Farewell: an ode to all those moving on (short story)

*This is an Iowa State Daily column by Ian Timberlake written for graduates*

Just past seven in the evening, the sun is making its departure and its warm rays blanket your body as your fingertips tickle the tall grass. Monstrous, white clouds pock the bluebird sky, casting intermittent shadows across rolling fields of flora swelling in the breeze.

You inhale just as a breeze blows by, taking in a thousand flowers and the scent of a spring morning rain. Dense woods in the distance percolate the soft soil you trod so lightly, barefoot, feeling the dirt, pebble, and grass groom your feet.

A lone cherry tree, atop a cresting hill of grass gives way to some vivid pink blossom with every firm breeze. You slowly, joyously, stroll through the grass and up the hill, making your way towards the cherry tree, not quite sure where you are or where you’re going. The hill stretches on upwards, seemingly growing, making you realize you misperceived the majesty and illusion of this hill; With every step, the cherry tree looms larger, broader.

On top and out of breath, you bask in the shade of this cherry tree, completely absorbed in its greatness. The wind now tests your foot and drowns out the song of birds from below. You place your hand up to the tree and look up, admiring its wonder, slowly strolling around its base grazing every aged crack juxtaposed with its smooth bark, stepping over the roots sinking deep into the Earth.

“Where am I?”

Stricken with a smell, your attention is stripped from the cherry tree as if pulled from a dream. A smell so distinct you can taste it under your tongue. It tastes rocky and bitter, like a dry sweat after an afternoon of yard-work.

“What is that?”

You dismiss it and lean your back up against the cherry tree, sliding gracefully down to a seated position to, only momentarily thereafter, have a cherry blossom fall to your lap.

You stare at it awhile, as if it was looking at you… looking at you with the same wonder you look at it. No judgement. No prejudice. No ridicule. And no expectations. Just inquisition. Just curiosity.

Eventually you pick up the cherry blossom, feeling its silky smooth pedals, its flutes with globules of pollen at the end, its delicacy more than a vase. Bringing the blossom up to your nose, you smell it, but it doesn’t matter because you’re already sitting under the greatest cherry tree of your life. What were you thinking you’d smell?

You remember hearing once that cherry blossoms were edible. Looking at the beautiful flower resting in the palm of your hand, you grimace. But…

“What the hell”, and you eat it. A light, and comfortable taste washes across your palate. Nothing too strong or specific, too crunchy or too soft. Smiling, a happy taste, if that means anything. You laugh.

A gust of wind blows through, you can feel your hair disarranging, but you don’t care… you get a quick shiver down your spine. You taste the bitter in the air again, almost thwarting the happiness of your recent cherry blossom. More inquisitive now, you look over your shoulder and around the tree trunk.

Now, with more attention paid and curiosity gathered you notice a slightly larger hill a good stroll away. This hill was just tall enough to block your view of what lay beyond, it was connected to the hill you sat on by a smooth, grassy loft.

“Hmm.”

Standing up, you look around, doing your best to admire where you are, and somehow, take-in your surroundings, and begin your stroll across the loft. slightly down and slightly up to the top of this bigger hill, still barefoot, still taking in deep breaths of flowers, still closing your eyes and admiring the sounds of the rushing wind over the faint bird chirps. The bitterness gets stronger, the wind grows to be confused with a rushing ocean.

You crest up and over this broad, grassy hill with the cherry blossom far to your back.

Awe struck, you say under your breath, “My… That’s a big ocean”.

You look down the now sandy hill at the long, white beach, and see a washed up rowboat, made of wood. It was of chipped white paint and faded red trimmings. In no time, you sink your feet into the warm sandy dune, towards the rowboat, saying nothing less than a smile.

Farewell.

 

22 Things Happy People Do Differently

Reblogged from Bucket List Publications:

This article is from Chiara Fucarino. Enjoy!

There are two types of people in the world: those who choose to be happy, and those who choose to be unhappy. Contrary to popular belief, happiness doesn’t come from fame, fortune, other people, or material possessions. Rather, it comes from within. The richest person in the world could be miserable while a homeless person could be right outside, smiling and content with their life.

