The New Middle East

            “It’s a brave new world out there”. While the quote is immensely overused and exploited, it holds true too often to not apply it. The quote is now appropriate for describing the Middle East. In the last decade or so, regimes have been toppling and rising at an extraordinary rate. Iraq, Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt have all seen the fall of long running dictators. Civil wars now are now being waged in Syria and Iraq as violence in Libya grows. The whole region is almost completely changed from what it was in 2003.

            One effect of this change has been the shifting of priorities. As tempering Islamic fundamentalism and creating stability have become more necessary, directing anger and violence against Israel has become less and less appealing.

            Any why shouldn’t it? While directing national anger and religious fervor against Israel promised less criticism of the national government, it drained the treasuries and economies of struggling nations. Besides, the notion of what should happen to Israel matters little to militants fighting civil wars in Iraq and Syria or those seeking to establish their base of power in Libya.

            As the conflict in Gaza seems to be without end, it has been interesting to see that some nations are not necessarily siding with Israel, but share their desire to crush Hamas. In this new Middle East, whether due to the divide between Sunni and Shia, fundamentalist and moderate, Wahhabi and western, there is a need for new political allegiance.

The War of Attrition: Hamas's Goals

            The conflict in Gaza has taken on an even worse and much direr condition. As Israel has begun a series of aerial bombing campaigns in order to destroy Hamas’s rockets and tunnels, the little infrastructure that Palestine has is being erased. This comes from a military need to destroy Hamas’s attempts to hide their military bases and tunnels amongst civilian homes.

            While I regret, as I am sure many Israeli soldiers do as well, that they must target areas with high civilian populations, Hamas holds primary responsibility for this conflict and for the civilian casualties. In essence, Hamas is hoping for a war of attrition on its own people. As more civilians die, the criticism against Israel grows. As more homes and schools are destroyed, Hamas gains more support.

            It is strange to see that in the course of war, a group would want their own people to suffer and die. However, Hamas is not an ordinary political actor or state. It is a terrorist organization, one that has been targeting Israelis for years with rockets and has been attempting to get Israel to respond with military strikes. It is an instigator and is not helpful for developing a solution to the conflict.

            In order for there to be peace, there must be a strengthening and rise of the moderates within the Gaza Strip who speak for the Palestinian people. Israel must do more than weaken Hamas, it must show the world what Hamas really is and the alternatives to their ideals.

Gaza Conflict: Misinformation and Fear

            It’s been nearly a week since the beginning of Israel’s ground incursion into the Gaza Strip. Over 1000 Palestinians have died (the vast majority being civilians) and around 50 Israeli soldiers have been killed. As accusations fly from both Hamas and Israel about who is offering and violating a ceasefire, it is important to understand the primary factors driving the conflict.

            One is misinformation. The Palestinian people may seem resolutely against Israel and even against Jews but this is not the truth. The truth is that most Palestinians simply want to live better (better access to food, water, shelter) and an end to the violence. Unfortunately, poverty and violence only seem to produce more poverty and more violence. So with the current invasion, it is unlikely that the Palestinian people will be more inclined to throw out Hamas and welcome more Israeli intervention.

            Misinformation also spreads around the west. A constant article that has popped up on my news feed has been one that counts the number of dead Israeli and Palestinian children and then uses it as a basis to claim that Israel is wrong. This idea makes little to no sense. First, it is common that the region which gets invaded suffers more casualties and more child deaths. Second, Hamas has reportedly been making sure that Palestinian children remain at sites that will be targeted by the Israeli military. Finally, the number of casualties is never a basis for who is just or right in a conflict.

            There is another factor at work: fear. For many Israelis, they see themselves as surrounded by enemies (Iran, Islamic fundamentalists in Iraq and Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas) that have claimed they are dedicated to the destruction of Israel. It is of no mystery why many Israelis would feel that a strong response to aggression is necessary. When they hear of dead Israeli teens or rockets, they don’t think of the minimal scale of the violence but rather of the possibility of threats to their nation and Jews in general.

            Fear also reaches across to the west. As a younger generation, I often try to see issue from the Palestinian side and from the view of those protesting against Israel. The older generation, I am sorry to say, is unable and unwilling to do so. When I talk with other Jewish people who are much older than I am (I am 20 right now so that includes a lot of people), they will constantly label the protesters as “hidden anti-Semites” who are upset at the idea that Jews can actually stand up for themselves. They will also simply claim that Hamas is “dedicated to erasing Israel and killing Israelis” and so this justifies any act of war.

