Commentary

As the Crumbs Empire Crumbles

August 5, 2014 by LAUREN PUGLISI

Yes, Crumbs really closed all 19 locations in New York City. But while some cupcake lovers mourn the fall of the empire, others search for cupcake stores to fill the vacuum.

Some attribute the massive size of Crumbs’ cupcakes to their failure. Hilary Stout of the New York Times writes, “There was little dainty about Crumbs. Its signature product was a softball-size cupcake with a calorie count that sometimes topped 1,000.” For many, the cupcakes were too big to eat in one sitting, contradicting what many believe a cupcake should be: a small indulgence.

This would explain the success of Baked by Melissa, a store dedicated to selling bite-sized cupcakes which has many locations throughout Manhattan. Although its bestselling cupcake is the classic red velvet, it sells a variety of interesting flavors including chocolate chip pancake and peanut butter and jelly. And the benefit of the cupcakes’ small size is people can try many different flavors.

However, the cupcakes can be considered expensive for their size. Each cupcake is $1 and it is about the width of a quarter. In my opinion, the cupcakes are overrated. Their size seems to be their only claim to fame, as their flavor is just mediocre. I consider them too small to really taste the complexity of the flavor; they just taste sweet.

Less well known is Sugar Sweet Sunshine, a small cupcake shop located on the Lower East Side. According to the store’s owners, Peg Williams and Deb Weiner, the store was created to “make people happy every time they walk through the doors.” And they do. Sugar Sweet Sunshine scored four out of five stars from over 1,000 reviews on Yelp. One reviewer wrote “ooooo, it tastes like MAGIC! This was, by far, one of the best cupcakes I’d had in NYC…made me wonder even more why anyone likes Crumbs.”

I agree. The cake is moist and the texture is just right. The icing and cake are not overly sweet and very flavorful.

Its Ooey Gooey cupcake, chocolate cake with chocolate almond buttercream, has just the right amount of almond flavor and its Holla Back Girl, banana cake with cream cheese icing, has visible banana chunks with a real fresh banana taste. I would highly recommend all of its cupcakes as it has many simple but delicious flavors. It also has amazing puddings and pies!

Sugar Sweet Sunshine is not overdone or overrated like Crumbs and Baked by Melissa. Instead, it is humble, intimate, and warm. Although the space is small, it is cleverly designed with thrift store finds, hand-me-down furniture, polaroid pictures, and holiday cards. It looks like a grandmother’s living room! And, as soon as you walk in, you can smell the aroma of fresh baked goods.

Butter Lane is another cupcake store which is often overlooked. Butter Lane is small like Sugar Sweet Sunshine so you could almost walk by without noticing it if it wasn’t for the smell. Much of Butter Lane’s space is used by its cooking class, which is often in session, so you can smell the delightful store from a block away.

Butter Lane is unique because you can mix and match your cake and frosting. Although cake flavors are limited to chocolate, vanilla, and banana, there are about ten different frosting flavors, not including seasonal flavors. My favorites are the chocolate salted caramel frosting on any cake, which is the perfect mixture of salty and sweet, and the cream cheese frosting on the banana cake. You can taste the time and care it puts into its cupcakes.

I would highly recommend both Sugar Sweet Sunshine and Butter Lane. I believe they are superior to Crumbs, although I doubt Butter Lane and Sugar Sweet Sunshine’s owners have the desire to create empires. But that is fine with me. When cupcake stores become chains they seem to lose their charm.

Redress the Dress Code

August 5, 2014 by NIKKI LEE WADE

Public school dress codes seem to exclusively target girls.

Already in the middle of summer, New Yorkers find the weather outside increasingly hotter and hotter. The dramatic change from an intense frozen winter to a sweltering summer calls for a new wardrobe of shorts, tank tops and flip-flops.

With the transition in clothes, public school students (mostly girls) find themselves called out for disobeying dress codes. School officials enforce dress codes now more than ever, in an attempt to cover up as much of the female body as possible. This includes shoulders, midriffs and legs, body parts you would expect to see in the blistering heat.

Most public school dress codes include the fingertip rule: a girl’s shorts pass her fingertips when her arms are down at her sides. Another common rule is the ban of spaghetti-strap tank tops; all straps must be wider than two fingers. Some public schools have gone as far as completely banning leggings, yoga pants and flip-flops.