Read more… 1,148 more words

Jurassic Park 3D: Play Smart with the Environment, Don’t Play God

*Iowa State Daily column by Ian Timberlake*

Oh how we humans like to be masters of our environment, controllers of life. If we can do something, we do it. Though it may sound cliche, just because we can do something, should we?

Within the last couple of decades our knowledge of DNA has increased tremendously. Today, we are at the point where we can nearly bring back that which does not exist.

Like extinct species, for example.

Jurassic Park 3D

With “Jurassic Park 3D” coming out, we can expect to see more entertained discussion of what it means to bring back extinct animals, not necessarily just for viewing pleasure. A scenario like “Jurassic Park” is not possible, as 65 million years is far too long to get a good DNA sample of any dinosaur, but it’s still interesting to contemplate.

Teams have attempted “de-extinction” before, and nearly succeeded. A team of French and Spanish scientists brought back an extinct Pyrenean ibex (goat) in 2003, only for it to die just minutes after birth and therefore go extinct again. The Pyrenean ibex only recently went extinct, in the late 1990s, with the last one found dead under a tree with a radio tracker around its neck. This animal went extinct because it was over-hunted.

Scientists all over the world are working toward turning science-fiction into science-fact. Is it right, though?

Earth is its own habitat and has its own life cycle. In human years, Earth would probably be in its late 40s and have much to offer in resources and knowledge. Over 98 percent of all species to have ever existed have gone extinct — billions of species. Who are we to say that we should “save the animals,” as the endangered species activists so loudly exclaim? And does it really matter if we bring back extinct species?

In the long run, no, it doesn’t remotely matter.

The real question is whether or not humans have had a major influence on the rate of extinction. I would argue we have had a massive influence in the last few hundred years.

You have heard it time and time again, drilled into your heads, that we are taking vital resources from major habitats of the world that end up hurting and removing species, be it altering the predator vs. prey ratios or removing habitats. I don’t need to tell you about humans damaging our lonely planet when you’re exposed to it everyday.

It’s one thing to try to bring back an animal we recently hunted extinct, and another thing to bring back animals like wooly mammoths, saber-toothed tigers and mastodons. These three species have been extinct from four to 12 thousand years —  long before humans were a global threat.

Bringing back a few extinct or endangered animals that disappeared due to humans probably won’t help much from an ecological point, if at all. And bringing back extinct animals from 10,000 years ago is just scientific fun. Good luck trying to throw them into an unadapted environment which they haven’t been a part of for millennia.

Taking animals out of extinction for research’s sake is fine and dandy. It might, after all, lead to the discovery of many new and interesting things. Taking animals out of extinction to try and solve the world of problems that humans have created is a lost cause. And doing so just so we can have an “extinct exhibit” at the zoo is moronic and beyond egocentric.

The only way we can help our planet is to bring balance to the environment by the way we use it. Species come and go the same way we are born and die, and the only thing we can do is be a part of that cycle, naturally.

Staying ahead of that cycle is preserving the existence of our own species, for now. But there needs to be a balance because whether we like it or not, no matter how ahead we are, we’re dependent on what lives and grows on Earth.

Some call de-extinction “playing God.” Paleontologist Michael Archer at the University of New South Wales says we’ve been playing God ever since we drove animals to extinction.

Regardless of whether we’re “playing God” or not, humans need to stop thinking that there will always be a remedial fix to the problems we create and instead focus on preventing problems from even occurring in the first place. “That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.”

 

Your tax dollars in military and education… where are they going? (Petition)

*Iowa State Daily column by Ian Timberlake*

In 1947 our national defense budget was below $100 billion. In 1952 it was nearly $500 billion, and ever since 1955, it has been on the incline from $225 billion. Excluding the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan, since 2001 our defense budget has gone up from $287 billion to $530 billion. These numbers have indeed been adjusted for inflation.

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, in 2012 the United States spent $711 billion in military. This accounts for 41 percent of the world’s military spending and is equivalent to five China defense budgets — the world’s second in military spending.

The only thing I will say about tax and budget cuts is that, regardless of administration, most of them are likened to cutting a lawn of grass at a slower rate than it grows back. Or maybe the more satisfying, trimming the foam off the beer.

