That's What Xi Said

I read a few articles about a man named Xi Jinping. Xi Jinping is the current leader of China. Some even refer to him as the "core leader". One of the articles claimed that, by making Xi Jingping the "core leader" of China, it "elevates Mr. Xi to a level of individual power last bestowed on Jiang Zemin...". The thought of making Xi the "core leader" is said to have been influenced by Mr. Xi himself and a few of his allies. In fact, one of the articles said that, unlike his predecessor Deng Xioaping, Xi Jinping called himself the "core leader", and the people of China just went along with it.  Is Xi Jinping a strong-willed person, or are some of the minds of the people just weak-willed? Perhaps a bit of both?

Giving Mr. Xi the title of "core leader" seems like a huge ego boost. It basically is telling the people that whatever Xi Jinping says goes; although he's not nearly as powerful as Mao Zedong or Deng Xiaoping.  Now that he holds this title,  most the people of China have pretty much surrendered to him. Whether they were forced to or  it was by their own choice I do not know. There are some that believe that Xi Jinping, by holding this title, now believes that he can control too much of China's decisions, which may be true. I'm sure that if I was in charge of a country and I was called the "core leader", I would feel like I could control the world and get anyone to do what I say. If Xi Jining thinks that he can get most of the people of China to do what he wants, wouldn't that lead to some screwed up future policies? I'm going to answer that right now. Yes, yes it would.  

As an American, I do not know if Xi Jinping is doing a good job or a bad job ruling China. Whatever he's doing doing, he probably wants to do as much of it as he can before his reign is over. It's like how Obama wants to do as much damage to America as he can before a new presidents is elected (yes, I definitely did have to say that). One of the articles said that Xi "may delay choosing a successor, so that he has more time and more choices, and preserves his influence". I think that he want to stay in a position of power because he has been so elevated for so long. He's probably used to people agreeing with what he says, even if out of fear, and he does not want it to end. Xi Jinping is described as a "formidable leader". The definition of formidable is: "inspiring fear or respect through being impressively large, powerful, intense, or capable". It is possible that Xi Jinping gave himself this title simply to engrave into the people minds that he is going to be their leader and he is going to give the orders. Just like what Obama is doing to America, it seems as though Xi Jinping trying to bring China down. 

Fat, Dumb, and Addicted

I read an article about how the media is affecting the amount of geniuses in the world. I agree with that to an extent. The article claimed that Twitter is shortening our attention span. That is true. Well, partly. I think more and more people are getting addicted to Twitter because the current generation is so focused on how people think of them and more people today are focused on internet communication rather than real life communication. During the day, people are thinking ,"When is the next time I can log on to Twitter? I wonder what people are saying about me". I admit that I myself am guilty of internet addiction. But I believe that my own addiction doesn't interfere with my social skills as much as the people of today's society. People today are so addicted to the internet that it is deteriorating their social skills. No one wants to communicate face to face anymore, which is insane. While I understand that sometimes being alone is nice and simply texting someone can be just enough, humans were designed to be social. We need to interact with other humans not just for our own good, but also for  fulfilling our purpose and spreading the word of God. 

The article also claimed that the way people think geniuses are formed today isn't actually true. People think that drilling information into someone's head will automatically make them smart, and that's not always the case. The article stated that you don't make someone drown themselves in chemistry books if they want to become a history teacher.  I completely agree with that. For example, if I wanted to become a genius on the subject of Visual Arts, which I do, I wouldn't go off to university and major in mechanical engineering. I would need to submerge myself in everything related to Visual Arts in order to become an expert. That's what everyone needs to do. Whichever field that a person wants to go into, they need to study that subject in order to become a genius on the topic. 

I think that the media has another affect on how people think. Since so many people are concerned with the way people think of them today, they could ask random people on the internet if they think that they could succeed in the field that they want to go into. If that person says no, then the person will drop that major and find a new one that will make them seem smart to other people. For example, someone could want to be an actor, but their parents or family might not think that's it's a respectable career. So that person will take up a new career, such as being a lawyer. The fact that some people are like this bothers me. I want to go into Visual Arts and I already know that it's a tough field to find a job in. I already know that people think I won't know what to do with my life. But I want to do it; therefore, I'm going to do it. 