            The truth hurts in this argument as it cuts through the fear. The reality is that the vast majority of those supporting the Palestinians in the west are not anti-Semitic. They have nothing against Jews and would probably have nothing against Israel if not for the situation. I have grown up with many people who will post pro-Palestinian messages. I know them, they may be misinformed but they are not anti-Semitic. It is time that we identify the difference. There may always be a knee-jerk reaction when someone who is Jewish hears someone criticizing Israel. And with good reason, Jews have been persecuted and discriminated against for a long time.

            But we must separate anti-Semitism from being anti-Israeli policy. They are two separate issues and two separate frames of mind.

Market Twists and Economic Turns: Where We are Headed

            To most people residing in the United States, today did not seem like a significant change in the market and economic for our country. The Dow and other indicators may break even give or take a few points each way. Unemployment reports have stayed the same too. So what is really occurring under the guise of the status quo?

            Everything! As the market seems placated, the stocks and different companies are not. The earning reports have revealed a systematic change in the way American companies do business. Tech firms such as Facebook and IBM have been ruling the day as GM and Caterpillar have fledged amongst recalls and declining revenue.

            The fact is that this pattern is truly representative of our future economy. It will not be so reliant on car manufacturing or heavy industry. Rather, it will be based on technological services which we can provide. Instead of fighting this trend and trying to retain our manufacturing base through tariffs and quotas, we should accept and embrace our new position.

            As Facebook and IBM lead the way in determining niches which our economy can fill, we would do well to fill them quickly and to become the best at filling them. Otherwise, someone else will and we will be stuck clinging to declining revenues and falling industries.

The ObamaCare set back and the Crisis of Federalism/Division

            The recent ruling by the Court of Appeals has attempted to nullify some of Obama care by restricting the subsidies that can be offered to people using the healthcare.gov site. The ruling is a display of the anti-federal government feeling that has been a burden on this nation since the Nixon years.

            As citizens, most Americans have little faith in their government to solve problems or find practical solutions. The ideology that has predominated most Americans, many of us younger ones from birth, is that the government is a massive bureaucracy that tons of money and only is successful at helping corporate executives but cannot deal with public issues. While some of this may hold true, the federal government is usually the best and only source of solutions for problems such as the lack of affordable health care.

            I am not against criticizing the federal government. I believe that it in a democracy, it is crucial that there are voices of dissent. But the dissent should be factual, intelligent, and should acknowledge the shortfalls of alternatives. Many people want either the states or private companies to solve the issues. However, the private companies act not in the interest of the public, but in the interest of profit. The states, constricted by their desire to balance their budget, will often cut off aid to the poorest people.

            It is time that we realize that although we are the United States of America, we are one country. We must be unified under a centralized government that has the power to better peoples’ lives.

The Gaza Invasion: Why Neither Side is Right

            The Invasion of the Gaza Strip is well under way and as anyone who has studied warfare would expect, the casualty rates are rising quickly. This battle between Hamas and Israel takes on a dangerous format as the war becomes misconstrued. Misconceptions flare up and create a lack of moderation on both sides.

            On the Israeli side, many within the nation and outside the country view this is a battle for the sanctity of a Jewish homeland. They see Hamas’s rocket attacks as an attack on the Jewish people that must be responded to since past terrorism against Jews often were ignored. Many Jews in the United States, including me, share an affinity with Israel in that it is a country where Jews can be guaranteed protection against discrimination after so much history of anti-Semitism.

            But this ideology fails to recognize the very nature of the conflict, which is territorial and not religious. Hamas gained power by asserting its strong stance against Israeli incursions into Palestinian territory. For the people of the Gaza Strip, their land is small and they desire some form of self-representation. To view this as a purely religious conflict is to forget that the Palestinian people are also being discriminated against.

            On the Palestinian side, there is often great condemnation of Israel for its military actions. But there is not one country that would not have done the same if it suffered from repeated rocket attacks aimed at its civilians. For the Palestinians, the issue is one that has plagued impoverished rebels forever. When suffering from discrimination and poverty, they turn to military solutions which often fail and only incite more anger.

