatever we want. People need to remember that the rights allowing you to call people racist also protects them, and allows them to say whatever they want.

Response to Daniel's Blog

Daniel you bring up a good point in regards to the point that men are equal to women in terms of that child. Men are just as responsible as women if a women is in fact inpregnated. This is why if the men an women are not together the man is required by law to pay child support if he does not wish to raise the child. Even if he does want to he still must help support the mother. This being said this goes against one of the all time staples of the pro choice argument. That a women has a choice to do what she wants with her body. If she believe she is totally in charge does that mean that she should be the only one to take care of the child? This where there is a double standard. The baby in many peoples eyes is just the mothers until he or she's birth and then the man becomes responsible. If women want the support of the father, as they should, they must say that the living being inside of them is equally his at as it is hers. This is where I believe your argument resides, not that the father can tell the mother what to do or vice versa. But both parents are equals and should have equal say in deciding the fate of the unborn child.

Response to Isaac's Blog

I see the point Isaac is trying to bring up that children need to have more of a input on their own education. I personally believe that our educational system needs to remained very structured. First off you critic the focus on reading, writing and math. I feel that this is ridiculous because those subjects are the foundation of all others. You can't love science or history if you do not have proficient basic skills. Also if we allow children to choose to learn only what they want we would live  in a world of artists and gym teachers. Kids do not know what is good for them. Also what happens if you change your mind when you get older? Without a well rounded education people would have nothing to fall back on. If we want our education system to improve we need better teachers.  Teachers need to be able to make all subjects interesting and be able to keep all kids engaged. I personally believe if a student is smart enough to move on no system should hold him back.  Yes this could bring a divide between students but this will keep all students engaged. This is how we can improve our educational system. Not by letting students choose but by having teachers who can engage a wide variety of students effectively.

Hana the main I disagree with is where you say that you can't keep playing Girls Lacrosse after graduation. I also play a sport in college, it being rugby, and my athletic career is only beginning. After college I plan on playing rugby at a local club wherever I am living. When I start getting older I will move from competitive mens level and play old boys. My father played rugby until he was 52  and the only reason he had to quit is because he had a plate put in his neck. Even still he has continued to referee and coach the game he loves. I hope to play for even longer then him. It is shame that sports like football pretty much need after a school or a pro team isn't paying for it anymore. Most sports however do continue after college. Its just get busy with things like work and having a family. So playing a sport after school will be hard but It can be done. So be more positive your girls lacrosse career will continue for a long time if you want it to.

I completely agree with Kat's stance on studying abroad.  For many people this is the on opportunity in their life where they can live over seas so why not take advantage of it. I personally want to study away my junior year but unfortunately there are many things that can get in the way from letting a student go. For example I plan on trying to get 2 degrees at my time at furman. This means there are very few programs if any that I can fit in my schedule. I also play on the rugby team here which has its main season in the fall. Most of the study away programs at furman are in the fall so\ the programs that would be best for me academically. So as amazing as studying abroad would be It will be very hard for me to work it into my schedule. Hopefully I will be able to make it happen.

Presentation

Here are some facts that will make help you understand my topic better.

In the NBA: 78 percent of players are african american,17 percent are caucasian, 4 percent latino and 1 percent asian

In the NFL: 66 percent of players are African american, 31 percent caucasian and 3 percent everyone else.

Yet in the United States: America is 61 percent white, 17 percent latino, 13 percent african american, 4 percent asian and the rest is other.

So why do people say minorities are miss represented in coaching and the management of sports when people are saying the majority is not represented enough as players?


If you were to google the swiss professional soccer players the first names that come are
Xherdan Shaqiri
Granit Xhaka
Ricardo Rodriguez
Valon Behrami
Gokan Inler
Haris Seferovic
Blerim Dzemaili
Admir Mehdmi
Joseph Drimic
Stephan Lichtsteiner

The first 9 players all have names that aren't ethnically swiss. The swiss national team is not very swiss at all.