Without contempt, I will be the first to opinionate that whomever the world superpower is, has a responsibility to act (at some regard) as a global justifier. A global hierarchy needs to exist in order to bay any international injustices. This does not mean, however, we need to micromanage all of Earth.

Since 1977, the defense budget has accounted for 41-65 percent of the total national budget, while the education budget has accounted for 3-6 percent — with the exception of the 2009 stimulus that briefly placed the number at 10 percent.

Obviously, the costs are not comparable. An Air Force B2 stealth bomber costs about one billion dollars, we own 21. That alone accounts for a third of the entire Department of Education budget in 2012. I can’t simply say we need to take money out of defense and put it in education, here’s why.

Data shows that the amount of money in a nation’s education budget does not correlate with the quality of education received. The United States is tied with Switzerland for having the highest annual spending per student, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Among the 31 industrialized nations, we place 15th in literacy, 23rd in math, and 17th in science. Where Switzerland is 17th, 7th, and 18th, respectively. The top nations in each category have a relatively low education expenditure. Finland, Japan, and Korea are on top of the respective literacy, math, and science charts.

These three nations are not far from the top in the other two categories, with Finland considered to be the global example in education, where teachers are high-status and require masters degrees. University is also free in Finland.

What needs to happen is a large percentage of our money needs to be put towards education reform. It’s shown that once the proper education plan is in place, top dollar is no longer required to operate at an effective rate.

A small percentage of the defense budget put towards education reform would not be difficult, our government just needs a plan and have the guts to do it. Here’s my proposition:

Grades K-12 need to be more difficult to pass by not “teaching to the test”. Private, religious, and boarding schools must maintain the minimum requirements of the public schools. Teachers need to be paid more and on performance — as well as easily fireable. Tenure needs to be more difficult to achieve, or flat-out removed. Curriculum needs to be more flexible and/or reevaluated. Education should be free until the age of 18. School years should be longer. More money should be awarded to schools with lower graduation rates. Classes need to be smaller and we should never have a more-supervisors-to-teachers ratio that currently exists.

Why revamp education?

Outside of maintaining the status quo of the success of humanity, improved education could fix many other areas of problem in our nation’s society — as speculated:

Crime rates would drop, prison costs would go down. Health would improve, cost of care would go down. Unplanned pregnancy would go down, children would be raised in more privileged homes. Economy would improve through better business and innovation.

We need to start placing money where it matters: Less in military; Less in prisons (where it costs more to bed an inmate than it does to send a student off to university); Less in foreign aid that includes nations, religious organizations, and major corporations. And into: Education reform, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Science Foundation — all of which contribute towards the advancement of education among other, smaller, organizations.

To do anything less would be subverting the human species one profound thought at a time. Here is a petition I wrote that calls the White House to make education reform a top-3 priority, please sign and share this as much as you care: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-education-reform-top-3-priority/j2g0NSG2 

Related articles

• China defense budget soars by 10.7% amid West’s concern (panarmenian.net)
• Burma Parliament Approves Controversial Defense Budget (irrawaddy.org)
• Experts Gather in New Orleans to Discuss Special Education Reform at Loyola University (prweb.com)

 

Is the world ready to cure cancer given our population and resource consumption?

*Iowa State Daily column by Ian Timberlake*

In 2008, there was a calculated estimate of 12.7 million new cancer cases along with 7.6 million cancer related deaths. The previous year, cancer accounted for about 13 percent of all global deaths with nearly 64 percent of all these deaths occurring in developed nations. With upwards of 70 conventionally named organs in the human body, there are over 200 different types of known cancer – all of which are only treatable, not curable.

The United Nations and US Census reports the global population in 2050 could be between 7.5-10.5 billion people and that our resource consumption could triple. The Worldwatch Institute said, “This surge in human numbers threatens to offset any savings in resource use from improved efficiency, as well as any gains in reducing per-capita consumption. Even if the average American eats 20 percent less meat in 2050 than in 2000, total U.S. meat consumption will be 5 million tons greater in 2050 due to population growth.”