            There are also the pro-Palestinian protesters that are hard at work within the United States. Many of them are reasonable and simply disagree with Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. However, many would need to read up on history and change their rhetoric. An example is from a protester who, when prompted to give his reasons for protesting, claimed that “Jews should know better than to discriminate”. Now, this may not sound anti-Semitic or even wrong to many people. But it can definitely sound that way to someone who is Jewish.

            So amongst the protesters who claim that Israel practices Apartheid and that Israel maybe should not even exist, there are some reasonable people. Amongst the protesters who point to pictures of the three dead Israeli teens as if it could justify any action taken, there are some reasonable people. But those people need to speak up, and the others should learn more about international relations and other points of views.

The Malaysian Airlines Flight Tragedy

            The shooting down of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 and the death of approximately 298 people should be more than a “wake-up call” for many. As conflicts begin, the news seems to take an interest and then abandon the story as soon as something new comes along. This was true of conflict in Eastern Ukraine as the media abandoned the story and many Americans seemed unwilling to even care about events across the sea.

            The vehement political and geopolitical isolation that most Americans practice is not only horribly terrifying (for us as a democracy), but also allows further escalation of conflicts. As pro-Russian separatists have been waging a deadly fight against the Ukrainian government, they have targeted more than just military targets. This massive destruction of life is only a more exacerbated instance of this disregard for human life.

            But this is not anything new. In conflicts around the world (Syria, Iraq, Gaza, Afghanistan, across Central Africa, and now in the Ukraine), war leads to the death of innocent civilians. And yet Americans find themselves in the precarious position of caring little about what happens. More would be more concerned about the new episode of “Two Broke Girls” than about the conflict in Ukraine. Even after this tragedy, most will return to thinking the world has not changed.

            The opposite of this feeling is the vehement and irrational desire for vengeance when this happens to Americans. If the plane had been a Delta Flight out of the United States, people would be protesting for the United States to send troops. Some would even suggest declaring war on Russia as it backs the rebels with weapons and funds. But this feeling is even more dangerous than the ignorance as it feeds into war and violence like oil gasoline into a fire pit.

            If anything should be learned from this tragedy, it is that war causes death, destruction, and horrors. Our natural desire should be for wars to end, no matter who they involve and where they are. We must find a balance between the ignorance that now overwhelms us and will reveal itself in the near future (one week or so) and our desire to police the world.

The Conflict in Gaza and the Horror of the Future

            Sometimes, there seems to be no solution or way to obtain a better future. For the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the Gaza Strip, the situation appears dismal at best. After the revelation that three missing Israeli teens had been killed, the Israeli military (and many rogue civilians) took matters into their own hands. A series of revenge killings led to Hamas’s decision to launch multiple rockets into Israel in retaliation for the persecution of Palestinians.

            The Israeli governments finds itself between two ferocious waves. On the one hand, many in Israel are calling for a ground invasion of the Gaza Strip in order to remove the threat of Hamas and strengthen Fatah (who they see as more secular and less radical). The other wave is what I call the Horror of the Future which is what “really” will happen if they go through with the invasion.

            A ground invasion of the Gaza Strip will do anything but weaken Hamas. Hamas will most likely be emboldened and be seen as the defender of the Palestinian people. It will gain political strength and military recruits even as Israeli forces destroy their rocket sites. World condemnation, as always, will follow and will restrict Israel’s diplomatic options and will further strain its relationships with the new governments of the Middle East.

            The reality is hard to face. While it may be just to invade the Gaza Strip in order to defend Israeli civilians, it will not result in a better situation once the invasion is over. The Palestinian people will be angered. The Muslim nations of the Middle East will decry the invasion as persecution and will gain money and followers against Israel. As hard as it is to face, for Israel to assert its national interests will actually go against its national interests.

The Real "Strain": The threat of chemical warfare

            While many tuned into see the premiere of FX’s new (probably amazing) show “The Strain”, there were other things that passed unnoticed. Many look upon the show and view the danger as something unthinkable, something that would never happen to them but they can be scared by the show nonetheless.

            For many people, the threat of biological or chemical weapons is not restricted to a television show. The use of chemical weapons on civilians and opposition forces in Syria led to a call for international intervention that bordered on sending in U.S forces. The threat worked and Syria’s stockpile of chemical weapons has been virtually eliminated.

            But what about the other stockpiles around the world? Russia, inheriting its stockpile from the Soviet Union, still retains tens of thousands of tons of biological and chemical weapons (though much less than at the height of the Cold War). The U.S holds a similar stockpile and many countries in conflict areas such as Israel and Pakistan are believed to hold these as well.

