Burning the Quran to send a message fails on so many levels. And the person with the idea fails on at least as many levels. Let’s explore why this book burning is wrong.

1. It’s putting ourselves down closer to the extremists level.
2. It’s very much a hate crime or hate crime-oriented.
3. It doesn’t only target the extremists.
4. Islam is not a violent religion, nor deceptive (and certainly not of the devil).

Let’s address each point.

Book burning accomplishes nothing. It only further fumes the extremist hatred of America and we are giving them another reason to do so. We are a country that supports freedom of religion and advocates religious tolerance and yet here are people proving the opposite point. We see Americans flag being burned on TV all the time by citizens of many other countries. Do we not look at them and call them idiots? Yep, here are the same idiots except this time on our soil.

The burning of the Quran is a hate crime at best. The whole book burning idea was spawned out of hate. It’s funny that a church has decided to go ahead and plan an event that promotes hatred or is spawned from hatred. Sounds like the devil’s work to me. In no way is book burning in my mind a peaceful protest, nor does it have a peaceful cause. Flames does not equal peace.

The Quran is the holy text of Islam. The extremists who attacked the United States are a very radical group of Islam. It is not Muslims as a whole who attacked America, it is a brainwashed group hellbent on destroying America that attacked us. We would not call the Westboro Baptist Church the prime example of Christianity now would we? We should be glad they don’t have the support/monetary funds to conduct operations as Al-Qaeda does. You are targeting the wrong group by burning the Quran, and you are sending the absolute wrong signal to those who worship Islam.

Islam is not an evil religion. It was not spawned from the devil. Those who still have misconceptions about Islam are themselves brainwashed or undereducated or downright ignorant. I’d say Islam is about as violent as Christianity and not anymore so. The Quran teaches many of the similar values the Bible does about how to act properly in society and to be a responsible, kind, caring person. It is radical Islam, a splinter group of extremists with the evil mindsets we are worried about, not Islam as a whole. I certainly wouldn’t want to be blamed for the misdeeds of a splinter Christian group that conducts terrorism should one arise.

There is one counterargument for the Quran book burning which I entirely disagree with. This is not Freedom of Speech. No person has the right to burn a religious book as part of free speech. Well what about Separation of Church and State? OK, I understand that. It is a hate crime to burn the American flag, why shouldn’t it be a hate crime to burn the Quran? Let’s ask ourselves this, is it a hate crime to burn the white house down because we want to send a message to the president? Is it a hate crime to burn money because we are frustrated with the economy and want to send a message to the government? Aren’t these all just acts of Freedom of Speech? There is a line to be drawn and burning the Quran definitely crossed that line considering the intent of the person who came up with the idea, Terry Jones, and his statements defending his plan.

Those who are Christians would not appreciate others burning the Bible, why should people then turn around and burn the Quran.

Matthew 7:12 “Do to others what you would have them do to you”.

Leave a comment at: Youth Politics. I do comment shout-outs once a week now, so it's a great opportunity to get publicity to your site/blog!

Do Unto Others – Why I Don’t Support the Quran Book Burning

There is a century old debate among economists concerning how a Central Bank and government should handle a recession. In one camp, you have economists who believe that the economy should be left alone. Free markets will correct themselves, and the waste will be purged out of the economic system. When the economy recovers, it will be stronger and more formidable than ever. In the other camp, you have economists who believe a Central Bank and government should step in and stimulate economic growth during a recession by injecting liquidity into the economy. Currently, these two camps are very much at odds with one another concerning the economic recovery in the United States.

In September of 2008 when the Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis erupted, Central Banks formed a unified economic front around the world and injected unprecedented amounts of stimulus into global markets by slashing short-term interest rates to historically low levels and bailing out large companies in danger of default. This concerted effort seemed to work. By March of 2009, the recession had bottomed out and economic growth resumed in most developed nations.

Now, two years later the economic recovery is proving to be difficult. In fact, in many western nations the economic recovery is hitting a major wall of resistance. In the United States, unemployment is remaining at stubbornly high levels, consumer sentiment is still weak, and economic growth is disappointing to say the least. Thus, economists are now split into two opposing camps concerning how the Federal Reserve and U.S. government should move forward.