United States projected population growth. (courtesy of United Nations)

To add, “Every day in 2003, some 11,000 more cars merged onto Chinese roads – 4 million new private cars during the year. Auto sales increased by 60 percent in 2002 and by more than 80 percent in the first half of 2003. If growth continues apace, 150 million cars could jam China’s streets by 2015 – 18 million more than were driven on U.S. streets and highways in 1999.”

Just touching the surface of our population growth and resource consumption, can we really afford to cure cancer with the current state of our global consumption?

United States projected female life expectancy (without a cancer cure).

Within the last year alone, researchers have made considerable steps towards finding a cure for cancer. As I see it, we are on the cusp of a legitimate cure for the second largest cause of death, just behind heart disease.

Abbreviated, these “considerable steps” include:

German Cancer Research Center and Heidelberg University Hospital find a weak point in cancerous cells that effectively kills the cells when the HDAC11 enzyme molecule is turned off.

Researchers at McMaster University have discovered a drug, thioridazine, that kills cancer stem cells without major side-effects.

Australian researchers have discovered the mechanism in which breast cancer cells avoid the immune system and develop within the body.

South Korean scientists in-lab tests were able to cause cancer cells to “self destruct” after being induced to specific magnetic fields.

Published in Nature Journal, researchers have engineered a safe virus that, when injected intravenously, will target only cancerous cells.

UCLA has shown cancerous cells can be fought by stimulating the immune system with a protein that targets tumors.

The list continues.

I don’t mean to suggest that we shouldn’t attempt to find a cure (personally, I’ve had family members affected by cancerous conditions, among other things). In fact, I suggest the opposite. But when the United States accounts for less than five percent of the global population and consume over one quarter of the world’s fuels, what sort of impact would the world see should nearly 13 percent of all global deaths become abated?

A one-stop cancer cure wouldn’t fix all cancerous-related problems overnight, but it would spread faster around the world than cancer spreads through the human body, which is immeasurably faster than the rate of global economic, social, and resource consumption changes.

Solving any of the world’s leading causes of death would induce a massive influx of global change. Cures for heart disease, HIV, respiratory, alzheimers, diabetes, nephrosis, or cancer are all contenders to change the world not just in a positive way, but in a very damaging way should we not be prepared for the change.

Our global society, specifically, the developed nations, should take resource consumption seriously even just on this basis let alone other reasons such as standard population growth, environmental impact, and cost.

In the documentary, Surviving Progress, one of the most inquisitive lines I have ever heard stated was, “If humans go extinct on this planet our epitaph on our gravestone is going to be ‘why.’”

I think Harvard social psychologist, Dan Gilbert, sums it up pretty well in his Ted Talk, “Our brains were evolved for a very different world than the one in which we are living. They were evolved for a world in which people lived in very small groups, rarely met anybody that was terribly different from themselves, had rather short lives, of which there were very few choices and the highest priority was to eat and mate today. We are the only species on this planet that has ever held its own fate in its hands. We have no significant predators, we are masters of our physical environment, things that normally cause other species to become extinct are no longer any threat to us. The only thing that can destroy us and doom us, are our own decisions. If we’re not here in 10,000 years, it’s going to be because we underestimated the odds of our future pains and overestimated the value of our present pleasures.”

Boy Scouts to rethink LGBT policy thanks to grassroots movement

*Iowa State Daily column by Ian Timberlake*

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which is the single largest contributor to the Boy Scouts of America, stated that if the Boy Scouts allowed homosexual members then the church would withdraw all financial support from the organization. Accordingly, making a business decision after receiving such pressure from a religious organization, the BSA complied.

This was a paragraph in a column I wrote last July after the Boy Scouts made a public reaffirmation of its anti-homosexual policy after a two year long internal debate. Two years of internal debate must show that they were conflicted to begin with.

Bill DeVos, an Eagle Scout and a Scoutmaster in upstate New York, shows his Eagle awards and a letter that he mailed to the Boy Scouts on Tuesday in protest over the organization’s policy banning gay Scouts and leaders. (Courtesy of Bill DeVos via NBCNews)

Earlier this week the Boy Scout organization has eaten the words it once so firmly stood by last July, saying they plan on revisiting the decision to not allow homosexuals in the organization, and instead leave it up to individual troops to decide.