            For the most part, nations have agreed to ban the use of chemical and biological weapons. After the horrors of WW1, nations have adhered to this virtual ban because they fear the repercussions and the consequences. An invading army could use biological weapons to eliminate the people of the invaded country. But most leaders fear what would come of it, as there is very little ability to predict or contain the results.

            So when you watch the next episode of The Strain, remember that one of the main reasons this did not occur in reality is not because the weapons do not exist, but because they are so dangerous and unpredictable that Hitler and Stalin were against using them against each other.

The Palestinian Conflict: Against Everyone's Interests

            The renewed conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is nothing new nor is it surprising to those who have studied history. What is truly a shame is that after almost 70 years of conflict, the issue is no closer to being settled and continually takes the form of reciprocal violence.

            It is difficult to ascertain the true cause of this issue. Perhaps it was initially the reluctance of the Middle Eastern Muslims to accept a Jewish state. But this tension has only been exacerbated by hate and discrimination on both sides. Often, Jews (even in the US) see Israel as the only safe haven for Jews in the Middle Easy and detest the idea of ceding any territory to Muslims.

            The same emotions, in different terms, are often common amongst Middle Eastern Muslims who feel that Israel supplanted itself in Muslim land and displaced them from their homes. For Palestinians, their immediate surroundings and connections with those who have died or have been injured in the conflict spark outrage and anger. If one loses their friend or their friend loses a friend, we will probably see that person having a very aggressive view on the conflict.

            The problem is that amongst these aggressive views, cooler heads have not prevailed. The very nature of Israeli politics is centered on the issue of Palestine. The economy and the socio-economic welfare are crucial elements of every nation’s policy but for Israel they have been pushed aside. The only true way for there to be peace in the Middle East is for the people and the government of both Israel and Palestine to accept that peace and the stability it will bring are more important for strengthening their countries than vengeance.

The World Cup and World Politics

            It is no secret that FIFA is a dominant force on the world stage. Drawing in billions of viewers from across the world and able to enforce pretty much any conditions they want on the venues, FIFA has taken its place as a policy creator in some respects.

            The World Cup symbolizes this in every way. For Brazil, the World Cup brought a promise of international respect as a nation that was thoroughly developing and coming into its own. For FIFA, they were victorious at obtaining a much larger audience from developing nations and scored massive increases throughout South America.

            However the power of FIFA and how they use it bring into question the very nature of multinational corporations and organizations. How much power should they have over countries and is their ever increasing power a good or bad thing? People are familiar with Walmart’s and McDonald’s expansions across the world and how they are major deciders in national and international policy. The same is true for many mining corporations, oil corporations, and technological corporations that elicit beneficial conditions.

            Do these multinational corporations represent multinational interests? Or are they simply the expansion of a small group’s power? When one looks at FIFA, they may see an organization that represents the countries of the world and fair competition which is the epitome of what many of us desire. Or they may see an organization that enriches itself by attracting a greater audience but by giving little back to the communities which support it.

            It will take more time to tell how powerful FIFA truly is and whether this power is good or bad for us. I am not saying not to watch the World Cup. That would make me the biggest hypocrite. But I am saying that after the World Cup, think about what FIFA really did for Brazil and South America. Maybe it helped. Maybe it did not. That is why we must wait and see.

Brazil's Loss and the Devastating Revelations

            What happened yesterday within the span of two hours was ridiculous, ludicrous, hilarious for some, and disheartening for Brazilians. Their 7-1 loss was only made more humiliating by the 4 goals which occurred within about 6 minutes of each other. The Brazilian team left in shame, and Brazilians across the country began to renew the protests which had occurred before.

            The earlier protests of 2013, some of which continued into 2014 and during the world cup, came from Brazilians who were venting their frustration at the expenses of hosting the world cup. Almost $4 billion has been spent on stadium expenses and many of the local Brazilian vendors are being shut out of the increased commerce and consumer traffic that comes with hosting the World Cup.

            The protests are over the game, which will always stand as a great shame to the nation’s soccer team. But the issues that have fueled the protests are much more deep and difficult to solve. Millions of people live in the favelas and suffer from continuous poverty and lack of access to good water, food, and education. Many also suffer from even worse poverty in the rural areas. Crime is rampant and killings have become common amongst gangs in the favelas. The hosting of the world cup meant many things: national prestige, future investment, but also ignoring the needs of Brazilian citizens who are suffering.

