A Woman's Paycheck

April 9th, 2013, marks Pay Equity Day, the date that on average, a woman would make the same amount as a male does in 2012 (Sarah Glynn). This "holiday" marks sexist quality of America - females make 77% of what males make. Although it is true that some job sectors are more dominated by females and others by males (nursing, for example, is 94.2% women), 40% of the wage gap cannot be explained by hard facts. Rather, 40% of women find themselves being paid less than males for what seems to be no apparent reason.

I find that a wage gap between genders is quite discriminatory. By now, I believe all discrimination should be a thing of the past, as America has grown from racism and placed many laws to prevent it from happening. So why is it that gender discrimination is still allowed? There are 138,962,000 jobs in America, and in 55,584,000 of them, males are being paid more than females because of simple discrimination. The opposition could state that the reasoning behind this discrimination is because women "choose" to take extra days off, work less to take care of their children at home, or go into lower paying careers. However, this can be said true for men too, as they are also able to make the same decisions, and for the same hours in the same job, women are still sometimes paid less. 

One solution would be for women to unionize. However, many states prohibit this, North Carolina being one example in the teaching industry. These laws prohibit women and other workers from unionizing for equal wages, so these matters may have to be taken to the governments, including the national one, to change the laws or create laws for equal wages.

Works Cited.

Adams, Susan. "Are Women Catching Up in Pay?" Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 09 Apr. 2013. Web. 05 May 2013.

"On Pay Equity Day, Why Women Are Paid Less Than Men." ThinkProgress RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 May 2013.

"Washington Area Wage Gap Differs Widely across Ethnicities." Washington Post. N.p., 14 Apr. 2013. Web. 05 May 2013.

Women in combat

Women have been fighting alongside men in war, but they have been barred from certain infantry roles by the pentagon. Critics believe that they are not up to the task, but with the increasing amount of women protesting for the rights that males have in the army, their self-confidence must be coming from somewhere. Their strength and physical capability can be measure by their mental capability - if they want something enough, they'll work hard for it.

Allowing women into certain infantry roles will open up thousands of closed jobs. This will help the economy blossom due to a higher workforce, and in the end benefit both sides. Women will be able to fight the way they want while policy makers will benefit from a stronger economy. Women currently hold 14% of enlisted ranks and 17% of officer ranks - they endure the same challenges as men and in every scenario exhibit similar skill levels to what a male counterpart would do.

Men die in combat for many different reasons, and yet women are treated differently when they die or get injured. The Detroit Free Press states, "Michelle Underwood, 22, of Monroe, nearly died on April 23, 2011, when the armored vehicle he was riding in with four other Marines in Afghanistan struck an improvised explosive device." Although this is horrendous, almost identical scenarios happen to men, and yet it isn't highlighted as a special case. The opposition states that women will be the weakest link in a platoon due to their physical limitations compared to men, but this isn't be true in every scenario. If they army composes a strength test to test if a recruit has the necessary strength/skills required to be in a certain division, this issue can be easily resolved. Males and Females both take the test, and if they pass then surely they will no longer be the "weakest link". People who still want to serve their country and fail the test could be placed in a different division that isn't quite as strenuous, such as out of the frontlines.

Women are already taking big roles int he army - including spots in aviation or secondary lines. Women, compared to men, have a strong will and desire to become part of the frontlines. As "people of the United States" we should have no say in segregation without a valid premise, and gender does not fall into this category.

Works Cited

"Carol Cain: Should Women Serve in Infantry Active Combat Roles?" Detroit Free Press. Detroit Free Press, n.d. Web. 28 Apr. 2013.

Lawrence, Quil, and Marisa Peñaloza. "Women In Combat, And The Price They Pay." NPR. NPR, 18 Mar. 2013. Web. 28 Apr. 2013.

The Voting Age

In the 1970s, the voting age was changed to 18. This was because of the many minors in the country serving in the army and giving their lives but still having no say in government. Today, the debate reoccurs. People want to change the voting age to 16, claiming that young voters are apathetic towards voting and since they have jobs, they too should be able to vote in elections. Is this a reasonable claim though?