Many countries in Europe have problems with immigration and this is causing what the definition of being Swiss or Belgian to change. Especially on the field,

Jack I do not understand why you state that we pay athletes to much money. I am a avid sports fan and yes you could argue that by watching a team on tv and owning a couple of jerseys I am paying a player but truthfully Im not. The people who pay athletes are there billionaire owners. These billionaire owners get 10s of millions of dollars a year just for owning something they enjoy. I do not see any problem why athletes get paid so much. It comes down to freedom and if people are willing to pay them that much to have them play for there team who is society to say no. In Europe for soccer and even rugby they have transfer fees where superstars might command a price of 100 million dollars just to sign for a team before there own contract. This is a crazy amount of money but along as its coming from private hands there is nothing wrong with it. You also have to think that the fast majority of pro athletes don't get paid anywhere close to as much as the numbers you stated. 99 percent of pro athletes will never make 35 million dollars in a career let alone a year. Yes you can argue that an athlete makes 2 million dollars in 3 years that is enough to live off of because the average person makes that in a lifetime but that is not true. If I was to give some one a hundred dollars every week for a year they could make that last the entire year. If i gave someone 5200 dollars all at once it will definitely not last. So yes athletes make a ton of money for what some say is a hobby but who are we to say how much you can make for doing something you love. If someone loves coding who are we to say they have to get paid less since they enjoy it. Superstar athletes are the best at what hey do and as a society we should reward people who are the best at there profession. That is why I don't see anything wrong with how much athletes get paid.

The political landscape of european politics is changing and changing quite quickly. For a long time european countries especially those belonging to the EU have been a symbol of free market capitalism mixed other socialist social and economic policy. In some countries these polices have been quite successful in states such as Finland and Norway. One of the social policies that european governments had adopted was one of open immigration. Unfortunately  many of these socialistic programs have crippled many of the countries economies and caused much social unrest. This has lead to far right movement in many countries, this movement is not to be taken lightly because in some countries such as France the far right party could soon be the majority.

The far right movement is growing and growing fast, In Britain UKIP won the majority in the MEP elections, yes MEP elections are not nearly as important as MP elections but it still shows a trend none the less. The Progress party of Norway rotates between the second and third largest party in Norway on a very anti  immigrant rhetoric. Many other parties such as the Swedish Democrats, True Finns, and National Front of France are all becoming ever increasingly popular but why?

The global recession hit the world hard and especially Europe. Many people of Europe especially lower classed individuals blame the EU and global capitalism for there struggles. They also blame the influx of immigrants from Africa and the Middle East for taking there jobs and just taking free handouts from the socialist state. Also some european countries had too big of a welfare state to begin with. In many southern european nations once someone is hired it is very hard for them to get fired no matter how little they work. In some countries as soon as you are hired you get a guaranteed 6 weeks paid vacation. Most countries cannot afford this for all there citizens. So you can see that the far right movements in Europe are growing but not all for the same reason. There are parties like UKIP that encourage capitalism but don't want to be part of the EU or have nearly as many immigrants. The Progress party in Norway still likes and believes they can still afford all the social benefits as long as they don't let in any immigrants. Jobbik from Hungary blames global capitalism and zionism for Hungary's problems and want to go to a closed economy.  

Europe's political landscape is definitely moving right even if countries like Spain and Greece are moving to the left. With countries like Spain and Ukraine having rebellious regions calling for autonomy who knows what the map of Europe will look like in a couple of years. Who knows which countries will still be in the EU if the EU even exists anymore. 

To Kill or be Killed,

Mathew brings up an issue that has been around for millennia, is it ever just to kill, specifically a prisoner? For thousands of years prisoners have been executed for all sorts of reasons. Some for committing heinus  crimes, others for just fighting for there country and worst off some for reasons as ridiculous as being the member of the wrong religion.  This is why capital punishment is such a hard topic to talk about it, it is almost never right but also not always wrong. I see no problem with what The Jordanian government did to those prisoners already on death row. They at least killed them in a humane way compared to what happened to that pilot. The IS is performing some of the most barbaric acts in recent history and most International Super Powers are just sitting on there hands, doing nothing. Jordan has already started to bomb and attack the IS, that is a lot  more then what most countries are doing. It is sad to admit but for countries like Jordan they are at war, and when a nation is at war they have to deal with things differently. No I do not think killing those two former ISIS terrorists will in anyway deter the IS from acting but Jordan is showing the world that they are not afraid to fight back.

Another question Matthew brings up is do we always have human rights. The simple answer is yes but what happens when someone takes them away from someone else. The person a murderer killed had the right to live so why does the government and us as a society have to respect the murderer's when he (or she) did not respect theirs victims. Yes an Eye for Eye keeps the whole world blind but at the same time it is just to do on to others as done on to you. As society we just need to have very strict laws and circumstances of when the death penalty is warranted and when its not.