Almost all dress codes are targeted towards girls; exposed legs, shoulders and midriffs are all unacceptable. The same cannot be said for restrictions for the boys, for “offensive” clothing on boys is considered baggy pants or shirts referencing drug use. They are not forced to go home and change or wear oversized school uniforms over their clothes. They are simply asked to pull up their pants or turn their shirts inside out. School officials don’t seem to care about what boys wear, but how they see their female peers.

On May 21st, Lindsay Stocker was accused of wearing too short shorts by authorities at her high school in Montreal. Two vice principals walked into her sophomore classroom and asked students to perform the “fingertip test.” Lindsay’s shorts did not pass her fingertips and she was asked to change.

“In front of all my peers and teachers they said I had to change,” said Lindsay, according to the Huffington Post. “They continued to tell me that I would be suspended if I didn’t start following the rules…they told me that it doesn’t matter – I don’t have to understand the rules, I just have to comply by them.”

As a response, Lindsay put up flyers around her school saying, “Don’t humiliate her because she is wearing shorts. It’s hot outside. Instead of shaming girls for their bodies, teach boys that girls are not sexual objects.” There have been similar acts of protests in other schools, of people putting up posters with the same message. One poster read: “Instead of publicly shaming girls for wearing shorts in warm weather, teach male students and teachers not to over sexualize normal female body parts.”

“Slutty Wednesday” was an act of defiance by the students of Stuyvesant High School. The school’s dress code included a ban on exposed shoulders, lower backs, midriffs and undergarments. According to the New York Times, students “…peeled off sweatshirts, revealing tank tops and spaghetti-strap blouses.” Students also passed out flyers with slogans like “Redress the Dress Code” and drew X’s through printed versions of the school’s clothing restrictions.

School officials continue to argue that girls who reveal bare shoulders, legs, midriffs or backs distract male students and teachers. The revealing of girls’ bodies apparently causes the boys to be unable to compose themselves in an appropriate manner. “We could, instead, try having some more faith in young men – they are, in fact, fully-formed humans with the capacity to exercise self control,” says the Guardian.

Public schools are now teaching girls that they must cover up their bodies in order for the comfort of their male peers. When a female student is sent home to change, she is essentially told that her education is not worth that of male students. She is taught to be ashamed of her body, and must cover up every inch of bare skin because she is on display. Instead of teaching girls that their physical appearance must adhere to the comfort of boys, we must teach boys not to over-sexualize female body parts.

With the new school year coming just around the corner, we can hope there are changes in schools targeting young girls for their bodies.

Keeping the Bar Up

August 5, 2014 by JASON LI

BrooklynTech — *Photo Credit: Wikipedia*
Legislators are considering changing the standards of the SHSAT exam, which is the only way to get into Brooklyn Tech, one of the eight elite schools in the city.

A group of legislators has been pushing Albany to increase diversity among the specialized high schools in New York City. On paper, it seems like a great idea for future applicants.

However, to achieve this, the legislators want to change how students are accepted to these prestigious and competitive schools.

“I don’t want them changing the test that gets to Stuy or Tech,” said Kevin Lin, a student that attends Brooklyn Tech.

In their proposal, legislators explained how instead of a single score in the Specialized High School Test (SHSAT) being the determining factor of whether students are accepted or not, there should be multiple factors taken into account. These factors include classroom grades, attendance, and scores from state exams.

This concept seems to make sense because it could broaden the ethnic and racial makeup of the elite schools.

After all, Asians compose about 54% of all students in the eight specialized high schools with whites second at around 30% of the student body. But in New York, Blacks and Hispanics are the two dominant races, combining for 70% of the students attending public schools in the five boroughs.

That’s a stark difference compared to the same races in the students attending these elite schools as blacks and Hispanics were offered seats at a measly 5% and 7%, respectively.

But, if the proposal does go into effect, the special in specialized high school will be nonexistent since anyone could be accepted.

“If people want to get into a specialized high school, they should work for it and the admission test demonstrates if you have the mentality to do so,” said Brandon Chang, a student that attends Stuyvesant.

Also, classroom grades can be biased sometimes because some teachers pick “favorites,” that is they prefer one student to the other. As a result, the “favorite” gets a better grade than the other person.

“The SHSAT is a standardized test that acts like a barrier between the students who have the brainpower to get in and the students who just have high grades from their teachers,” Kevin Lin continued.

