Kyrsten Sinema

The name may be unfamiliar to you, but Kyrsten Sinema is breaking precedents in Arizona. Although the elections are over, and it seems that almost everyone is tuned out of politics for the next 4 years, I am not. Sinema just recently got elected to the House of Representatives after all of the votes were finally tallied, 6 days after the polls closed. She came out on top, and is now not only a rare Democrat elected in the generally red state of Arizona, but is also the first bisexual congresswoman to be elected.

This groundbreaking achievement of Sinema's is quite important. This victory may lead the way to equal rights for those who are a part of the LGBT community. It is hard enough to win an election as a Democrat in a generally Republican state, but when you defy all odds and win it is even more amazing.

What kind of implications does this victory have for the future of equal rights? Will this boost the chances of other LGBT people who run for Congress' chance of succeeding? Why or why not?

If you want to learn more, here is a two minute video on Sinema.

Defining Success

Earlier in the week, Mr. O'Connor brought up an idea about how people who live around here quantify success. Not to generalize, but I think it is fair to say that most people around here would define success as getting the best grades, going to the best college, and making the most money. This brief conversation that we had got me thinking about the reasons I put so much effort into getting good grades in school.

Success should me measured by doing what you love, not how much money you make doing it. If it was just about making money, an astonishing amount of people would be failures. I think that this measure of success is inherent in most Americans. This is true because of the troubling economy, and the general understanding of the American dream. The American dream is to find a great job and make money.

I now disagree with the concept of success being monetarily interpreted because it is an arbitrary way to assign someone their true worth. Where did this definition come from, and why is it still stuck in so many of our heads?

Sandy Breeds Scammers

As you all know, the "superstorm" Hurricane Sandy devastated the states along or East/Northeast border. Tons of damage was done to houses, buildings, and nature. What's left to do is cleaning up and helping those who have no home, power, or clothes. In order to help the people who are in need, tons of companies and organizations are accepting both monetary donations and clothes donations. I myself have donated sweatshirts and fleeces in hope that I will help somebody stay warm.

With all of these ways to donate and help out, there are some serious scams going around as well. After Hurricane Sandy, over one thousand websites opened up. Some were websites that truly did intend to help - lawyers, construction companies, etc. But others, such as a site that accepted PayPal donations to help victims in Jamaica, could not be confirmed as an honest site. The site that I mentioned above was looked in to by SANS Security, a site that checks other internet sites for validity. SANS was not able to confirm that the donations received by the site that collected donations for Jamaican victims actually were given to those in need.

What struck me was how in times of serious need, some people choose to take advantage of the situation for their own personal gain. Is this something that America stands for? How can we ensure that things like this don't happen in the future?

And if you plan to donate, here is a link that gives you legitimate help sites. Make sure you know where you donate, because 70% of Americans do not.

Iran Sanctions

As you all know, we have had presentations for the past week or two relation to civil liberties in times of peril. Whether or not you think that we are currently in times of peril, I think that the situation that is going on in the Middle East currently is a direct threat to our national security. Due to the instability in Iran and Israel too, there is no doubt in any leaders’ minds that a conflict in the Middle East could escalate quickly, and that the US may have to get involved in one.

To contain an outbreak of conflict in Iran specifically, the US has sanctioned Iran’s economy. The US feels the need to sanction Iran because they are afraid that Iran is planning on using its fissile nuclear materials for nuclear weapon capabilities. Some think that sanctioning Iran economically will decrease their will to build and use nuclear weapons. There is a different effect occurring in Iran, however.

The sanctions have been so powerful that it has affected the economy to such an extent that medicine prices have skyrocketed. This means that businesses can't buy enough medicine to supply its demand. Specifically, a drug that helps curb the effects of cancer is diminishing in Iran. This is causing six million patients in Iran to be treated insufficiently. How can we justify these sanctions when it is effecting the regular population? Are these sanctions too effective perhaps, why or why not?