Whats Wrong with Being Right?

I am a young registered republican and that is a rarity in this country, But why is that? I believe it is impart due to the way the media portrays my party and what my generation views as important. Yes there universities such as Furman where the pulse of the campus does bleed red but for a national recognized  secular liberal art school we are among the few and far between.  So why is that young people tend to vote, think  and aspire to be left. Why does every news network other then fox news lean toward one specific side. What is wrong with being right?

I feel like one reason why so many young people lean left is because of what issues they think is most important for our nation. Many people my age believe social issues should be the main talking point when it comes to politics. It makes perfect sense, young people are either financially independent (meaning they only have to support themselves) or they rely mostly on the parents for finance's.  So for them issues such as the economy and taxation take a back seat to things such as gay rights, or abortions. With those being main issues and with the right still holding strong to there conservative opinions you can see why young people lean left. My only question is why can not more people see that our economy is truly  what matters. Can people not see that even though our nation's 15 trillion dollar debt does not effect us now it eventually will. That it is sad but true but the only reason to go college is to raise your earning potential. It is just frustrating because when I say these things and that I am a republican people assume to many things. Are my parents republicans? yes. But that does not mean I just reiterate what they think. Also I am totally agnostic but that does not mean I am against social values and standards.  Now I know I am coming of as bias right now and thats fine. I truly believe I am right, I  just want to know why is that so wrong?

Why is college so expensive?

College prices are raising every single year.  When adjusted for inflation my dad's parents  paid less over 4 years at a private college then what we at Furman pay for in a semester. Also college is much more compulsory today then it was back then. So why are tuition prices so high? In my opinion there is the simple explanation and the complicated one. The simple answer is colleges now provide more for students then ever before. Colleges are marketing themselves to get as many applicants as possible so they must spend millions of dollars on non essential things. Today any good university has state of the art athletic facilities, dinning services, and private police forces, etc. The classrooms have there own computers, smart boards, etc. So you could say that this is why college prices are so high but if you do the math it still doesn't add up.  

I believe that the reason that college tuitions are so high is due to the government. Starting really in the 90s the government has been issuing billions of dollars in students loans. Giving large loans to any student not matter how likely he or she was actually likely to finish college. Nor did they take into account the amount students will make in there chosen fields. Also student loans are guaranteed money for university. So why shouldn't a university charge 60 thousand instead of 30 when the government will pay for it either way. So college degrees have become more attainable  over the years but at what cost. Today's college loan debt is more crippling to our economy then credit card debt.  With the average college student including all types of schools: Public, Private, Two year. taking on over 25 thousand dollars in debt in 4 years. We need to fix this  problem but how?

I believe the way to reduce college tuition and in turn student loan debt is to almost eliminate all types of student loans. This sounds drastic because there are many students who rely on them to get through college.  But if you look at countries where there are almost no student loans you see tuition prices being much lower such as in Britain. Since universities realistically have to expect there students (or there families) to pay a large part of there tuitions they must keep prices down.  So if the government was to get out of higher education it would help out ultimately lower college tuition. 

The Return of British Fox Hunting

Fox hunting has been a staple of British culture for centuries. The hunt has been a pass-time of the quintessential  british  aristocrat and noble. Even for those who did not take part in the actual hunt going to the hunt has been a part of country life for hundreds of years. In 2004 the hunting act was passed which outlawed most of the traditional fox hunting in England and Wales. Supporters of the bill believed fox hunting was cruel toward the foxes. People who where against the bill believed that fox hunting was a important part of rural culture and important in terms of pest control. Now with new parliamentary elections coming in may of 2015 the tories want to repeal the bill.  This is a very controversial stance because lots of english do not see why the fox hunt should take place. I personally believe that the fox hunt needs to come back and is important to english culture. From a practical point of view some forms of fox hunting are used to keep down the population of foxes. Just like bears in some states in the USA when the populations get to big it is important to reduce them.  From a cultural perspective the fox hunt especially on boxing day has been a english tradition for hundreds of years. I feel like to many european countries are destroying there own cultures in the name of political correctness and world acceptance. It is true many people who have never done it or witnessed it might see the hunt as barbaric but it is not for them to judge.  It is for people of England to make the decision to take part or not to, but not to chose for others.