Instead of weakening the standards, legislators should find other ways to broaden the racial distribution while maintaining the same high level of excellence.

According to Brooklyn Tech’s school newspaper, The Survey, the alumni suggests increasing expectations and toughening the middle school curriculum in order for middle school students to be able to transition well to high school. They also stressed tutoring as an opportunity for students to keep up and be on the same page.

When the city’s middle schools undergo a makeover and expectations are raised, the number of Blacks or Hispanics in some of the best middle schools should increase. As a result, there would be a better distribution among the races in the city.

According to a news source called ibTimes, many students including Blacks and Latinos weren’t even aware about these testing procedures.

Because of this, a good idea is that all eighth graders should be able to register online automatically in the admission process. Then, they should include an opt-out button for students who don’t want to attend these schools. That way, students are more informed on these competitive schools.

All in all, the SHSAT exam is the only fair way to get accepted because every accepted student has to earn his or her spot in one of the eight elite schools.

How Companies Are Trying to Conquer Your Web

August 5, 2014 by MALCOLM COLSON

The Internet is not perfect. It has its problems, such as trolls who get everyone steaming mad, connection failures that mess up your day, harassment, fraud and many other complications.

However, it’s still an interesting and fun place to be with many perks, since you can watch shows, movies, etc and have discussions with people thousands of miles away, just to name a few. But an all-new issue may threaten your Internet experience. Companies like Verizon and Comcast want to abolish Net Neutrality, which would change how everyone enjoys and uses the Internet.

Net Neutrality is a complex subject that many people don’t understand. Simply put, Net Neutrality is the practice of ISPs (Internet Service Providers) treating all data equally. The ISP can’t discriminate based on the website or its content. They have to send out the data regardless of its origin. But without Net Neutrality, companies can pay the ISP an extra fee to have their data put on a “fast lane” while others have to have their content delivered slowly. This means that big corporations can crush small businesses who can’t pay the extra price of having their content delivered at a reasonable rate.

So, who will ultimately decide whether or not the Internet will remain open for all? Who has the power? The Federal Communications Commission regulates business over the Internet, radio, TV, cable and satellite throughout the United States, run by Chairman Tom Wheeler. The FCC will ultimately decide the fate of our Internet.

But, the common man is not without power to change the course of this issue. Hundreds of thousands of Americans used the Electronic Comment Filing System to voice your opposition to or support of the preservation of Net Neutrality until midnight July 17th, 2014. On the 15th, the FCC received “around 780,000 comments – which goes to show the strength of feeling over the issue” (Woollacot, Forbes) so much so that the site crashed. Most of those comments are in favor of Net Neutrality.

One of the arguments opponents of Net Neutrality use is that ISP could use the extra money to develop more advanced networks to improve Internet quality for everyone. John Thorne, the senior vice president of Verizon, said the company has no reason to develop advanced networks if it can’t charge companies who would want to use them. While that is certainly possible, the question is: Will they do that? They say they will do that, but after Net Neutrality is gone, will anyone be able to keep them to that claim?

Another argument is as the Internet gets more advanced and more data is transmitted, the companies will need more money from investments to ease the strain on the network. Companies won’t be able to handle all the new data they have to distribute by keeping Net Neutrality. As a result, many vital aspects of our lives will be affected such as security, education and communications. This is definitely a valid argument but we should find a way to increase the capabilities of networks without giving companies control of what quality they can provide.

The abolition of Net Neutrality is just another way for industries to establish monopolies in modern age by eliminating their competition. Not only small businesses, but even other major companies will lose money because of people’s unwillingness to wait for long buffering times. Despite what one may think, this is not completely a conflict between people and corporations. Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and Google are all companies that oppose the abolition.

Ultimately, the fate of the Internet will be determined soon and we will have to fight for what we believe in. Today, a country like China, which doesn’t have Net Neutrality, has a government that is able to repress public opinion because the government can control how information gets to the people by using surveillance and regulation. Do we want to follow suit and live in a society where the people in charge can censor us? Companies like Verizon and Comcast will take over if we, as Internet users, let them.