A Right Or A Weapon?

   On many college campuses today, the right to freedom of speech has become a huge issue. Students that feel even the slightest bit offended, they have the right to leave the room to obtain some sort of "psychological safe space". They are saying that freedom of speech can be used as a weapon. A report called "And Campus For All: Diversity, Inclusion, and Freedom of Speech and U.S. Universities" claims that a lot of students on various campuses aren't exercising their right of freedom of speech because they are worried about offending other peers. The very same report stated that "A rising generation may be turning against freedom of speech". people are afraid to speak freely because they could offend one person or even multiple people. An insignificant comment, such as "your shirt is ugly", could set off a chain reaction in the person's mind to where they think, "Oh wait. That person just offended me. I need a safe space. GET ME A SAFE SPACE!".     Yes, there are some people out there who are more sensitive than others, but some of those people know how to hide it well. People on college campuses, or anywhere for that matter, shouldn't need a place like a "puppy room" to make themselves feel better. What I'm wondering is, if all of these people can't handle one person disagreeing with them or one slightly rude comment, how are they going to be able to fend for themselves in the real world? The truth is, they won't be able to function.    

A Right Or A Weapon?

On college campuses, speakers are being turned away if they don't agree with what most of, if not all of, the students believe. For example, if a speaker for the LGBT community who was anti-LGBT were to go to a college campus full of pro-LGBT students, they would most likely not be able to speak there because they could accidentally offend one, or multiple, students. The fact that these people still want freedom of speech, yet they can't handle one minor disagreement, just blows my mind. In the world, there are DEFINITELY going to be people who disagree with you. No doubt about it. The education system, college particularly, is supposed to prepare you for the real world. If you aren't able to handle someone having a different opinion than you, you won't be able to deal with the issues going on in the world today.     

 The reporter of the "And Campus For All: Diversity, Inclusion, and Freedom of Speech and U.S. Universities" asked a student, named Storm Ervin, from the University of Missouri what her opinion was on the right of freedom of speech. Ervin stated that freedom of speech is a "basic human right for herself and for her group", which makes sense because any normal American citizen would want the freedom of speech, wouldn't they? But then, Ervin turns things around. Ervin wants freedom of speech, but when it comes to a group that disagrees with Ervin's beliefs, she is against freedom of speech. In other words, Ervin is for "compromised freedom of speech". That is not how the First Amendment was supposed to play out. The word "freedom" is in the term "freedom of speech" for a reason.

                                     

Never-ending Argument

There have been a few forms of government throughout our history that just have not worked. There is always something that just does not fit in. In the year 1783, there was yet again another government issue. There was a "new" type of government forming in America; however, it was too similar to the type of government that America had just escaped from. James Madison stepped up to the plate and tried to steer America away from entering back into the same useless form of government. He enlisted the help of the great George Washington. George Washington was hungering for retirement. He was ready to throw in the towel and take a break from all of the action. What Washington did not realize was that Madison was manipulating him into coming out of retirement. I think that Madison just wanted the help of an experienced person like Washington to aid him in forming an ideal new government.

One of the main reasons that the American government was weak in 1783 was the fact that the constitution America had at the time was very weak. One reason for this could have been because our constitution copied others; therefore, it had to be remade. But how? How could the constitution be remade to where it pleases at least the majority of the people? I think that the American government at the time should have let the people vote on it. Yes, that is both a good decision and a dangerous one. However, if the government wanted to please the majority of the people, letting them have a say would probably be the best way to please the majority of America's population.

Appearing out of the tangled mess known as the political process came the idea that finally captured America; however, it was not necessarily the best plan. It went against the traditional norm of the political system and it was not exactly what one would call "logical". It put state and federal government against each other in a constant battle for dominant power, thus making the "argument itself the answer". The constitution was now considered "an argument without end". After hearing about this, George Washington truly believed that our nation was no longer moving towards greatness, but chaos. He even informed John Jay that he did "not conceive that we can exist long as a nation", which, given the state of the constitution, was probably true. If there was constant arguing between state and federal government, there would have been practically no way for the political system of America to move forward.