At 16, the average person is usually still in high school with a couple of high school years to go. Because of this, they have yet to experience anything from the realities of the world. 16 year olds have just become qualified to get jobs, while 18 year olds can have up to 2 years of experience with even entry level work. Being 18 also qualifies you to serve in the army, the main reason the voting age was changed in the first place. At around this age, you are ready to graduate high school. Your level of maturity and intellect have stabilized to a high school degree. This is not the case for 16 year olds.

16 year olds are also most likely living with their parents. They rely on their parents' income for stuff, even though 80% of teenagers have some sort of income. They are looked after by parents and supported by them, and they are not very independent yet at this age. Most decision are made for them, meaning a 'double' vote for parents. Although it is true that the voter apathy rate for younger generations is higher, it is yet to be proven that letting students vote earlier would actually decrease voter apathy later on.

18 is the climax of a person's life, at least in terms of decisions and rights. 18 is around the age most students go live on their own or go to college where they are no longer told what to do by their parents. Because of this newfound independence, they are able to vote freely. Unless we change the high school graduation age to 16 and let them start fighting in the army, there is no validity in allowing students who do not yet understand the full realities of life to being voting 2 years earlier.

Works Cited

Craggs, Ryan. "Argentina Voting Age Lowered To 16." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 31 Oct. 2012. Web. 26 Mar. 2013. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/31/argentina-voting-age_n_2053644.html>.

Mason, Rowena. "Voting Age Could Be Lowered to 16 under Labour." The Telegraph. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Mar. 2013. <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/9707737/Voting-age-could-be-lowered-to-16-under-Labour.html>.

"Should the Voting Age Be Lowered to 16?" Theguardian. Theguardian, n.d. Web. 26 Mar. 2013. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/poll/2012/jul/16/voting-age-lowered-16-poll>.

The Immigration Reform

According to CFR, there are more than 3/4 of Americans leaning towards Immigration Reform for illegal immigrants, which includes a process that they can undergo to become legal citizens. The largest minority in America has easily become the Latino population, and politicians all over are debating what rights and chances they should receive in a "bipartisan debate".
Under the Bush Administration, there was a similar failed attempt at immigration reform. However, experts believe that the chances now are different. At a CPAC conference where Conservatives and Liberals debated immigration reform, it was clear Conservatives had a losing edge. As the new Latino population comes in, whether we like it or not, there is obvious need for some sort of alleviation or different approach in handling things - and so far the current method is not working.

I for one believe that the Latinos should be given American Citizenship much easier, and if they sneak in illegally should be given the opportunity to gain citizenship (especially if they were born here illegally). There is no need for discrimination against a certain race - is this not essentially racism on a lighter scale? When the slaves ran away to the North in the 1800s, the North did not pass strict immigration reform and crack down on the illegal immigrants. In both cases, the "illegal" aided the receiving side.
Illegal immigrants have been proven to help the economy, and at this point a mass eviction would be fatal to the economy. They take jobs Americans are unwilling to partake in, and since they are more open to change, according to the CFR, that also means new reform in other places when they are able to vote. This includes economical and environmental reform.

With the benefits that the Latino population are bringing, there is hard statistical data that backs up the need for the Latinos. They also help America economically too, so the debate itself should reach a consensus quite soon that favors the new immigration reform Congress is trying to push.




Works Cited

14, Bill McKibben March. "Immigration Reform -- for the Climate." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 14 Mar. 2013. Web. 14 Mar. 2013. <http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mckibben-immigration-environment-20130314,0,1673842.story>.

"Conservative Struggle on Immigration on Display at CPAC." NBC News. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2013. <http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/14/17312608-conservative-struggle-on-immigration-on-display-at-cpac?lite>.

"Council on Foreign Relations." Council on Foreign Relations. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2013. <http://www.cfr.org/immigration/us-immigration-debate/p11149>.

FABIAN, JORDAN. "CPAC: Conservatives Wrestle With Immigration Divide." ABC News. ABC News Network, 14 Mar. 2013. Web. 14 Mar. 2013. <http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/cpac-conservatives-wrestle-immigration-divide/story?id=18729918>.

