Sitting across the pews

My mom and dad met when they were 13 years old. They started dating at the age of 15. My dad was the oldest of seven and felt an immense amount of pressure of move out after graduation get married and settle down. A year after graduation the wedding bells rang and Angela Penterman became Angela Warta. My dad spent the next year of their marriage training to become a firefighter, having no money my mom worked 2 jobs and ran the house supporting them both in every was possible. One year later I was born. My parents rarely ever saw eachother because my dad was in Elkgrove or Southern California recieving his credentials and training. When I was born once again my mom was left at home by herself to care for now a newborn and bring in the income. When I reached the age of 11/2 years old my dad had finally established his career but my parents had become completely separate people. My dad admits to me to this day he still does not know who he is because he relied on my mom to guide him through life and show him which way he was supposed to go. My mom began the relationship holding the responsibility of the family on her shoulders and never let go allowing my dad to lead the homestead.
After purchasing property and building their own house my parents continued to have more children. My dad was always at work and was not involved in me and Keagan's lives till we were 12 and 10. At that point two more children were born, taking up the majority of my parents focus. The fighting began my freshman year of high school. I'm not talking about fighting like yelling I'm talking about the kind when things are thrown, and screaming fills house almost 24/7. My parents were done. My mom was done carrying the responsibility of the house on her shoulders, my dad didn't know who he was or who his children were and nobody was acting like a mature adult. My sophomore year of high school my dad moved out. Once again the pressure was put solely on my mom as she carried the weight of the family. You may tell me that God needed to be involved and they should've seeked the help of Christian counselors. To that I respond, my parents invested thousands of dollars in every counselor they could get their hands on. My parents didn't miss a Sunday of church even if it meant sitting across the pew from eachother. They eventually moved back in together my junior year and tried to work things out.
My senior year approached and my mom and two younger siblings moved out. For one semester I lived with my dad and brother. One thing important in the equation is that when my dad was born he was born with several birth defects. He was born and was not expected to live and if he did he would never be able to walk. His legs were completely crippled, with a clubbed foot. Through miracle after miracle and over 10 surgerys my dad to this day can walk and not only walk but is a fire captain. Last December my dad had several medical tests done on him. Through the medical tests they discovered that my dad also had some mental disabilities that were produced from the trauma in the womb. My dad suffered from a light form of Azburgers and ADD along with severe anxiety. Currently my dad has moved out and is living on his own.
That is my story. My parents refuse to divorce because of the fact that it is against the Bible. However my high school career was spent with them primarily separated. My parents were not ready to get married young. My dad didn't know who he was. My mom was not ready to hold the responsibility of a family on her shoulders at 19.
I refuse to quote the artical. I refuse to use scientific research. Each human is different, therefore statistics are invalid.
There CANNOT be a set age for one to get married. Marriage is compared to our relationship with Christ. If this is true, we all have our different walks and age when we begin our relaisonhip with Christ. The same is with marriage. There should not be a pressure from society on what age is the "correct" age to get married. That pressure is like the pressure from the church that they need to convert every "year one Sunday school student" into a Christian ASAP, it becomes a legalistic approach. My parents needed to figure out who they were outside of high school, my dad may have discovered his disabilities mentally if he had not clung to my mom for all support. I'm not saying they should have gotten married at 30, but a couple years would have done them better. To reiterize, one cannot put an age on marriage and it makes me so angry when I read articals stating "getting married young is better" "getting married older is better" NO it's the same thing as saying "becoming a Christian (the earlier the better)", "becomjng a Christian late in life is better". No one can Judge this or make the "right" decision". Divorce has nothing to do with what age you get married, late or early in life. Divorce has to do with the commitment that the couple has to the lord at whatever age they become one flesh.  Marriage is not for everyone. Marriage can be for the old. Marriage can be for the young. What's important is that when two people gather together they keep Christ at the center in stead of one of the spouses.
FYI (I love my parents and respect them immensely, I don't agree with all their descisions, but they are some of the most special and devoted people to the Lord. My dad has made extreme progress and someday God is going to use them in extreme ways)

Global warming and the economy

Extreme heat kills more Americans each year than hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and lightening combined. What if I told you this could be prevented by an awareness towards the true non-overdramatisized facts and figures concerning global warming. Global warming has been a controversial topic of discussion amoungst every social class throughout the  past thirty years. Conservatives treat global warming with the same rejection as an atheist towards a high power. On the other hand, liberals often use global warming as an economical advantage. Global warming is a complex issue because it has economical advantages and disadvantages, as well as varying opinions on severity and cause.
 Over the past century the advancement in technology in the form of medicine, machinery, computers and chemicals has invanced at a rate like never seen before in history. Science teaches us the importance of cause and effects and the importance in analyzing advancement in technology and it's effect on the earth. According to NASA " The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.". Global warming exists. To deny this represents a lack of education in science and history.