James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay took it upon themselves to help America in making a new and stronger constitution. They wrote a series of 85 articles called "The Federalist" in order to ratify, or confirm, a new constitution. James Madison was in favor of the federal government being in supreme power, which meant that there would be smaller community forms of government as well as a reigning national government. Alexander Hamilton, however, wanted the states to disappear. It was a "take it or leave it" decision. There would be no negotiating involved with this decision. The federalist had to choose between staying united or complete disbandment. There were pros and cons to both having the states stay together as a united nation as well as eradicating the states altogether. Either way, in my opinion, the nation could still be united as one. If the states did end up completely vanishing and all that was left was just "one giant America", everyone would be united as one, considering that some states have different views on various subjects such as abortion and gay marriage. No state laws would separate the the states via morality. If the states stayed and there were small local governments as well as a larger national government, everyone would be united under the supreme reigning government. But small republics in small areas seemed to work better for the well being of America. The Founders even created a bicameral legislature for two important reasons: to make sure that the states were represented efficiently and for the separation of powers. The complete eradication of the states seems and having everyone united under one single government sounded like a nice option, but what do I know? I'm not a politician. I would say that the people in charge of deciding whether the states would stay or not knew what they were doing, but we had just freed ourselves from England only years earlier, so they were clearly still trying to get a handle on how to run the government.

Presidential Debate Sept. 26th

The fact that Trump and Hillary both made it this far in the presidential campaign must mean that they are both fairly smart. During the presidential debate on September 26th 2016, both Trump and Hillary made some good points. While Trump owns many businesses that are worth great amounts of money, he has never really been a politician. Yes, he is very smart and knows how to run a business, but he doesn't necessarily know how to run an entire country. Hillary Clinton, however, has previously run for the position of president, so she seems like she knows what she's doing more so than Trump does. She seemed very prepared for the debate while Trump acted like he wasn't nearly as prepared as Hillary.

During the debate, the issue of gun control was brought up. Hillary said that people that are not American citizens as well as people who are on terrorist watch should not be allowed to buy guns, which is a good point that I agree with. Dangerous people should not be allowed to own a gun. Hillary said earlier in the debate that guns should be taken away from people who do not need them, such as civilians. Now that is something that I do not agree with. In my opinion, civilians should be allowed to carry a gun to protect themselves. Trump said that guns should be taken away not from everyone, but from dangerous people, such as gang members. Now that I agree with. I think that people should have the right to defend themselves. If a gun is necessary for that, the so be it.

Both Trump and Hillary said that America's economy is in the worst state it has been in since the Great Depression. I think that this is true. Our economy's current state is a wreck. Hillary believes that the wealthy people should help support the economy, which sounds an awful lot like welfare. Welfare is where people who make more money have to give some of their money to people who have no jobs. I do not agree with Hillary's belief. Just because people make more money than others does not mean that they should help out people who make less money by giving them "hand outs". Lazy people should not be given free money just because they do not want to get up and find a job. Those people should be provided with a job and not free money.

In addition to her statement about gun control, Hillary said that if a young black male were to do the same thing as a young white male, he would be more at risk of getting arrested or hurt. This is most definitely not the case. Race may still be an issue in our society today, but not everyone is a racist. Not everyone is going to hurt blacks and not every cop hates black people. Just because one cop hurts one black person doesn't make him a racist person. Cops aren't killing black people just because they are black. The fact that the person the cop killed is black is just a coincidence and not a race issue.