Already pressure was mounting for the organization to rewrite its policy, at the same time held at gunpoint by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints over potential funding leading to the Boy Scout’s July decision.

Outside of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and other religious funding, there are many corporations that support the Boy Scouts. In the last several months, after the Boy Scout’s reaffirmation of its anti-gay policy, these corporations have also put some heat on the Boy Scouts claiming it violates their nondiscrimination policy.

With the Boy Scouts already on a membership decline over the last several years (20 percent over the last decade), a loss of support from its many corporate sponsors would be crippling, regardless if its top two contributors are the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and United Methodist church.

Last July I also wrote, “No law needs to change; the BSA is still completely protected by the Constitution, and that is the beauty of a free society. The change of becoming a less discriminating organization needs to happen internally; and this ruling, though pathetic, might just finally teeter the Boy Scouts towards a truly moralistic organization.”

In 2000, the Boy Scouts went all the way to the Supreme Court on the matter of discriminating against gays and the court ruled a split 5-4 in favor of the Boy Scouts of America. So long as the group is a not-for-profit, private organization, they can discriminate against whomever they choose.

Just this last May, Eagle Scout Zach Wahls of Iowa City, Iowa, turned in a petition containing over a quarter million signatures that called for the lifting of the gay ban. Since Wahls petition and the Boy Scouts’ failure to act upon it, many other online petitions began sprouting up, amounting to signatures in the millions.

Many major corporations have pulled their funding from the organization due to their continued, active discrimination. A few of these CEOs are taking an active effort in actually lifting the ban, including members on the actual BSA Board. The National Council Board includes CEOs of major international businesses. Randall Stephenson, CEO of AT&T, supports lifting the ban, and he is next in line to take control of the board.

At the same time, the ultimate reason why the Boy Scouts organization is so readily thinking about reversing its July reaffirmation soon, is thanks to the grassroots movement it forged itself, essentially digging their own grave.

Troops, leaders, parents, boys, civil rights advocates and Eagle Scouts such as myself caused an uproar. Be it total troop defiance of the policy or Eagle Scouts immolating their own rank in front of the council, all over America (and the world), the Boy Scouts of America National Council was marked as one of the greatest bigoted organizations of our time.

Though not a final decision, both President Barack Obama and his former competitor Mitt Romney stated the association should be all inclusive, mounting even more weight on the board’s shoulders. The board is said to meet and discuss next week.

Just as I concluded my July column, I will conclude this column with the posting of the Boy Scouts of America’s National Council mailing address. As stressed before, please voice your opinion to them, personally. A discriminant society is a primitive and amoral society.

Boy Scouts of America, National Council

1325 West Walnut Hill Lane

Irving, Texas 75015-2079

Pentagon lifts ban on women in combat

*Iowa State Daily column by Ian Timberlake*

Second in military chain of command to none other than POTUS himself, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has lifted the Pentagon ruling on women in combat. Specifically, Panetta lifted a ban that prevents women from taking part in ground combat positions.

Until now, and only recently, the closest women have been able to hold combat positions are in Air Force fighters and Navy ships. Congress will have thirty days to think on Panetta’s decision.

Just this past November, four military women along with the American Civil Liberties Union, sued Panetta and the Pentagon over the combat exclusion rule. They claimed that there were in fact women serving alongside men in Afghanistan and Iraq that were taking enemy fire as well as returning it but never being recognized for their combat efforts, and therefore, passed on promotions.

In just Afghanistan and Iraq, more than 900 women have been wounded in battle, accounting for about 2 percent of all Americans wounded in combat since 2001.

Nearly 15 percent of the U.S. Armed Forces is comprised of women. Previously, women were allowed to hold over 90 percent of all military positions, excluding infantry, artillery, armor, combat engineers, special forces and any position that has a high lack of privacy (e.g. submarines).

Possibly a post-Petraeus facelift, Panetta is giving the branches until January 2016 to implement the changes and come forward with any recommended exceptions, hinting at the possibility of continuing the exclusion of women in the special forces and/or infantry.