The C Doesn’t Stand for Clean

August 4, 2014 by CAMERON SMALL

Most New Yorkers would probably agree that if there was a cleaner alternative to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (MTA) train system, they’d take it in a heartbeat. Anyone who has taken public transportation in New York have had the experience of riding in a filthy train. Unfortunately, this occurrence is a much greater issue than we thought. And it brings up an important question: Should riders have to pay what they do to ride in unsanitary conditions?

There have been numerous reports of cleanliness decreasing among train lines. According to the Straphangers Campaign’s surveys, 42 percent of trains checked in 2013 were clean, which is a ten percent decrease from the 2011 survey. The worst of the lines was the D train, where a mere 17 percent of people considered it clean.

The MTA and the Straphangers Campaign both claimed that this was a result of fewer cleaning workers because of budget constraints. In addition to fewer cleaners, Straphangers Campaign’s field organizer Jason Chin-Fatt believes that lack of cleanliness is due to increased ridership. When approached by Metro News he said, “When ridership goes up, there’s more opportunities for people to spill coffee and food.”

The D train isn’t the worst of it. The C train wins the award for worst overall service. It was ranked last in the 15th annual State of the Subways Report Card. It doesn’t stop there. According to the Wall Street Journal, the C train “has finished dead last in the ranking six times since the rankings were first issued, the most of any line in the subway system.” Riders agree as well. “I live closer to the C but I take the Q. It’s faster and less crowded, and it comes more often,” said Roy Gabay, 48 years old, of Fort Greene, Brooklyn, who was interviewed by the Wall Street Journal. The C train service is so terrible that Straphangers Campaign ranked the value of a C-train ride at 85 cents, which is much lower than the $2.50 base fare set by the MTA.

The London Underground is one of the oldest subways in the world, yet it’s regarded as one of the best metro systems to date. Opened in 1863, the London Underground, (also known as “The Tube”) has air-conditioned cars and is fairly cheap in the expensive country. It also has an 83% approval rating by the Straphangers Campaign compared to the New York Subway, which has a 75% approval rating. If London can keep a great metro system for over a century, why can’t the MTA?

The City Council pitched a proposal to fix our stinky subway problems back in 2012. “Let me make a suggestion to the MTA: We grade the restaurants, right? A, B, C. So we should grade all the stations in the MTA system,” said Councilman Peter Koo at a budget hearing.

As it turns out, the MTA does grade the stations on cleanliness, but does not share this information to the public. However, they have stated on their website that they plan on improving cleaning in several stations. According to the 2014-2017 MTA Financial Plan, it lists “Additional improved station cleaning at 10 heavily used stations/complexes in each borough” as one of their service quality improvements. Although its only 50 out of the 468 stations the MTA has in total, it’s a good place to start.

FIFA: A History of Corruption

August 4, 2014 by MARTIN SCHNEIDER

As of June 2014, the 2014 World Cup is Facebook’s most popular event ever, generating 3 billion interactions on Facebook, according to the Mail Online. Even Americans, notorious for their indifferent attitude towards soccer, got into the World Cup madness. “Average U.S. viewership for all this year’s World Cup games was up by 39 per cent on 2010 games”, with “17.3 million viewers on ABC, 9.2 million on Univision and 750,000 people online,” the Mail said.

This worldwide enthusiasm has been great for the World Cup’s governing body, FIFA as it generated 2.36 billion dollars in 2014, according to Business Insider. But the increased attention has also comes with unforeseen consequences. Since the 2014 games, people are much more aware of FIFA’s gross and unethical practices.

Before the 2014 games, Brazil’s slums erupted in violence with police over Brazil’s hosting of the World Cup. Many Brazilians were furious over the government’s decision to spend 13.3 billion dollars on the games while around 1/3 0f Brazil’s population lives in poverty.

Included in the 13.3 billion is a 260 million dollar stadium in the town of Manaus, deep in the heart of the Amazon jungle. Due to the harsh jungle terrain the stadium was both expensive to build and almost impossible to use now that the World Cup is over. According to ABC News, the next use of the stadium will be on July 20th between two local teams and despite the 40,000 seats, “officials are hoping for 4,000 fans.”

Contrary to popular belief, Brazil will make very little money from their hosting of the World Cup. As reported in The Guardian’s article World Cup 2014: who’s cashing in, “ratings agency Moody’s estimated that the lasting effect of the World Cup on Brazil’s economy would be, approximately, nothing.” This raises the question, if Brazil isn’t going to benefit from the hosting the World Cup, is it worth it? For many countries, it is.