With that said, there are varying levels and definitions of global warming. Global warming must be looked at from a wholistic approach. The definition of global warming according to the dictionary is
"a gradual increase in the overall temperature of the earth's atmosphere generally attributed to the greenhouse effect caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, and other pollutants."

1. 
   So basically the scientific explanation for global warming is when the man made chemicals and fuels (mainly carbon
   dioxide)  are released into the air. When they are sitting in the air they absorb sunlight. That absorption of sunlight translates into heat, therefore creating global warming.

Over the last century more pollutants have been released than ever before in history due to the advancement in technology. How many things do you use a day that release chemicals that have been manufactured my man in some way or another (harmful or not).? Tractors, cars, motorcycles, factories, hairspray, weed killer, perstisides, exhaust and many more. In the United States fossil fuels are used to produce electricity, each year producing 2 billion tons of CO2. The use of transportation alone produces 1.7 billion tons of CO2. God created the earth to have a balance of chemicals. Over the last 50 years the tampering and reproduction of these chemicals has increased. To believe that this tampering and reproduction would have no effect or reaction to the natural balance God created would be to basically state that God didn't know what he was doing when he created the earth.


The economic benefits of global warming. What? There's benefits to global warming economically?!!! Yes of course, this is why the high class have benefitted so much from the awareness of global warming. Because of global warming there have been fewer winter deaths, an increase in crop production agriculturally, and lower energy costs. The increase of carbon dioxde will promote plant growth leading to prosperity in the agricultural industry as well as an increase in plant seasons.

There are also economical disadvantages. From 1980 to 2015 there have been an average of 10.8 billion lost in natural disasters which have supposably occurred because of the change in weather climate. You probabaly are still not believing that the weather climate has actually changed?
Take a look at these facts and figures collected by NASA over the last several decades.

•"Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.4"

• "All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.5 Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with 15 of the 16 warmest years on record occurring since 2001. The year 2015 was the first time the global average temperatures were 1 degree Celsius or more above the 1880-1899 average.6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.7"
•"Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent.12,13 This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.14,1"





Increased flooding, droughts and extreme weather conditions have effect of the ability to get clean water, therefore raising cost of water in many country's causing a more defined line between high and low class. The lack of access to clean water often promotes disease throughout the world.

In a final illustration I would like to compare global warming to mental health. Mental health is one of the most complex parts of us as individuals. Because mental health conditions aren't conditions we  can see a lot of times they go undiagnosed or ignored. Often certain chemicals in our brain God created for our need to survive go unused and therefore become imbalanced.. We have our nervous system and adrenaline there for use in what used to be daily intense survival scenarios. Nowadays staying alive is the least of an average humans concern. Ever wonder why so many people nowadays suffer from clinically diagnosed depression and anxiety? It is because the times have changed and the human race does not encounter the daily life crisis events it once did, so there is an access of unused chemicals that become imbalanced in the brain. The Earth is the same way, it has a balance of chemicals, as the economy grows we like to imitate these chemicals and overproduce them. Often this can be done in moderation with no adverse affect however it is unreasonable to expect the earth to be able to handle an abundance of varying unnatural levels without adverse effect. Overall, I do think global warming requires a balance. We cannot take a blind eye to science and ignore the overreproduction of carbon dioxide and other pollutants. But I do think many use global warming for their economic benefit.

An ordinary inauguration for an inordinary election

On January 7th, 1789 the nation faced its first ever inauguration. Everything was set in stone, the great George Washington was to become commander in chief of our nation. Despite the near perfect circumstances conflict still arouse. Moments before Washington was to be sworn into office organizers of the event discovered that there was no Bible on hand. A borrowed Bible was quickly placed under the hand of Washington and the first president was sworn in. 