Race for Admissions

Here we are, almost 60 years after the supreme court outlawed segregation in schools, still arguing about race as a factor in application to schools. Many schools have dropped the issue simply by not looking at race, but the majority still has a spot on the application for you to tell what race you are. From the University of Texas, Fisher, who was denied into the college on what she thought was the basis of race, sued the University and the question of affirmative action and race was brought up again. The Supreme Court itself is hearing out the case, and it is no doubt that the result will be yet another precedent on how race works.

In 2003, in the supreme court case Grutter vs. Bollinger, the jury decided it was okay for race to be considered in colleges. However, I completely disagree. In this day and age, why would someone's race matter in a college admission? Being Latino or Asian or White tells you nothing about what kind of person they are or what they represent. Many asians find that if one of their parents are not asian, they should check anything but "asian" because the competition automatically decreases ten-fold. I find that race by itself is not racist, and if colleges are using it for statistical data then it should be confidential or not available to the college admission committee until the application is processed.

In the Fisher case, her SAT score was 1180, much below the standards of the school. This could be the reason that she was denied, but I believe it brings up once again the bigger issue at hand. Some people may argue that race-blind colleges have shown that asians get the advantage while poorer communities are left behind, making it so that only the top percent of the class get a college education. I find this to be true, in some respect, however, I believe that instead of race rankings based on your school/district should be looked at more. The SAT score is nationwide, and does not provide an accurate representation of schools everywhere as not every school is the same. However, if a student was judged based on their abilities compared to their classmates, race would not have to be an issue in diversity. Instead, the colleges could divide the acceptance into certain areas instead of race.

On a broader scale, I truly believe that looking at race is outdated and very inaccurate. In the Fisher case, I do not believe that the basis of her rejection was race, so it is most likely that the court will side with race still being allowed.

Works Cited"Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (11-345)." LII. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Mar. 2013. <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/11-345>."Fisher v. University of Texas: Diversity in the Classroom Is Still Needed." Washington Times Communities. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Mar. 2013. <http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/politics-raising-children/2012/oct/14/fisher-v-university-texas-diversity-classroom-stil/>."Jamail Center for Legal Research Tarlton Law Library The University of Texas School of Law." Home. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Mar. 2013. <http://tarltonguides.law.utexas.edu/fisher-ut>."NAACP Legal Defense Fund : Defend, Educate, Empower." Fisher v. UT Austin. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Mar. 2013. <http://www.naacpldf.org/case/fisher-v-texas>. 

Boy Scouts board delays voting

Recently, our contemporary society has been leading towards allowing homosexual people and partners throughout society, including entrance into the army among other things. However, a membership ban on gays to join the Boy Scouts has recently brought into question - only to be delayed. The membership board cannot decide if they should allow openly gay people to join their organization.

I find this quite ridiculous, as in today's society, homosexuality is becoming more and more accepted. I believe that postponing such discriminatory criteria is harming the generations behind us and opening them up to discrimination against gays. By doing so, our kids will continue contempt on a group because of some belief in society and yet another generation will pass with society being counter-productive by arguing about meaningless things instead of advancing as a society.

There are over 400 species that accept homosexuality. Only one species accepts homophobia. Why is it that little kids, even elementary school kids, cannot get into Boy Scouts, which has nothing to do with if you are homosexual or not, and have fun and go camping or become a survivor? If you are stranded on an island, is it fair that you didn't get the survival guide you wanted just because you were homosexual? I feel as though the membership committee is simply postponing the inevitable at this point. Some signs did show the law would be lifted, but with the debate being postponed, nobody knows what can happen.

In all things, I believe that homosexuality is something that shouldn't be debated today, it should simply be allowed. However, this is not the case, and with Boy Scouts showing that society still lingers on the subject, one can only guess how much time it will take.

Works Cited

Hennessy-Fiske, Molly. "Boy Scouts Board Delays Vote on Lifting Ban on Gays." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 06 Feb. 2013. Web. 27 Feb. 2013. <http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/06/nation/la-na-boy-scout-gays-20130207>.