For many countries with developing economies, like Brazil, FIFA’s promises of economic benefits for hosting the games is extremely enticing. Unfortunately, these promises blind these countries leaders and often lead to exploitation.

In 2003, Brazil’s government passed legislation prohibiting the sale of all alcoholic beverages in football arenas. For years, Brazilian football games were plagued with extremely high death rates among fans. According to the BBC, “the ban was introduced as part of measures to tackle violence among rival fans and hooliganism.” But this potentially life saving legislation was changed in 2014, removing all mention of alcohol sales, just before the World Cup due to pressure from FIFA. Why? Wouldn’t FIFA want the World Cup to be as safe as possible? As always safety takes a backseat to profits.

According to FIFA’s website, Budweiser, one of the world’s largest beer companies is the official sponsor of the 2014 World Cup. Budweiser’s money, not the health and wellbeing of fans prompted FIFA’s General Secretary, Jerome Valcke to address the Brazilian Congress, telling them,” Alcoholic drinks are part of the FIFA World Cup, so we’re going to have them. Excuse me if I sound a bit arrogant but that’s something we won’t negotiate.”

Despite calls from Health Minister Alexandre Padilha and other members of Congress to keep the law, FIFA’s lies of jumpstart to Brazil’s economy were too good to refuse. The law was passed by Congress and signed by President Rousseff.

For most Westerners, living in nations with strong stable economies, it’s hard to imagine an organization like FIFA exploiting a nation like the United States or England. But for developing nations, this happens all the time.

For the past two games, FIFA has held the World Cup the developing nations of South Africa in 2010 and Brazil in 2014. FIFA forces these nations to spend money they don’t have on stadiums they don’t need in return for money that they never receive. When June ends and the games finish, FIFA leaves and takes the money with them.

The Third Rate Game

August 4, 2014 by DAVID SACK

roben-dutch_2967371b-1 — Dutch player Arjen Robben wants the third place playoff to be abolished.

This past Saturday in Brasilia, the Netherlands defeated Brazil in the third place playoff at the World Cup. Although the players were 468 miles away from where they wanted to be — in Rio de Janeiro for the final — they undoubtedly felt worlds away.

As is usually the case with these games that closely resemble exhibition games, the players and coaches had no interest in the match. There are exceptions to this, such as in 1994 when a fired up Swedish team easily defeated Bulgaria 4-0. But lets face it, Brazil, the country that has won more World Cups than any other country and paid millions of dollars to win a title on its home soil, and the Netherlands, who yet again came close to winning its first World Cup but fell short, had zero interest in 90 more minutes of football.

If you don’t believe me, just listen to Dutch coach Louis Van Gaal, who is eager to get started coaching Manchester United and Dutch player Arjen Robben. “I think this match should never be played,” Van Gaal said. He went on to say, “After a tournament in which you’ve played so marvelously well, you go home as a loser just because you’ve lost the last two matches. This has got nothing whatsoever to do with sport.”

Robben was equally unexcited for the opportunity to claim third, “They can keep it. Only one prize counts and that is becoming world champion.”

The only thing in common between Brazil’s humiliating 7-1 loss to Germany and the Netherlands’ crushing Penalty Kick shootout defeat by Argentina was the aftermath. Players on both sides were crying and probably wanted to think about anything other than soccer.

The men’s basketball NCAA Tournament did away with its consolation game, and so did the NFL. The Euro Cup no longer has one. So why is FIFA so insistent in having this game? Many will tell you that it is tradition. But let’s not forget that FIFA really is just a business.

The third place play-off is one last marketing opportunity for FIFA. According to Soccernomics, a book written by Simon Kuper and Stefan Szymanski, the Third Place Play-off gives a 4.9% boost to the World Cup’s television ratings. That is obviously hard to resist for FIFA.

George Black of the New Yorker magazine recently penned an article titled “The Third-Place Game Is Often The Best Game.” He cites that the games are more close and exciting than the finals.

The problems with Black’s comments are obvious. A close game does not mean a better game if less is on the line. Most teams and their fans do not care about the match, so it may be closer statistically, but the excitement is taken away because they are playing for a meaningless prize.

FIFA constantly attempts to remind its fans that everything it does is for the better of the game. If that were true, it would get rid of a game that the players and coaches express every four years they have no interest in playing. Players can get injured and miss time with their club teams, and are less rested as well.

