Land Surveying: Various Aspects of the World’s Second Oldest Profession

Land Surveying: Various Aspects of the World’s Second Oldest Profession

Land surveying is defined as a method of scientifically and/or legally determining the location of points on the earth’s surface. It also includes establishing the distance between those points and the angles created by them. Often referred to as the world’s second-oldest profession, land surveying integrates elements of engineering, geometry, law, math, and physics. Legally, land surveying determines boundaries. Furthermore, it establishes where property lines begin and where they end. The accuracy of land boundaries depends on a society’s particular regard for the state, county, city, and private property line borders. (1)

Modern-day land surveyors use Global Positioning Systems (GPS) for accurate point positioning. GPS works through satellites that send signals to receivers kept on surveyors’ tripods. The data is then downloaded into computer software, allowing the surveyor to know the exact position of a point within the time span of a few minutes. (2)

There are several different types of land surveys. These surveys include:

Subdivision surveys: In subdivision surveys, parcels of lands are disassembled into several different units for the construction of new housing complexes. (3)

Site planning surveys: In order to make a site plan and to obtain required building permits, architects, as well as engineers, must create topographic surveys that identify elevation features within exceeding boundaries. (4)

Boundary surveys: A boundary survey determines property lines and defines land corners, as described in property deeds. Boundary surveys must be submitted to governmental offices before construction of any type is commenced. (5)

Topographical surveys: Topographical surveys encompass the identification of both manmade and natural characteristics on the land’s surface. These characteristics include, but are not limited to, buildings, fences, hills, ravines, streams, and trees. Topographic surveys denote the height, location, and size of these characteristics, including gradual changes in land’s elevation. This type of survey is used for design work and the proper division of land for auctions, estates, as well as the building of subdivisions. (6)

Cadastral survey: Cadastral surveys represent searches performed in the registry of public land records. (7)

ALTA surveys: An ALTA survey is a compilation of the various survey subtypes and adheres to the national requirements of the American Land Title Association as well as the National Society of Professional Surveyors. This type of survey is created to specifically satisfy the needs of corporations, lenders and title companies. Additionally, it is exclusively for the building of commercial properties. ALTA surveys contain all required, optional, and possible information that might be requested by entities benefiting from the survey. (8)

Historical documents claim that the ancient Egyptians, before the construction of the Great Pyramids, performed the first land surveys, as early as 3000 BC. The Greeks later developed the science of geometry and employed it in determining the precise division of land. Early surveyors within the American colonies include Peter Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson’s father, and the first President of the United States, George Washington. Contemporary land surveyors touch almost every aspect of our lives, from our homes to our workplaces, from our roads to our public parks. (9)

Modern-day land surveys include various aspects of engineering, geometry, law, mathematics, and physics. The various forms of land surveys, originating in Egypt and still applicable today, continue to impact nearly every corner of our lives. As time goes on, surveyors will remain relevant into the distant future.

If you are in need of a property survey, please contact Compton Surveying, Inc. in Chickamauga, GA at 706-375-3153.

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveying
  2. https://www.gps.gov/applications/survey/
  3. https://www.nationwidesurveying.biz/subdivision-surveys
  4. https://www.pointtopointsurvey.com/service/topographic-surveys/
  5. https://www.nationwidesurveying.biz/boundary-survey
  6. http://www.georgialandsurveying.com/residential-surveys/site-plan-redundant-b40/
  7. http://www.cadastral.com/
  8. http://www.northstareng.com/what-is-an-alta-survey/
  9. https://engineering.purdue.edu/~asm215/topics/history.html

Menstruation in Tudor Times

How did Tudor Women Cope with the Physical, Religious, and Moral Expectations?

It has been happening to women since the dawn of time and yet, during the Tudor age, society rarely spoke of it. Known as the monthly curse, coming of age, or period, menstruation has been referred to, across the ages, by many different terms. During this time in history, Christianity preached that a woman’s period existed as a punishment from God for Eve’s temptation in the Garden of Eden. Leviticus stated that a woman who menstruates is impure and unclean. As a result, the Church prohibited painkillers for menstrual pain relief, as women supposedly deserved to suffer the cramps and pains given to them by God. Additionally, the Church also declared that women should refrain from receiving Holy Communion during this bloody time. The Church expected women to do nothing but suffer during their “time of the month”.