PARNASS, SARAH. "Boy Scouts of America Delays Decision on Membership Policy Banning Gays." ABC News. ABC News Network, 06 Feb. 2013. Web. 27 Feb. 2013. <http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/boy-scouts-america-delays-decision-membership-policy-banning/story?id=18420287>.

Wian, Casey, Casey Wian Reported from Irving, Michael Pearson Wrote, Reported From Atlanta. Holly Yan, Catherine E. Shoichet, and Devon Sayers Also. "Boy Scout Leaders Put off Vote on Gay Membership." CNN. Cable News Network, 06 Feb. 2013. Web. 27 Feb. 2013. <http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/06/us/boy-scouts-policy>. 

North Korea's Rocket Launch

The conflict between North and South Korea has raged on for decades, and nothing has changed. North Korea has threatened South Korea over decades to reinvigorate the Korean War, but until now, none of their technology has proven effective or capable to do so. 

Recently, North Korea launched a long-ranged rocket that shocked Japan, America, and South Korea. All three quickly realized that North Korea may soon be able to produce inter-continental missiles, leading to destruction on a global level. This fear has brought safety concerns and some are debating whether military action is necessary. However, the rocket simply put a weather satellite into orbit, and North Korea claims there is no military incentive behind it. Most of the UN is debating if they should step up action on North Korea beyond simple embargoes, as that seems to have no effect, North Korea simply goes on to do what it pleases with no concern for its warnings.

Defense agencies world wide now accept that Kim Jong Un has some credibility now, and the Washington defense administration believes that the launch is cover for missiles targeted at the United States. There are thoughts that the missile launch could still be a failure because of a previous launch in the Spring of 2012 where a missile test failed from North Korea. I for one, believe that this should be a sign for nations world wide, but especially Japan, South Korea, and America, to step up their defense and prepare for an attack. The details on a simple rocket launch into orbit is still really fuzzy and nobody is quite sure of everything that happened 100%. If North Korea was to launch a nuclear missile, there could not be enough time to prepare for the oncoming attack. Because of this, I believe that the Obama administration has to step up funding for defense and be ready for an attack, even if it is just threats right now. 

Although I do understand that our economy is not suited for such action, I believe that it is necessary to do so. If we do not defend ourselves, there is no telling if there will be an economy for us to bring back. A nuclear armaggedon might be in store for us. Plus, if we avoid a war, that could save lives instead of save money. In the end, it's America's choice which one we want.

As North Korea violates more and more U.N. sanctions, I wonder how many rules it will take for the countries in the U.N. to draw the line and commence a counter-attack of some sort. If we keep shaking our heads at every law broken, sooner or later it'll be too late and we will no longer have any law to defend.

Works Cited

Kim, Jack, and Mayumi Negishi. "North Korea Rocket Launch Raises Nuclear Stakes." Reuters. Thomson Reuters, 12 May 2012. Web. 24 Feb. 2013. <http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/12/us-korea-north-rocket-idUSBRE8BB02K20121212>.

"North Korea Successfully Launches Long-range Rocket." CBSNews. CBS Interactive, n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2013. <http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57558644/north-korea-successfully-launches-long-range-rocket/>.

Ramstad, Evan. "North Korea Claims Success in Rocket Launch." Wall Street Journal. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2013. <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324024004578174000078592218.html>. 

Syria Conflict

Although in my previous blog I did address U.S. intervention, this time I'm addressing it in Syria because I feel that each country has its own story and therefore needs its own justification and backing.

The question brought to America again is if we should get involved. In the conflict between the Syrian rebels trying to overthrow the current government, 70,000 people have died. The government is threatening the use of chemical weapons on their own people (much more painful and destructive than atomic weapons) and the conflict is well drawn-out, causing lots of death over long periods of time.

The American people are pointing to not getting involved, with 76% surveyed saying that intervention is a bad idea. In my previous post about Mali, this is indeed the case; but the conflict is much more severe and the consequences can be much more drastic if the situation is not resolved. As of right now, futile attempts at ceasefire have done nothing on either side, the rebels and the government have ignored it. The UN is simply powerless at the moment because Russia and China are not responding to it and Russia is aiding the government at the moment, putting the rebels at a serious disadvantage. The rebels are outgunned in every aspect, including air force, supplies, and infantry. Their only hope is intervention, and their cause does reflect America's interests.