Sexual Assault Prevention Education

I read an article that talked about how schools are teaching their students about sexual assault prevention. They are teaching boys to not become assailants and teaching girls on how to not become a victim. Some schools are even teaching students as young as five and six years old about sexual assault prevention. While the article said that they don't use the same terms with the five and six year olds as they do with the older kids, it is still the same subject. I don't think that sexual assault prevention education should be taught to kids as young as five and six. Yes, they may use different words with the younger kids, but I think that the subject will make them scared of the real world and scared of any new person they come in contact with. The article mentioned that teaching people about sexual assault prevention when they reach college is a little late. I agree with that statement. Students should be taught about sexual assault prevention and how to avoid it when they reach their freshman year of high school, but no earlier than  seventh grade. 

More and more states are having their schools teach the students sexual assault prevention education. The total number of states that teach sexual assault prevention education reached 25 within the last year. It may seem like a good thing that more states are encouraging their schools to teach sexual assault prevention education, and it is a good thing. However, that is only half of America teaching kids about sexual assault prevention. The schools aren't even required to teach it. Sexual assault prevention education is merely encouraged rather than required, which I think is a mistake. Everyone should be informed of the dangers of sexual assault and how to prevent themselves from becoming a victim. 

A woman from Frederick County, Virginia named Kasie Hudson was upset that the school that her kids attend doesn't teach about sexual assault prevention, so she tried to teach her 13-year-old son about sexual assault prevention and consent for sex herself. She showed her son a video that used what I call "The Tea Method". Instead of asking for consent for sex, the video tells teenagers to pretend like they're asking someone if they'd like a cup of tea. If the person says yes, then give them the tea. If they say no, then don't give them the tea. Same thing goes for sex. If the person gives consent, then it's okay. If they don't, then leave them alone and respect their decision. The video also touched on the situation if someone were to "offer tea" to an unconscious person. 

The video said, "You just put the tea down. Unconscious people don't want tea!"

Hudson then later talked with her son about the Stanford swimmer who sexually assaulted an unconscious woman. Hudson stated that her son said, "If the person is passed out, they don't want tea!". That's when Hudson knew that the video had truly made an impression on her son. 

The "Sin Parade"

I read an article about how Gay Pride Festivals are growing in many ways, such as as the number of people attending and the number of festivals that take place. New York plays host to a huge gay pride festival in June known as “Gay Christmas”. People walk through the streets waving the gay pride flag and some even decorate their cars to look like the gay pride flag. Even countries such as Jamaica and Rwanda, which traditionally are homophobic countries, have started having their own gay pride festivals. Something that was once considered a detestable sin is now fully accepted almost to the point where it is actually encouraged. I'm sure that some of the people that go to the festivals were once anti-gay, but because of all the influence in the world around them, they were brainwashed to think that it is okay. However, it is far from okay. Gay couples that attend these festivals flaunt their sexuality like it is something to be worshiped. The gay lifestyle, especially when expressed in public, is a huge sin. Leviticus 18:22 says, "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable". Yes, these people are committing a great sin and they need to turn away from their evil ways, but we must speak the truth to them in a loving way.

 One of the drag queens that attends Gay Christmas that goes by the name of Kiki says, "The true meaning is gone. Now, it's just a party on wheels going down the street". He is referring to the fact that some people think that Gay Christmas has lost some of it's original meaning. To me, I think Kiki is speaking for the people who are in favor of the festival. When people who are against gay pride receive word about the festival, they probably don't think it has lost meaning. They probably think that it is just as sinful as before and that it is just confusing and brain-washing the rest of the world. That is what I believe. I believe that gay pride festivals are the devil's way of drawing people farther and farther away from Christ. 1 Peter 5:8 says, "Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour". We may not see it, but the devil is using multiple different methods to try and bring us over to his side. We need to continue to walk with God and pray for those who fall into the devil's various traps.



The article mentioned how during "Gay Christmas", and other gay pride festivals, drag queens walk through the streets. Men parade around dressed in women's clothing and people cheer them on, encouraging this behavior. Deuteronomy 22:5 says, "A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone ho does this". Many of the people attending the pride festivals and cheering on the drag queens may not realize that it is a sin. I in fact didn't know it was a sin until I read Deuteronomy 22:5. We were born as the gender God intended us to be and we shouldn't try to change that in any way.