Right after the Dutch finished off Brazil Saturday, one look at the players involved in the game told the story. The Dutch players who had just won had smiles, but no excitement. Sure they were happy they had won, but most would have been happier had they been spending to be with their families regrouping for club action. Meanwhile, the Brazilian players were humiliated. As Van Gaal said, nobody should lose two games in a row after such a great tournament. Brazil’s awful ending to their country’s World Cup was now much worse.

This game needs to go and it needs to go now.

Gay Marriage: The Obvious Issue That Still Needs Addressing

August 7, 2013 by ct152892

Love is love, and true love transcends time and ideas. The heterosexual couple whose battles were with angry parents and an even harsher economy or some other plot device has always portrayed the theme of star-crossed lovers. For gay couples wishing to marry, the plight of the star-crossed lover is still prevalent as our country’s clouded ideals limit yet another group’s rights because they stray from the “norm.”

Gay couples are routinely facing an uphill battle for many of the benefits straight couples receive. The right to adopt and simply being openly gay are problems that still need tackling in our society. We always tell our children to be proud of who they are, because they are unique and special in their own way. To put down somebody who is gay is totally hypocritical because it rejects an aspect that makes him or her unique. Unlike the people on “16 and Pregnant,” the show on MTV that showcases the drama tic lifestyle changes for couples whose baby was an accident, when gay couples file for adoption they know what they are doing. No child can be unwanted in this circumstance due to all the planning and time involved in adoption.

The argument that gay marriage destroys the sanctity of marriage is laughable. In America there are 6,646 divorces every day and over 46,000 every week. Marriages are meant to be a binding contract under God, so if thousands of men and women break this contract hourly, it seems the sanctity of marriage was annihilated after a religion other than Catholicism came into being. And let’s not start on the number of people who cheat on their significant other in a heterosexual relationship. If the sanctity of marriage is still standing after Anthony Weiner has possible extramarital affairs, then gay marriage probably won’t be the killing blow.

The only argument that can be made against gay marriage that has an ounce of weight is that it goes against the religions of some Americans. However it is quite clear in the Constitution that church and state may not be joined at any time, something many Republicans need to learn. People have the right to be angry that their taxes are going toward something they disagree with and a person may refuse to pay taxes that support gay marriage. The majority of their taxes, though, will go to America’s defense systems and to the troops. In a sense, more Americans are willing to pay for bullets that kill people than for flowers for a gay marriage.

Gay people are people (it’s in the name) and if our nation is all about equality and freedom then we need to prove it. It is time to stop treating people differently because of who they are. Just because somebody is different doesn’t mean there isn’t good inside of them.

Times are changing. We have slapped the label of equality wherever we can, and it is high time we showed that we are worthy of the label. If as a nation we have paved the way for gender and racial equality, who is to say we can’t do the same for gays? We are a nation of immigrant and unique people where there is no majority or minority because deep down we are all the same.

The Future is Dying before your Eyes

August 7, 2013 by RENEE SANDERS

Statistics show that suicide is the third leading cause of death in ages 10to 24 as of April 19, 2013. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention(CDC), for every teen who commits suicide there were 100 attempts. “The attempted suicide rate for high school students has risen from 6.3 percent to 7.8 percent in the last three years,” stated Meghan Neal from New York Daily News in an article she wrote June 9, 2012.

The majority of the time teen suicide is due to bullying (cyber bullying, sexting, physical, psychological) but that’s not the only reason. Teens are taking their own lives because of bullying but also depression, stressful living situations and multiple other reasons that aren’t fully understandable from an outsider’s point of view.

Do you ever brush off someone’s problems because you don’t think they’re “real” problems? Or do you argue with your kids because you can’t understand their problem? Has there ever been a case where someone has needed you and you weren’t available? Have you ever as a teen made fun of someone or just watched someone else? Are you a source of stability, comfort and support for someone young out there? Did you ever walk in someone else’s shoes to understand what they are going through? The last question will get the most no’s out of any other.

Teens use many ways to kill themselves such as, with a firearm (guns and other automatic weapons), suffocation (hanging them self), poison (drug overdose), drowning and cutting. At the point where the teen has had enough and is ready to die a few things are running through their head like how are they going to do it.