However, I believe that in this case, intervention is necessary. Although we are in trouble ourselves, intervention is in our best interest in the long run. If Syria was to continue on its current path, then the middle east would simply continue in turmoil and become more and more anti-Western, as it is becoming now. If this continues to happen, then America's economy may be in more trouble than it is now due to our dependence on oil.

The regret of our fallen soldiers from the war on terrorism still hangs in all of our hearts, and so therefore I believe that our intervention cannot be of soldiers or any american citizens, but rather or supplies and newly developing drone technology. With these, we can help the rebels out-supply the government which can really help them win the long war. Many innocent people are dying in Syria, and if the fighting does not end in the rebel victory, more can die in America and allied nations within the next decade or so.

Works Cited

Brooks, Mo. "U.S. Cannot Afford to Intervene in Syria's Civil War." Congress Blog. The Hill, n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2013. <http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/239971-us-cannot-afford-to-ntervene-in-syrias-civil-war>.

"Council on Foreign Relations." Council on Foreign Relations. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2013. <http://www.cfr.org/syria/american-options-syria/p26226>.

"Few Back U.S. Military Role in Syria – But Support Jumps in Specific Cases." ABC News. ABC News Network, n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2013. <http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/12/few-back-u-s-military-role-in-syria-but-support-jumps-in-specific-cases/>. 

Mali: The next Afghanistan?

Time and time again, the world finds itself in chaos and America intervened to save democracy and protect its self-interests. However, after the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, many Americans are thinking twice about  getting involved in wars. But after all the roles that America has played in the world, do we have a choice anymore? The question many Americans are asking today is, "Will America get involved?"

Currently, America is not directly involved with troops. France has taken the reigns and is sending troops to fight over Mali and reclaim the recently overthrown democratic government. French troops are being supplied by American industries, and America is leading fuel and airstrike missions in Mali. America has yet to send any troops over there, and I believe that this choice is the right thing to do.

Mali is a landlocked country and surrounded by seven fragile countries. If it is to fall, it could pose serious threats and force all of Africa into control by the Islamic militants. This could threaten the American views of democracy and seriously increase the chances of a future 9/11 attack. In this case, however, France is in control of the defense; and if America were to supply them with whatever is needed, the need for troops will not be required. Americans have become weary of war and fear the consequences of a future war. Nobody wants send our soldiers over there and threaten their lives. Our technology today enables us to send drones to Mali that could help the French. The need to send troops is nonexistant, the only plausible support to send troops is to support the French.

As stated by a U.S. official, intervention in Mali could take years to complete. Many are saying that it is the War in Afghanistan all over again, and that only complete U.S. intervention could solve the turmoil. However, this is not the case. America is a world power, but so is France. As our ethnocentric views have labeled most European countries as militarily inferior, in reality this is far from the case. In fact, right now the tides have turned in France's favor almost as soon as France landed in Mali. The insurgents are hiding in mountains and rapidly losing ground. It seems as if France has learned from the mistakes of America in Afghanistan and tried better techniques on the war against terror.

So Americans today may continue asking if we are going to get involved, but in reality it is not necessary and in fact could end up being a burden to our economy once again. By simply supplying the French military, our goal of keeping terrorism on the low is accomplished and many American lives are saved.




Citations

Formanek, Ingrid, Pierre Meilhan, and Barbara Starr. "U.S. Steps up Involvement in Mali." CNN. Cable News Network, 28 Jan. 2013. Web. 04 Feb. 2013.


Press, Associated. "US Official: Mali Intervention ‘could Take Years’; Militants Were Trained by Gadhafi’s Libya." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 28 Jan. 2013. Web. 04 Feb. 2013.


"Wickham: U.S. Military Role in Mali Not Far off." USA Today. Gannett, n.d. Web. 04 Feb. 2013.