So the question remains, should women be allowed to serve in ground combat positions?

It depends.

As a former member of the Air Force ROTC, I can tell you that our branch (as well as all others) had a separate physical fitness standard for women. Push-ups, sit-ups and run times were markedly lower than that of men. If women were to take part in ground combat, you bet your ass I’d want her to be able to carry me out of a sticky situation if I were to get shot.

For this move towards equality to be granted, I deem it only obligatory that fitness standards become sexually ambiguous but equally difficult. Either that or we throw back to the time of segregated units — but instead of by race, by gender. Not an appealing thought.

Fitness is just the obvious point of argument. The greatest point of discussion is that of unity.

The single greatest catastrophe any military unit can obtain is disunity. The greatest reason for the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, as well as the policy barring women in combat (and African-Americans many years ago) was the possibility of creating disunity. Just because brass is ready for equality, does not mean the members of the military are ready for equality.

An example of this disunity is in the book “The Lonely Soldier: The Private War of Women Serving in Iraq” where Helen Benedict gives an investigative account of women’s struggles in the military as a result of being around men. She cites many testimonials as well as studies showing: 30 percent of military women are raped while serving, 71 percent are sexually assaulted and 90 percent are sexually harassed. Funded by the Department of Veteran Affairs, these numbers ruffled enough of the Department of Defense’s feathers to warrant an apathetic response.

Even if these numbers are by and large inaccurate, it’s still convincing enough that our military men are not prepared to cohesively work with women in a theater of combat — either that or women should be aware of this going in. Enforcing the law within the military is a necessity, though it often gets put on the back burner due to interests of wartime being placed at a higher priority.

On the flip side, in Israel, women were once allowed in close combat but are not anymore. The greatest reason was actually due to the fact that men reacted excessively protective, especially when a woman was wounded — so much so, it marred unit performance.

Don’t get me wrong, I believe women should take part in ground combat with the reservation that they meet the same standards as all other servicemen, but there is no doubt in my mind that this ruling will create disunity and tension among the ground troops in our present time. The women volunteering should be aware that it’ll take more than three years to adjust.

Normally, I would never make an argument that sways nay of equality, but in the interest of the lives of our soldiers and the security of America’s borders — testosterone and estrogen are difficult to mix and must be intensely scrutinized.

Iowa dental assistant fired for being “too attractive”, goes to Iowa Supreme Court

*Iowa State Daily column by Ian Timberlake*

Iowa Supreme Court ruled seven to zero that employers can fire employees on the grounds of “irresistible attraction” on Dec. 21, 2012.

Along with his wife, Fort Dodge Dentist James Knight claimed his dental assistant of 10 years, Melissa Nelson, was a threat to their marriage. Nelson, married with two kids, was accused of wearing “tight clothes” and being a sexual distraction. She wore a generic healthcare assistant uniform seen in most doctors’ offices and hospitals. Knight, ordered by his wife and counseled by pastor (he is a self-proclaimed deeply religious man), saw it fitting to terminate the “stellar” employee.

The Knights

The Nelsons

 

The Iowa high court said this was not a violation of the Civil Rights Act as the reasons for termination were not based on gender, but emotion. Now, Nelson works all but one day a week as a waitress.

Knight confided to Nelson’s husband that he feared his texts to her would develop into an affair. At the same time, Nelson, 21 years younger, claimed she never once had an attraction to Knight and looked at the middle-aged man as more of a father figure who happened to be her employer. Knight’s wife also worked with them and discovered the text messages in regards to family matters; soon after, she demanded he fire his dental assistant.

This is just another prime example of religious fear of lust followed by spousal jealousy, no matter how innocent or irrational.
Knight’s wife does not trust her husband, does not trust her ten-year fellow employee and does not trust the fact that she is a married mother. Knight does not trust the restraint of himself nor the composure of Nelson, should he put a move on her.

Nelson’s attorney, Paige Fiedler, made a comment that has made news across the globe, saying, “These judges sent a message to Iowa women that they don’t think men can be held responsible for their sexual desires and that Iowa women are the ones who have to monitor and control their bosses’ sexual desires. If they get out of hand, then the women can be legally fired for it.”