The first camp of economists believes no more stimulus should be added. Deficits are already at “unsustainable” levels, and if further deficits are incurred, these economists are concerned that the investing public could lose faith in the United States government, which means bond vigilantes would make a run on the U.S. Dollar by driving up interest rates so high that the U.S. government would never be able to finance its huge debt. This would drive the U.S. government into sovereign default, which would of course cause global hysteria on a scale never before seen in modern history, especially in a forex account. These economists believe that no further stimulus measures should be taken. This process will ensure that waste is purged from the system; then, when the economy does finally emerge into strong growth, the foundation will be healthier and stronger.

The second camp of economists believes more stimulus must be injected into the economy in order to subvert a relapse into recession, which could ultimately lead the United States into a depression. These economists are often referred to as “Keynesians” after John Maynard Keynes, the renowned economist of the 20th century. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is a “Keynesian,” and he is dedicated to injecting as much money into the economy as is needed in order to save the United States from The Lost Decade syndrome that Japan has experienced throughout the 90′s and 00′s. This camp of economists is not as concerned with the far reaching negative effects of unprecedented levels of stimulus. Instead, they are fully preoccupied with the current economic conditions. Their stance is, let us deal with the present economic conditions, and once we are out of the woods, we will address possible future issues. They believe that tightening monetary policy prematurely is a major fiscal tragedy that must be avoided at all costs.

Each day, these two camps of economists are continually challenging each other in the financial media and in more formal settings. The truth is—the current global economic conditions are historically unprecedented. There has never been this degree of economic hardship in such a globalized economy. Only time will tell which camp is right.

Leave a comment at: Youth Politics. I do comment shout-outs once a week now, so it's a great opportunity to get publicity to your site/blog!

To Stimulate or Not To Stimulate—That Is The Question (Guest Post)

Embryonic stem cells are basically blueprint cells; they are cells which can become any other cell in the body. There are actually several kinds of such cells. There are adult stem cells and younger stem cells found in fluids in the placenta. However, embryonic stem cells are the easiest to work with and as such are most needed by scientists in order to further discoveries. The hope is that we can control what these cells turn into, and then use this technology to cure diseases such as Alzheimer’s (which kills off brain cells).

We also know that our only way of obtaining these embryonic stem cells is by essentially destroying the embryo itself. In the eyes of many, this is seen as equivalent to killing a human life. Such is the dilemma then: we can potentially cure life threatening diseases but only by killing innocent lives. I’d have to say that this is a fairly solid argument, and one that’s not easily overcome.

One such challenge to the killing of human life is that the embryo would have been thrown away anyway at an abortion clinic. Now, given the choice of completely throwing away the life and using it in order to further research, I’d pick research. However, you have to take into account views on abortion. Those who believe abortions are murder will obviously not condone abortions in the first place and thus this line of debate is completely nullified. But we have to think realistically, not ideally. Assuming abortions will not be outlawed for a while, wouldn’t it be better to use the embryos for research rather than throwing them away?

The argument I don’t like that pro-stem cell research proponents use is that the killing of an embryo is not killing life. I would have to disagree. I’ll use this definition of life as my example: (source: http://www.prolifephysicians.org/lifebegins.htm)

1. Living things are highly organized.
2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.
3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.
4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.
5. All living things have an ability to adapt.

Given this definition, life would begin as soon as the egg and the sperm unite. An embryo is quite organized, it acquires materials and energy, it responds to its environment, it obviously reproduces, and it can adapt. It may be limited in its adaptation skills and its environmental responses, but they are there nonetheless. Thus, unless someone can convince me otherwise, the embryo is a life.

Can we justify the killing of life in order to save lives? When starting a business, you can risk taking a loss before making (hopefully) significant gains. Can we do the same with human lives? Can we take losses in order to possibly make future gains? Please let me know what you think.

Leave a comment at: Youth Politics. I do comment shout-outs once a week now, so it's a great opportunity to get publicity to your site/blog!

Stem Cell Research – Killing Lives To Save Lives?

There have been a lot of items to discuss lately. The economic stimulus package was passed and it seemed like everyone had an opinion on the subject. I’ve seen talks of bipartisanship and how Obama has broken from that. I’ve also heard that Obama hasn’t accomplished what he said he would (although he’s only been in office for a little over a month). None of these items are currently on my mind. However, I have been paying close attention to how the stock market has been performing and, while the stock market is not exactly an accurate indicator of how the economy is doing, it does correspond quite well to the mentality of the American public at this time.

The market has now lost well over 50% of its value since last year. I thought that the market had already hit bottom, but it seems to be able to continue to slide. Now, it hasn’t deepened too significantly, and I’m optimistic that the market wont continue to nosedive. If you wanted to take the value of the market as an indicator of how the economy is performing, you’d be fairly accurate at this point. Looking at the trends in the market you can clearly see how people view the economy and what they predict the economy to be like down the road. It doesn’t look all that hot right now.