Henry VIII’s first wife, Catherine of Aragon, suffered from inconsistent periods throughout her life. As a result, this fact combined with her apparent inability to deliver the King a healthy son, resulted in divorce and her untimely death, possibly brought on by deliberate poisoning. In this extremely sad case, her “faulty” reproductive system literally led to both her royal and actual downfall. However, rather than blaming her reproductive system, or the sperm of her husband, the Church, as well as her husband, blamed Catherine’s personal character and the existence of a previous marriage. These perceived moral downfalls led to her failures, and not the whims of mother nature, according to the Church and Tudor society.

The Tudor era consisted of a variety of wild and unsubstantiated claims regarding the blood of menstruation. For example, some individuals believed in the inherently dangerous and poisonous nature of women’s menstrual blood. Many believed that the absence of a bleeding womb could lead to the body becoming overrun with blood, potentially drowning the woman. Some believed that menstrual blood would cause harm to a man’s sexual member and also children conceived during menstruation would be born with red hair and suffer various deformities. While not everyone during these times held these nonsensical beliefs, they nevertheless publicly agreed with the primary viewpoint held by the Roman Catholic, and later the Anglican Church.

Thankfully, despite such orders from the Church, Tudor women often devised a variety of herbal remedies for the easement of pain. Such remedies included hot herbal baths, herbs placed into the vagina, and drinking herbs such as rue. These women, utilizing their cleverness, developed the first sort of “period” protection in the form of household rags made of cotton or wool bundled together and placed between the legs. Depending on a person’s status and access to such materials, Tudor women often washed and reused these rags. Unfortunately, there is little evidence to suggest what exactly held these cloths in place. However, it has been suggested that women of this age wore some form of girdle or rough underwear.

The onset of menstruation for many young women during the Tudor age consisted of the time when society acknowledged their transformation from young girls into womanhood. It is interesting to note that the age of consent for the time, approximately twelve to fourteen years of age, coincided with the average onset of menstruation.

Menstruation, although taboo during the Tudor age, nevertheless constituted a very common occurrence. Tudor society expected all females to get their periods, experience them regularly and to subsequently have the ability to conceive a healthy child. The inability to do so constituted, on the part of the woman, a serious religious and moral failure. Although rarely spoken of, the menstrual cycle, nevertheless, represented a very important part of Tudor society.

Deep Inside I Always Wanted Children

To Have Children Or Not To Have Children? That Is The Question.

Deep inside I always thought I wanted children…probably… eventually…possibly. When I graduated from college in the late 1990s, friends started having children while I remained happily unencumbered. Even after I married, our family planning consisted of not having children right away. And when I reached my late thirties–a time when many childless women become desperate for motherhood-I nevertheless did not feel like I was missing out on anything.

Today, more and more women are choosing not to have children, and while the stigma has not entirely lifted, it is not entirely what it used to be, either. Some say the urge to have children is partially biological. If so, then what does that say about women who do not want to have children? I meet women, both older and younger, who struggle with the contemplation of parenthood. Should they try to have a child anyway, and if they do not, will they regret it later? Furthermore, do they actually want a child to fulfill their own needs, or do they feel the pressure of society, their extended family, or even a spouse? The issue is obviously even more fraught for women of prime childbearing age who are having trouble conceiving. How far should they push the issue, and how much money are they willing to spend on making it happen?

In my late 30s and early forties, my husband and I did actively try to conceive. We were unsuccessful in our natural attempts. We started to consider IVF (in vitro fertilization) but the physical ramifications and financial burdens were too great compared to our apathetic desires. I have seen other women who wanted children so much that they almost seemed to erase a part of themselves with their anxiety. Though I probably would have welcomed a child, the yearning of these women seemed absolutely foreign to me. As a result, we just decided to stop focusing on having a baby, and a baby never came.

I do not regret not having children and I do not feel like I missed out on the experience. However, I rarely volunteer how utterly happy I am with the decision I made either. This decision has allowed me to prosper in other aspects of my life. It has granted me the time to be able to successfully start and run a business. It has allowed me to become empowered in a way that a full-time mother will never experience. In essence, a childless life has given me both personal and economic freedom.

I used to wonder how life could have been different. Could I have been that supermom who juggled family and a full-time career, giving my extra time to my family, instead of providing open availability to my clients? The straight answer is no, and whenever I traveled down this possible future path, depression would come upon me. No matter how helpful my husband promised to be, I knew the bulk of the responsibility would fall on me, the mother. Deep down I always knew that was not the life for me.