I completely agree with her attorney. The all-male high court virtually ruled unanimously that it is the responsibility of the employee (in this case, a woman) to be sure their associates and managers are not sexually attracted to them, for fear of losing their job — regardless of how great an employee they are.

A setback for Iowa, and gender rights in general, the case goes to show some people (high court included) can’t see the demonstrable contradiction to equality this ruling imposes.

The ruling technically complied with state law. An employer can avoid discrimination charges if family members are being favored. An employer can also terminate an employee if the business relationship causes tension in the family. Realistically, this situation applies even if the gender roles were reversed, or between people of the same sex.

Just as this case is a first for Iowa, I doubt we will see much of this unfold again, unless it is as an excuse to fire someone for reasons other than what is allowed under Iowa law. In Knight’s case, he sincerely believed that Nelson was a threat to his fidelity and marriage so long as she was employed.

Knight’s attorney, Stuart Cochrane, said, “While there was really no fault on the part of Mrs. Nelson, it was just as clear the decision to terminate her was not related to the fact that she was a woman. The motives behind Dr. Knight terminating Mrs. Nelson were quite clear: He did so to preserve his marriage. I don’t view this as a decision that was either pro-women or opposed to women rights at all. In my view, this was a decision that followed the appropriate case law.”

Sometimes the law isn’t complete or is flat out wrong as times change. Times have changed, and in the case of gender equality, they began to change a long time ago. I would understand it fitting for Nelson to be fired if actual flirtation and/or fornication took place, but they didn’t. The law is upholding the assumption the employer can’t control his sexual urges and penalizes the employee for that.
I’ll take it a step further and equate it with something made famous by Colorado Senate runner, Ken Buck, saying a raped woman had it coming with the attire she chose to wear.

Will the United States divide by secession?

*Iowa State Daily column by Ian Timberlake*

As some of you may have heard, eleven of the United States have presented enough signatures to The White House for the President to make an official declaration on the petition for secession. The White House allows anyone to submit a petition, but will only make an official response if the petition accrues greater than 25,000 signees. So far, the states: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Ohio, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas have crossed the given petition threshold — more are nearing.

Is it not obvious that with the exception of Ohio and Florida (barely), these are all red states, the color of the non-winner? After every presidential election there is always a backlash of resentment where secession petitions begin to appear — but this is the first time it has happened with such great magnitude as to require The White House to make an official statement on the matter.

As of November 26, over 918,000 total signatures have been included from all fifty states. Realistically, this isn’t a lot when you compare it to the 300 million populace, though, it is still more citizens than the residence of six individual states.

To be honest I find the signees of these petitions to be both lazy and quite frankly unappreciative. We live in a nation that has arguably the most beautifully written constitution and bill of rights — a near work of art. If secession signers want to leave so bad they have every right to move away, although, they already know this is a bad idea.

Why? Because they already know there isn’t another nation in the world that would both fit their needs as (in this case) a conservative and simultaneously give them opportunity to voice their secession opinion in a non-incriminating manner.

Firstly, nowhere in the constitution does it allow for a state to secede if they so choose. A new amendment would have to be made for a peaceful secession to take place. This requires a two-thirds vote by the House and Senate, followed by 38 of 50 state’s vote of approval.

Unlikely, I know.

Supreme Court Justice Scalia even wrote, “If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.” We’re technically a union, not a confederacy.

However, I still believe the right should be granted to a state. If this amendment existed, I would think at least a two-thirds state vote for secession would be adequate in determining state decision.

No state has come remotely close to even a one in ten margin. Texas has the greatest signee turnout and still only accounts for 0.45 percent of its population. Alaska hasn’t reached the 25,000 vote mark but sustains the highest percentage of signees at 1.7 percent. This is hardly a majority, let alone two-thirds.

If I were to continue down this long road of unlikelihood and entertain the thought of a state leaving the Union, there would be an unbelievable amount of obstacles to overcome in order to become an officially separate, yet functional nation.

Any federal jurisdiction, including military, would have to be absolved and/or relocated. A new constitution must be written. Police, fire, military, utilities, currency, tariffs and tax collectors, road crews, and legislators would have to be created and conformed to the new law of the land. To put it loosely, it would be chaos.