            Brazil’s government must focus on improving the conditions of its many poor which populate the favelas. If they do not, I fear the anger that could be produced from an event worse than Tuesday’s soccer game.

Facebook's Experiments: Not the Evil You Think It Is

            Much has been said of the Facebook experiments that were conducted on the news feeds of hundreds of thousands of accounts. Most news reporters have vilified Facebook for committing this apparent act of “intrusion” even though it is their sight. In reality, all Facebook did was test what posts garnered the most attention to get people to stay on the site longer. In my opinion, it’s much less horrifying than when pop-up ads flood your screen to keep you from exiting a page.

            Facebook is attempting to get its users to stay on for longer, which is the goal of any major website. Analysts on television have repeatedly remarked that “Facebook serves the advertisers!” as if it was a previously unknown secret. The truth of the matter is that we know Facebook can be better in many ways. But it is pretty damn good for what we use it for. Any user can adjust their news feed to get different items. If I want to see more shared links and fewer likes, I can. Perhaps what is really passing over the minds of most news analysts is that Facebook did this experiment and changed the news feeds to give people more of what they want. So is it really so bad?

            Another major issue I have had with the criticism of Facebook is that is has primarily the older generations which have had their say on the issue and these news reporters have rarely brought in people in their 20’s or lower. It should be of no surprise that the older generations are more likely to look down on Facebook as a distraction from “real life” and a manipulator rather than as a website that caters to the desires of the consumer.

            So what is my issue with Facebook? I don’t want all of my shopping information popping up around Facebook and vice versa. Just because I like a certain athlete does not mean I want to buy his jersey for $300. Although, I see that for other people this relationship between Facebook and marketing can be advantageous.

            I like Facebook. I use it often and there is little else that could replace it. If my news feed was experimented on, I don’t believe it has affected me so much or has taken control of my user experience. I like controversial topics rather than little posts about food or fun things people do in the summer. If you think differently, you can change your news feed and get more of what you want. So for people who are complaining constantly about Facebook’s experiments: Is it really just that we are too lazy to adjust the settings and want Facebook to be perfect for us right off the bat?

This Country Needs Immigrants. Protesters....not so much

            Seeing the buses carrying hundreds of immigrants being turned away was disheartening to say the least. These immigrants have traveled often thousands of miles over land and have crossed tremendous barriers to arrive to the U.S for hope of a better life with economic security. However, they are not only met with resentment, but with a disturbing protests that further delays the handling process.

            In order to gain a better grasp on the flow of immigrants, the policy has adopted to bus the immigrants to temporary housing in Murrieta, California. However, when these tired immigrants (many of whom are alone and do not know of their immediate future) arrived in Murrieta they were turned away by protesters who espoused anti-immigrant messages and demanded the buses leave.

            Although many have painted this out to be a reasonable response against the lowering of property values or the injection of poverty, the reality is that many of these protesters (those on the anti-immigrant side) are irrational and illogical. They often chant “USA” as they feel that it somehow gives them an edge up in the immigration debate and believe that the immigrants are there to take over the community.

            These are people, like you and me, but who have suffered much more. Many come from South America and have traveled the better part of a year to enter Texas where they were actually met with less resistance. The anti-immigration protesters at Murrieta are not helping this country by rejecting the immigrants. They are not helping their town as it becomes painted out to be a harbor of racism and bigotry. Finally, they are certainly not helping the immigrants who were forced to be turned around only to be driven even further.

ISIS (Should stand for Instability)

            It is horribly unfortunate but I feel compelled to make another post about ISIS, the radical Islamic fundamentalist armed group that has taken huge swathes of land in both Syria and Iraq. Before, it looked as if they would take Baghdad and throw Iraq into a truly anarchic state. While that threat still looms, it has been subdued somewhat.

            Now we must look to ISIS’s actions in Syria which now threaten to cripple Syria’s oil industry. Syria’s civil war has destroyed much of the financial infrastructure and has plummeted many Syrians into poverty. For ISIS to take control of the largest oil field as they have done recently is nothing short of horrifying for Syrians and those residing in any other country. In short, the only thing ISIS can promise is instability and they have created just that.