I have never given life to another person. However, I am amazed and grateful, daily, at how much happiness has come my way. I have friends of all ages. I’ve had incredible romances, spectacular travels and now an amazing marriage. I take pleasure in being able to take my niece to Europe every summer and show her the wonders of the world. I am not immune to the desire to care about other living creatures. I am the mother of five cats, whom my husband and I call “the kids.” We love them dearly and they play an important role in my life, just as I do in theirs.

So many accounts of lives without children–lives such as mine–are met with negative societal reactions. It is difficult when one is young to make the distinction between what you think you should want, and what you actually want. One thing everyone who is childless hears is, “If you don’t have children, you will regret it later.” They are wrong. I do not regret my decision. To have no regrets means one experienced everything just as one had planned and made the correct decision at every single juncture. I honestly feel I have followed the path I was meant to follow, and children were simply not meant to be part of that equation.

To younger women who believe that a child-free life will be an unfulfilling one, please keep in mind that your future self is a person you have not yet met. Do not presume to know everything about your future self in advance, and do not think you can control every element of your life. The reality is, sometimes even the choices you make by default can bring great happiness–perhaps, just not the sort of happiness you initially envisioned.

What in the World is Going on in Dubai?

 A Tale of Princesses, Fabulous Wealth And Unimaginable Human Rights Violations

Princess Haya of Jordan, for many, is a feminist icon. She, along with her sister-in-law Queen Rania of Jordan, and her step-mother, Queen Noor of Jordan, is often referred to as one of “the Supermodel Queens of the Middle East.” The Princess’ 2004 marriage to the ruler of Dubai has been portrayed to the public as a modern-day fairy tale-until now. On August 4th, 2019, the Princess appeared in court requesting a “forced marriage protection order,” presumably on behalf of her daughter, and a “non-molestation order,” on behalf of herself. (1) The following day, news sources around the world proclaimed that Princess Haya and her children had barely escaped from Dubai with their lives, and now remain in hiding, seeking legal protection from the British government.

Born to King Hussein and Queen Alia of Jordan in 1974, Princess Haya has lived in the royal spotlight since the day of her birth. Following the death of her mother in a tragic helicopter crash, the American-born Queen Noor of Jordan stepped in and continued raising the young girl. Princess Haya ultimately grew into an Oxford-educated, horse-riding champion, participating in equestrian events around the world. As a result, she signified the very best of Islam, and how the women of this religion can still be independent, intelligent, successful and even beautiful.

In 2004, at the age of twenty-nine, Princess Haya traveled to Dubai, as a special guest of its ruler, Sheikh Mohammed Al Rashid Al Maktum. Shortly thereafter, the pair celebrated their marriage in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Following the celebration, the world-wide press revealed the already existing marriage of Al-Maktoum to his first cousin. In response to this apparent criticism, Princess Haya stated that at the time of her mother’s marriage to King Hussein of Jordan, he had actually been married to his first wife, the British born Princess Muna. As a result, Princess Haya indicated that she felt quite comfortable being a second wife. The pictures of their Highnesses at Royal Ascot appeared to echo this sentiment, as they moved easily in the rarified air of fancy hats, designer dresses and smiling faces.

Eventually, the cracks started to show in the perfect facade of the Al Maktum family. Problems appeared to begin in March 2018, when one of Al Maktum’s daughters, Latifa, released a video in which she described her torment and the torment of her sister, Shamsa, at the hands of their “ego” driven father. (2) Latifa discusses in the video her intentions of escaping, and that if people are watching the video, she has likely been captured and perhaps even murdered. (2) Shortly thereafter, reports came in that Latifa had indeed attempted to escape, and been violently apprehended by armed guards in India. (3) The following December, the former President of Ireland and former UN Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, traveled to Dubai and visited with Latifa. Following the meeting, she indicated the Latifa did not appear to be in any danger but also described her as a “troubled young woman.” (4) Just as the dust appeared to be settling on this issue, reports emerged in August that Princess Haya, herself, had fled Dubai with her children, barely escaping with her life. Shortly thereafter she appeared in court, and now is in hiding.

Most troubling of all appears to be the online smear campaign being launched against Princess Haya. Some online sources claim Princess Haya simply left Al Maktoum for another man, while others claim he actually caught her in bed with a bodyguard. (5) From there, the articles degrade, with remote websites asserting Princess Haya has been a woman “of extreme liberty” since her youth, who is “perverted” and “on drugs.” (6) Some even accuse her stepmother, Queen Noor, of drugging her since childhood. (7) Such claims are completely unsubstantiated. On January 5th, 2019, Princess Haya publicly stated she would cease defending her husband and leave if she found evidence of truth in Latifa’s story of abuse. (7) Shortly thereafter, Princess Haya ceased appearing in public, and all of her social media accounts fell dormant. With her silence and subsequent estrangement from her husband, Princess Haya essentially confirmed the allegations of her step-daughter, Latifa.