Still, if the citizens of a state understand this and wish to secede, more power to them I guess. If our nation went as far as to amend the constitution to allow for secession, and a state (or multiple) enacted that right, it might actually be mutually beneficially. They would be happy in getting what they wanted, and I would be happy to have let go a state that doesn’t wish to be a part of the United States. Trade will probably continue as normal.

This is of course if the citizens within the state don’t go into civil war over the vote for secession.

Every four years when a new president is elected we see a turnout of secession petitions. By in large I find this petition to be an accurate representation to the number of uninformed sore losers that exist within our country. Even though it is nonsensical and would require a massive amount of legislation, I still believe states should be given the right to secede, given overwhelming majority vote.

Let me know your thoughts on the matter and hit share if you like what you see.

Related articles

• Missouri secession petitions reach 33K signatures (midwestdemocracy.com)
• Secession- Is it Legal or Practical? (ellynbaker.wordpress.com)
• New cry from some Obama foes: It’s time to secede (mcclatchydc.com)

The implications of first contact with aliens

*Iowa State Daily column by Ian Timberlake*

The universe in its grandeur is of an uncertain, possibly infinite size. Our universe is, at a minimum, 92 billion light-years in diameter. Alpha Centauri is our closest star system, at a distance of 4.25 light-years. Flying at the speed of light, 186,282 miles per second (yes, per second), it would take 92 billion and 4.25 years to travel those respective distances. The fastest humans have ever travelled is just a few thousandths of a percent of the speed of light.

As far as we know, it is impossible to travel as fast or faster than the speed of light, unless we find a way to alter space. Even at four times the speed of light, it would take a year to get to Alpha Centauri.

This in mind, it can be safely stated that any extraterrestrial life to come and visit us would likely be of supreme technological advancement and have just come to rest after an incredibly long journey — even if they were to come from the nearest star system, Alpha Centauri. The technological difference between humans and an alien species visiting us would be likened to us traveling to the moons of Jupiter and finding bacteria.

Hypothetically speaking, if the moons of Jupiter did in fact carry extraterrestrial bacteria, do you think that would stop us from harvesting resources from it that we have already expunged on Earth?

Discovering extraterrestrial life would be the single greatest discovery in human history, and probably the greatest we would ever make, aside from answering the question as to why we are here to begin with. I still don’t believe this would prevent us from harvesting resources of a planet/moon that contains life, given we were in need of those resources.

Now imagine the reasons for an alien species to arrive at Earth in the first place. I can really only think of two possible reasons. The first, they have discovered we are an inhabited planet and are their first contact as well, or, they are traveling throughout the universe in search of resources to continue their own existence.

Friends of mine have argued that these aliens might be supremely benevolent and have traveled great distance for the sake of friendship or even enlightenment. While I will entertain that possibility and not throw it out the window, the likelihood of that being the case is probably significantly less than the first two reasons I proposed.

In either of the two cases I gave above, it would be a bad day for Earth and its humanity if we were visited by extraterrestrials.

It is well known that creatures higher on the food chain, and with more brain power, require more energy and resources to function. The same will likely be true for an advanced alien species. Even if they have mastered renewable energy, it is still impossible to get a 100 percent return in energy. We would be decimated if aliens came for our resources. Whether they killed us first or simply took the resources, we would barely survive, if not die off completely.

An alien species that visits us because we are their first contact is likely going to wind up examining us like test subjects — and no, I don’t mean the anal probing kind. As stated above, it would probably be similar to my example of us finding bacteria on another world. Our likely intelligence difference to these visiting extraterrestrials is well compared by astrophysicist, Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson, when he says, “We would be drooling, blithering idiots in their presence… Quantum mechanics would be intuited by their toddlers the way we intuit pasta collages.”

Tyson also suggests that we would be so insignificant in the presence of extraterrestrials this advanced that they might even fly on by without a care in the world (or in this case the universe), humans being none the wiser to their existence.

Regardless, I think I could safely say that I would prefer to be the ones to do the finding as opposed to the other way around.