Since the beginning of our nation the Inauguration has been the prime setting of conflict, crisis and mishaps. In 1829 the inauguration of Andrew Jackson could be described as nothing less than chaos. As described by a Washington Socialite “Ladies fainted, men were seen with bloody noses and such a scene of confusion took place as is impossible to describe.” The controversial evening concluded as Jackson was forced to jump out of a window to protect his life and fulfill his duty as the new man in office. President William Henry Harrison died 31 days after taking office because he caught a cold after the extreme weather during his inauguration. Vice President Andrew Johnson drank a few shots of whiskey before giving his speech at President Lincoln's inauguration. Lincoln was forced to sit in embarrassment as the drunk, newly inaugurated Vice President gave a twenty minute slurred speech at the inauguration of 1865. In 1873 the 100 canaries used for a performance at the inauguration of Ulysses S. Grant froze to death in their cages. The "bird incidents" don't stop there, in 1973 an "escapee" rooster interrupted a ball following the inauguration ceremony of President Richard Nixon. 

All of these historical stories can be looked back on in laughter and lessons learned for today's people. The peaceful transition of power has always and I repeat ALWAYS involved mishaps, accidents, brawls, violence, and bloopers. No inauguration has gone pristine. There will always be protest, wardrobe malfunctions and escapee roosters.

January 20th, 2017 the inauguration of Donald J. Trump. Performers refused to perform to show their support for "equality" and "nondiscrimination" but ended up showing disrespect to their country, and promoted discrimination against opposing views. Designers refused to contribute their specialization in trade to the Trump family's wardrobe, a perfect opportunity to leave a legacy in history. I believe the inauguration is not about one man. The inauguration is about our nation coming together under new leadership. I don't care if your candidate did not win if you want to promote a peaceful transition of power and you are a strong political figure you better show face at the inauguration. By not showing face you are making our nation about one man.  Yes, there were protests, riots, and violence. But were there is protest there is freedom.

Leading up to the inauguration. The media discussed the rather "small" crowd that would be present at the 2016 inauguration. I believe that this was another stance that a liberal media took in order to add an emphasis to the "horrid" event that was to occur to our nation. Sources from the White house state that the media downplayed the crowd in order to increase views and add a "dramatic flare" to what was presented as an elegant and serene event. 

I believe these next four years will keep our nation on the edge of their seats. People who never cared about politics will begin tuning into the news to watch our president. I think my generation will be more involved in politics than any other generation, because with a president like Donald J. Trump how can you not? Whether you agree or disagree you will want to know the latest news. It's like a new awakening. Everyone is beginning to be involved in politics. Now that politics is more common those who succeed in this new world of will have to be those who are educated in the history of our nation. Therefore, I would like to conclude with the fact that no, this was not an "out of the ordinary" inauguration. In comparison to past events, January 20th, 2016 went smoothly. Trump's speech was extremely presidential as he not once spoke of himself but rather added flares of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan's speeches. A summary of the speech could be described as power being given back to the people. 

  

"For too long, a small group in our nation's capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost. Washington flourished, but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered, but the jobs left and the factories closed. The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country. Their victories have not been your victories. Their triumphs have not been your triumphs. And while they celebrated in our nation's capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.

(APPLAUSE)

That all changes starting right here and right now because this moment is your moment, it belongs to you.

(APPLAUSE)

It belongs to everyone gathered here today and everyone watching all across America. This is your day. This is your celebration. And this, the United States of America, is your country.

(APPLAUSE)

What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people."

Adam Smith and Human Flourishing

The creation of America prevented the destruction of humanity. Its a bold thought. But as i look more into economics i begin to realize that without the building of our nation in the late 1700's economically the world would have self destructed if the weak economic patterns throughout the nations continued. Human Flourishing is critical for economical flourishing. Its like a math equation, without human flourishing one simply cannot achieve economic flourishing. Before the establishment of America the mindset of humanity was narrow-minded, thinking only of building wealth for one's self. This narrow mindset allowed the minority of the wealthy to get richer and the majority of the poor to get poorer. Adam Smith concluded that "The measure of the good society is thus at least the state of the worst off than of the well off".

Throughout Adam Smith's work one can formulate an opinion that Smith cared more for the well-being of people than the financial success of a nation. I think that's what made our nation so unique, for the first time in history leaders took a step back and evaluated the sanctity of life and the value behind human flourishing. A nation can be well off financially but if the people are not happy and in support of their nation the nation will fall. We need a society that supports the government, military and political figures in order to be the most successful nation to ever reign the earth.