When someone is deciding which unnatural way to die they most likely will choose the option where they die faster over the option that leaves a smaller mess (blood or any parts of them left to clean up). The kids of today need to know that a third option is out there: ask for help. Just because it’s not sitting in a cabinet or lying in a drawer doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.

There is no positive side to this information. he only thing possible to gather from this piece is to spend more time with the younger generation, take interest in their lives, help them overcome their obstacles, show you truly care and do what you can to make them believe their presence is valued. There are tons of websites, hotlines and centers that help prevent teen suicide, a lot of people are trying to save young lives. If no one does the human species could end a lot earlier than anyone anticipated and it wouldn’t be anyone else’s fault but our own.

Why Does the Gunman Shoot?

August 7, 2013 by LOUIS CASTILLO

When one is informed of tragic events that happen on a world scale one may ask himself thought-provoking questions about how this could happen. Some may say that evil is the creation of God. Another would disagree, likening it to the actuality of dark and cold. But consider this. Acts of violence cannot only be attributed to the absence of God but also to inclinations within the human condition. In other words, the human race has the inclination to do something wrong whether it be to cheat on a test or to go so far as to commit an act of violence. The presence of God is what prevents one from committing a wrong thing.

When arguing the validity of God and Christianity some would say that God created everything. In addition to that, some may even imply that, if God created everything, then God created evil since evil exists. Therefore according to the principal that our actions define who we are then, God is evil.

Coming to this conclusion is logical but the flaws in this logic must be exposed. Liken this to the existence of cold. One may say that cold indeed exists simply based on the reason that they have felt cold. In fact cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in actually the absence of heat. Everybody and every object is susceptible to examination when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero is the total absence of heat; all matter becomes incapable of reaction at that temperature. In actuality heat, on Earth, can never be absent. Rather it can vary in its intensity.

One may also believe darkness exists based on what they have experienced. Once again this empirical evidence is baseless and invalid. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. We can study light , but not darkness. We can use Newton’s prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color.

You cannot measure darkness. How can one know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present.

Now ask yourself does evil exist? Evil in fact does not exist, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of Jah. God did not create evil. Evil is not like faith or love that exist just as light and heat do. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God’s love in his heart. It’s like the cold that comes when there is no warmth or the darkness that comes when there is no illumination.

The actions of men are those that come from overwhelming inclinations that stem from the human condition. When one does things that seem to defy our nurtured reasoning, that is evidence of the natural inclination of man. Philosophers like Thomas Hobbes and Kongfuzi believed that humans all have a sense of evil within them that must be contained in one way or another. Kongfuzi believed that men should understand the order of respect and mutual respect. He felt that if all men understood those levels of subjugation, evil would have no place and if those who have liberating powers, like fathers and leaders of countries, practiced ultimate benevolence evil would have nowhere to take root.

Thomas Hobbes on the other hand expressed his radical conservativism towards the autocratic subjugation of peoples whether it be brutish or benevolent. To Hobbes all humans were evil and needed to be subject to a higher power. He once said, “The condition of man…is a condition of war of everyone against everyone.” Hobbes implies that men do what they want within the confines of their own material gain. He felt men create a “social contract” between one another so that they may be able to coexist without mutilating one another because that is their natural tendency.

To both of these philosophers of old evil is the constant and goodness is simply a catalyst. However, evil is not the constant. Goodness, kindness and benevolence are the constant but, like heat, vary in intensity. One may ask oneself that if we have this “social contract” why do men kill other men? Well to simply answer, it is the absence of God.

In 2010, America suffered a homicide total of 12,966, 67.5 percent of those homicides were firearm related. This is an ever-so-often occurring issue in America. We hear about these events and then wonder how does God allow these things. Why are they happening? The fear of God is not in the hearts of the men who commit them. They kill for pleasure and even as a quick fix to their own problems. They have disregarded Hobbes’ “social contract” and Kongfuzi’s hierarchy of respects. Evil has outshined the light of goodness.

How can politics solve a problem that is simply more than just crime? This issue is not about how many guns are in the nation. This issue is not about how many bullets are in a clip. This issue is not about some conspiracy to disarm the nation. This issue is an issue within the fabric of humanity and has been and will always be. A man will kill when he feels he wants to. The only way to control this is by regaining the goodness we were born with. We regain it through God.