There are two factors that are preventing the recovery of the stock market and the overall economy. The number one biggest factor is consumer expectation. Everyone thinks the economy will continue to slump. As such, no one’s investing, and no one’s buying. No buying means no sales. No sales means companies don’t make money. The damage is self-inflicted, and we’ll continue to spiral downwards until expectations meet reality. Until then, expect further declines (but keep investing and buying!). The second factor is that of companies falling into bankruptcy. Now, I admit that this second part is mostly influenced by factor number one, however I feel that a lot of companies with bad business models have been able to stay afloat because the economy was just that good. Now companies with poor business plans are beginning to crumble, and as more and more companies go under, the others with sound business models will obtain bigger market shares and outlast this recession. I predict that once all of the deserving companies that go under do so, the stock market will finally begin stabilizing.

With all that said, how are my stocks doing?

My Google stock has declined 60ish points from last month. I’m still up from when I first bought, but not by over 100 points as had been true a month ago. I don’t see Google actually going away anytime soon, so it’s still safe to hold. It’s still over 40 points what I bought it for, and it wouldn’t be a bad time to put money into the company (it was over 700 a share last year and is now only 300).

Apple has had its ups and downs but for the most part it has been stable in the high 80′s low 90′s dollar range. Even the latest big slumps in the stock market haven’t moved the price of it’s stock too much.

Activision/Blizzard has been my latest gem. It had wobbled for a time to a price well under what I bought it for but it has been actually going UP in value during this entire period of declines in the stock market. The stock actually went up 29 cents today to close at a record high since I bought at $10.33 a share. It goes to show that this company is financially sound, has a great game plan, and produces high quality products. When all is said and done I’m sure that their stock is going to take off.

Those are my thoughts. If you have any questions about my stock picks or about the stock market and the economic recession so far, feel free to leave some in the comments. I’d also love to hear about your current investments in the market. If you haven’t gotten a chance, you may sign up to my RSS feed by clicking the link or subscribe to this site via email in the sidebar. Thanks for reading!

Leave a comment at: Youth Politics. I do comment shout-outs once a week now, so it's a great opportunity to get publicity to your site/blog!

Stock Market Time Travels 12 Years

In the United States, persons under the age of 18 are not allowed to vote officials into public office. The question is why. Why are we putting an age limit here? Clearly, it’s because we don’t feel that those under the age of 18 understand the political system enough to have a valid opinion. I certainly wouldn’t want a four year old determining the fate of this country? I’m sure at least most of you would agree with that. Similarly, a baby of not even a year old couldn’t possible decide who to vote for, much less even know what it means to do anything except eat, sleep, and cry. I could make a similar argument for those who just became teenagers: nothing but eating, sleeping, and crying, am I right?

So if our age limit has to do with who we believe could even make a rational choice, then is it fair that those who still can’t make rational decisions past the age of 18 are still allowed to vote? Does that even make sense? Do I want a complete idiot who is oblivious to all things politics have a stab at changing the direction of this country? What if someone lapses into a coma at the age of ten and wakes up in their thirties? Do they still have every right to vote?

Criminals are denied the right to vote. This makes sense, as society has already determined that to commit a crime, you already must be thinking irrationally. Let’s not even bring up the fact that you’d probably hate the government for locking you up anyway. It’s further proof that the people we do not want to have voting are the ones who are incapable of thinking rationally.

However, being under the age of 18 and committing crimes are not the only criteria for not being capable of rational thinking. I’m sure you’ve met some people (or a lot of people!) who you deem ill-qualified to actually vote, either because they would be ignorant of who to vote for or because what they think goes beyond stupidity. And no, I’m not going to label liberal thinking nor conservative thinking as stupid, although there are certain aspects of both that astound me with their respective stupidities…

Anyway, I don’t think EVERYONE should vote. People who have no idea what’s going on… I don’t think should vote. But that’s just me. I mean, it wouldn’t make sense for them to. Generally the people who don’t know what’s going on wouldn’t really care to vote regardless. There’s also the people who do care, but they’re just plain wrong. I’d love NOT to see them at the voting tables, but alas you can’t just command stupid people not to vote. Or can you….

Leave a comment at: Youth Politics. I do comment shout-outs once a week now, so it's a great opportunity to get publicity to your site/blog!

Don’t Vote If You’re Stupid