I do believe Adam Smith creates a strong and valid economic moral to standby, however i think it needs to be take with balance. If the poor are consistently "catered" to, there begins to grow a lack of motivation for success. The rich will struggle to have the motivation to contribute to society because they have no incentive to, especially if all the benefits of their work drain directly down to the poor. The poor's motivation will also begin to die away if they can rely on the rich for support. In my opinion if the mass majority is poor a support for the middle class should be conducted. If the mass majority of a society is rich then the high class should be supported, but the poor should still be given opportunity to create for themselves a life in the high class through work and education. If the majority of the population is poor, the high class must still receive an incentive to stay wealthy and continue to work and produce because the product of their work and contribution will be greater than what the poor can contribute.

For example if i owned a dance studio. Lets say that out of 20 dancers 5 of the dancers (25%) were wealthy and parent's contributed financially to the dance studio. The other (75%) 15 dancers were low class and could barely afford to pay tuition. Now its time to hand out solos for a competition, if i give all the solos to the 5 high class dancers i will continue to be given donations to my business, but will loose the motivation in the 15 other low class dancers to improve their dance ability and pay the little tuition they can. Before i know it i will only have 5 dancers in my studio, the 5 wealthy dancers. Lets say i do the opposite and hand out the solos to only the low class dancers, and support the mass majority. By doing this i loose the financial support of the high class dancers and my business will collapse. Economically the wisest decision would be to hand out half of the solos to the high class dancers and half of the solos to the low class dancers. This will ensure financial stability and incentives for the dancers in each category to train harder.

Overall human flourishing takes precendance over all. Without humanity gaining compensation for the work put it, work will not be put out. And without work put out economically no society can flourish.Keeping the faith and passion of the people alive is the key to success. Yes, there will always be poor. Yes, there will always be a high class. It is the ability to be given a ladder to climb one's way up that determines human flourishment.

Globalization...The Measurement of Freedom

As we transition from government and politics to economics many may assume the discussions and areas of learning will evolve from the exciting controversy of moral viewpoints to the bland study of numbers and statistics. However, I believe economics is the backbone of political issues and in order to configure a well-rounded, educated opinion one must understand the number game behind the evolution of our world and nation.

Globalization has received a bad reputation, simply because of the fact that many are uneducated in the basics of economics."Globalization is the process in which people, ideas and goods spread throughout the world, spurring more interaction and integration between the world's cultures, governments and economies".

 The isolationist nation pictured in many minds is one of harmony and peace lacking the brutality of war. An isolationist nation will wrap a shield of protection around our moral beliefs, however economically could lead to our destruction. For example think of a soccer team. They have conditioned, practiced and even scrimmaged against themselves. They have the fastest runners, the strongest muscles, and some of the most intelligent thinkers. It's obvious they are the best team.

However when it comes time for games the coach sits them down and tells them, "I don't want you to get hurt and it's obvious your the best team out there so this season we are not going to face our opponents we are only going to play against ourselves". This would be foolish of the soccer team for several reasons. Number one, they will never truly know the strength or weakness of their own power if they do not interact with the other teams. Number two, they cannot continue to improve without unexpected challenges and obstacles. And last but not least they will never win championships by playing themselves. 

The same goes with our nation. Many despise globalization because they hate to see loved ones go over seas to fight a war "we are technically not involved in", or they hate being involved in foreign affairs because they simply "don't care" unless it has anything to do with them. Globalization is quite possibly one of the biggest examples of freedom.

For a nation to be truly successful it must operate naturally to human existence. For example, a successful nation would never put unnatural restraint upon a human life causing that individual poor quality of life. The natural response to human confinement is the arousal of rebellion, rebellion often leads to destruction of organizations such as a nation or an empire. To our advantage our nation was the first to be created allowing rebellion to take place without the disolvemment of the country.

As we begin economics I find myself referring back to many previous articals from government. Such as men's natural desire to work and produce. Rumi once said, “Everyone has been made for some particular work and the desire for that work has been put in every heart.” If one stops and ponders it why DO men work? Its a man and women's natural desire to produce. If a nation puts a barrier up against this natural desire it will go against human rights, create a confinement and result in a rebellion that is deathly to the life of our country. Globalization allows men to work and produce freely, shutting that down confines us just as the soccer team illustration demonstrates.

What's ironic is the same politicians who proclaim our freedom to sexuality, the killing of offspring, the removal or our right to bear arms and more want to take away our natural right to trade, work and produce. If our  country remains isolationist we will be fine, temporarily. However, we will not continue our reign as the wealthiest nations in the world. Over time other nations will rally together and our nation will be overtaken by the rest of the world. Our involvement in the community around us give us a foot in the door of every nation so that we can dictate the prosperity we will reap. Our sport team will never win championships if we only play ourselves.