            In Syria, ISIS has helped to weaken the opposition forces and has taken control of many areas in the north. ISIS asserts its control through executions and strong resistance of western and modernist influences. The areas which they control have seen large exoduses and the destruction of any semblance of a modern economy.

            In Iraq, ISIS hopes to bring about a religious civil war with the Sunnis eventually taking power back from Maliki’s government. Tens of thousands of Iraqi government troops have abandoned their posts as ISIS advanced and the country is stuck in a mire of religious fighting with armed groups paving their ways to major cities.

            Stopping ISIS is crucial not just because of the threat to the oil or to Baghdad, but because ISIS is the greatest threat to stability and peace in the Middle East as of now.

The World Cup and What It Can Teach All of Us

            The World Cup is not over, although by U.S standards it has ended in an amazing yet saddening defeat. In an amazing 17 minutes of absolutely fantastic soccer, the U.S team almost was able to fight back enough to go to penalty kicks. Unfortunately for us, Belgium was just a little too good for that to happen.

            Although our participation in the World Cup is over, the effect it had on our nation was startling. Soccer, a sport in which the US has shown historically little interest, has become a growing phenomenon. It may be due to immigration from soccer-avid nations (basically every country but the U.S) or it may be due to a new interest in international competition. However, it may be due to a desire to forget about the international worries facing our nation. This is a lesson that I believe the whole world can appreciate and has been.

            International sporting events, especially the Olympics and the World Cup, do a great job of bringing people together in the spirit of international competition and forgoing the desire to be hostile towards one another. For the US, the situation in Iraq and Syria drew both rational thinking and radical ideas that we are best left without considering. Amongst the World Cup, cooler heads prevailed as a small contingent of U.S forces has been sent and has somewhat stalled the ISIS advance.

            If there is ever a region that needs to funnel its hostilities into athletic competition, it is the Middle East! The area has been nothing short of a colossus of geopolitical events in the past 5 years. Iraq and Syria have ceased to be countries. Egypt has had two revolutions and is now in the midst of becoming just as authoritarian as before. Israel and Palestine are not any closer to peace and the spree of revenge killings and attacks are only furthering the violence.

            While I recognize that setting up some local sports matches won’t solve any of these problems, I do believe it will help for people from opposing sides to understand one another and recognize that violence may not be the answer.

The Hobby Lobby Decision and Why it is Against Women's Rights

            It truly saddens me to see that the Supreme Court permitted Hobby Lobby to restrict access to emergency contraception. Apparently, the owners of Hobby Lobby view emergency contraception as a type of abortion and therefore feel that they should not have to provide it. With the recent Supreme Court decision, personal ideals and contorted religious beliefs have trampled over sexual freedom and human rights.

            I believe that many of us understand that many are against abortion. I believe that some of us understand that some are against contraception. But I find it hard to believe that some can refuse to provide contraception because of their own religious beliefs. Providing contraception is a medical necessity and falls within the realm of providing healthcare and help. The owners of Hobby Lobby view the contraception as a religious sin. However, as it is not an illegal act, should they be allowed to restrict it?

            The desire of businesses to force their employees or others to accept and follow their beliefs is as ridiculous as it is against the foundation of liberty and freedom. If one is against emergency contraception, let them be against it and not take it. But if one is against contraception, it does not mean that they have the right to restrict the access to others. That would be similar to if I worked in a grocery store but refused to tell people where the meats are or sell meat to others because I am a vegetarian. I am, in fact, not a vegetarian. But the point is clear. I can chose not to eat meat. I can even ADVOCATE that others do the same. But I cannot make businesses stop selling meat or refuse to sell meat if I am employed there just because I don’t want them to.

            The far right has continuously pushed for controls on contraception, abortion, women’s rights, and sexual freedom. Much of the discussion in the 2012 primaries for the Republican Party was about the supposed moral decay that they believe is evident in the lack of marriage and the rise in sexual activity amongst younger people. It is not even the consequences that many claim they are against. The far right is against the very act of having sex before marriage and is against the idea behind contraception (that sex can be fun and for something else than making children).

            The Supreme Court has disappointed me as they seem to be moving against the American people, against common sense, and against reality. What does restricting contraception do for these people? Does it make the country more religious and the people less likely to have sex before marriage? No. Does it satisfy the religious desires of those who want to impose their beliefs on others? Yes. Does it result in more teen pregnancy and difficulties for my generation? You bet!