Teach Kids the Facts

As the state of Texas is preparing to select the biology textbooks the state will use for the next decade, a lot of controversy is being created over what should be in those textbooks.  As stated in this article, there is a lot of debate on whether the schools should teach evolution, creation science, or a combination of the two.

Creation science is the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.  The problem with teaching creation science is that it is mainly a religious belief, and I do not believe religious beliefs should ever be taught as facts in public schools.

In this particular instance, I think the people in charge need to put aside their personal beliefs and realize what makes sense.  Just because you believe in creationism, or evolution, or anything else does not mean that the students in your state should believe that same thing as you.  The job of schools is to educate the students on the proven facts, and not skew facts with their personal opinions.  Opinions are personal after all, so they should be made the individual students, and not the people teaching them.

Could you imagine if you came to class one day and your teacher proceeded to explain to you that 9/11 was an inside job, staged by President Bush in order to get the American people to support the war effort, as if those were the facts?  This is why the schools should simply teach the facts as facts, and teach theories as theories.  What would make most sense would be for the schools to present the scientific evidence we have to support evolution, as well as the gaps in the evidence we have, and also teach that creation science is another popular theory.

Do you think schools should decide what particular ideas to present to its students?  Do you think religious concepts even belong in public schools?

Bombs Away

The bombs dropped over North Carolina were 260 times as powerful than those dropped in Japan

In light of the recent happenings in Syria going on for the last month or so, the topic of nuclear weapons has come up a lot recently.  This past Friday, September 20, investigative journalist Eric Schlosser obtained a document that sheds light on what could have been the biggest catastrophe to ever strike this country.  The article from The Guardian can be found here.

To summarize, Schlosser found that two nuclear weapons were accidentally dropped over North Carolina in 1961 during a routine fly over of the east coast by the U.S. Air Force.  In one of the bombs, three of the four safety mechanisms to prevent accidental detonation failed.  The only thing standing in the way of nuclear disaster was a "vulnerable", low-voltage switch.  The fallout of the explosion would have reached New York City, Philadelphia, Washington D.C., and Baltimore.  Clearly, this would have killed millions of people in the immediate aftermath of the explosion, and would have caused major health and economic problems even to this day.

The uncovering of this near catastrophe brings to light the greater issue of why we even have these things in the first place.  In my opinion, every single nuclear weapon that exists in every country needs to be destroyed.  There is no practical purpose for this weapon, and the use of it in any war could very likely lead to a worldwide nuclear shootout that would result in the destruction of the entire planet.

While I do not know about international laws and policies to come up with specifics, there needs to be a secure way in which everyone can destroy their nuclear arsenals, and in a way where we can be sure that no countries are secretly keeping them.  Also, it should become legal for the U.N. to destroy any facility in any country that is found to be used for the production or storage of nuclear arms.

Even though these weapons were created to protect us, I fear that in actuality they may end up doing the exact opposite.  The risks are too high, and these weapons are to powerful to even be in existence.  Do you think that the nuclear bomb should be banned worldwide?  How do you think we could ban them effectively?

Taking Advantage of the Athlete$

In the most recent issue of Time Magazine, Texas A&M football star Johnny Manziel appeared on the cover, which you can view here.  But, if he wants to sell autographed copies of the cover to his biggest fans, the NCAA will not allow it.  Why?

Manziel makes "money-making" hand gesture during A&M's season opener

This debate has gone on for decades, and was brought to national attention when University of Michigan's "Fab Five" made it to the Final Four in 1991.  During the season, stores across Michigan and the country were selling t-shirts with the players' names and faces on it, yet the players were not receiving a dime.  This theme has continued to grow and spin out of control as colleges nationwide makes millions of dollars off the work of their students, and the only money these students can receive is scholarship money.

This summer, the NCAA investigated allegations that Manziel was paid to sign autographs on multiple occasions, which is a clear violation of the NCAA's rules.  After a long investigation, the NCAA did not find a lot of evidence, therefore Manziel was only suspended for the first half of their first game against Rice.  But the pressing question is why Johnny Manziel and college athletes across nation aren't allowed to make money off of their own celebrity status.  Most of the athletes in college will never play professionally, so this is probably the most valuable they will ever be in their lives.  For instance, Manziel won the Heisman Trophy last season as college football's best player, yet  he still does not project to be a successful NFL quarterback.  He may spend four or five years in the league, and then could become employed.  So imagine how athletes with no possibility of any professional sports career feel when they are putting in over 50 hours a week for their team, but their success only results in millions for the universities, and nothing for themselves.

I believe that college athletes should be able to make money off of their own "celebrity", but should not be paid by colleges to play for their school.  For example, athletes should be able to receive money for autographs, endorsements, television appearances, apparel sales, and such.  This makes perfect sense because the money is not coming from the universities, and the players are making money off of their names, not the universities' names.  Obviously, I do not think that players should be paid for playing from colleges because then it would become a bidding war for the best high school players, and the whole college sports scene would be tarnished.

So I say let Manziel and the others capitalize on a time in their lives where they will never be more valuable, and the NCAA should do this sooner rather than later.

What do you think about college athletes being paid?  Do you think the universities should be able to pay them?  Should they be able to make money off of their celebrity?  Or do you think the rules should remain the same, and athletes should receive no money?