The reality is that Dubai is a country wrought with human rights violations. It’s fantastic wealth has not advanced beyond a culture that is still, in many ways, stuck in the Stone Ages. The fact that Princess Haya’s marriage to Al Maktum broke down should serve as a wake up to us all that the world is not always a friendly place for women, and to many, we are still property, or worse, even slaves. Furthermore, all royal marriages are not fairytales, even if that initially appears to be the case. The court case of Princess Haya versus Al Maktoum promises to lay bare the truths of life in Dubai, in full detail. Only time will tell how deeply the corruption runs and how many people have been hurt.

  1. https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/30/europe/princess-haya-dubai-forced-marriage-protection-gbr-intl/index.html
  2. https://www.google.com/search?q=video+of+sheikha+latifa&oq=video+of+latif&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l3.6853j0j4&client=ms-android-verizon&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
  3. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/mar/05/dubai-princess-latifa-escape-uae-tiina-jauhiainen-one-year-on
  4. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-46697867
  5. https://www.weeklyblitz.net/news/princess-haya-asks-her-lover-to-wait-few-more-days-for-a-life-long-happiness/
  6. https://www.weeklyblitz.net/news/since-childhood-princess-haya-and-her-brother-were-drugged-by-their-stepmother/
  7. https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/07/10/the-fairy-tale-is-over-for-dubais-royal-family/

Why Are Females in Professional Soccer Paid Less Than Their Male Counterparts?

After a great deal of research into this issue, here is the bottom line.

Under the U.S soccer team’s new collective bargaining agreement, the members of the women’s team are paid a guaranteed salary of $100,000 per player. This salary is the same, whether they win or lose, play or don’t play. In contrast, their male counterparts are paid $5,000 per game played, whether they win or lose. However, they must play. If they don’t play, they don’t get paid. For example, if both teams lost every game in a season (there are twenty games), and every male player played every game (this is not required for the females), the players would make identical amounts-$100,000 a season. In contrast to the women, the men are eligible for bonuses paid based on how many games they played, and how many games they won. Overall, this leads to a pay discrepancy of about 11% in favor of the men. However, the greater the risk, the greater the reward. In essence, the women have traded the opportunity to make 11% more, for the guarantee of being paid $100,000. Is this such a bad trade-off?

Another aspect of the pay discrepancy between male and female players is caused by the prize money awarded by FIFA (Fédération Internationale de Football Association) for a team winning the World Cup. For the 2018 Men’s World Cup, FIFA awarded $400 million in prize money to the winner, compared to the Women’s World Cup, where FIFA awarded $30 million in prize money to the winner. Why is the difference so incredibly vast? At this point in time, there are more men’s leagues paying into FIFA, than women’s leagues. As a result, the prize money available is subsequently unbalanced between the genders.

Another part of the pay discrepancy exists because of how the games are watched. YouTube broadcasts the National Women’s Soccer League, while the major TV networks broadcast men’s Major League Soccer in a multi-year, multi-million dollar agreement. This difference is subsequently reflected in the bonuses paid to the players.

The bottom line is, U.S. women make less than U.S. men in competitive soccer, because

  1. Women make a guaranteed salary, where men are only paid via bonuses.
  2. FIFA has greater prize money for the men’s World Cup than the Women’s World Cup, based on money that funnels into them from soccer clubs around the world. At this time, there are more male soccer clubs than female soccer clubs paying into FIFA.
  3. Multi-million dollar contracts on a broadcast TV present the opportunity for greater male player bonuses. Similar national broadcast agreements have not been negotiated for the women’s team.

Regardless of the success of the women’s team, the female players will not be eligible for more money unless they waive their guaranteed salaries, and begin being paid via bonuses like their male counterparts. Additionally, more women’s teams around the world need to become paying members of FIFA, at least approaching the level of memberships experienced by male teams. Furthermore, the business people promoting the women’s games must negotiate similar agreements to the men’s teams with broadcast television. Until these factors are changed, the pay gap will most certainly continue and even possibly worsen. Any criticism of the situation that is not focused on these key issues is merely displaying lip-service, and not actually focused on viable solutions.

An American Duchess, the Fourth of July, and Living Between Two Realms

HRH Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, represents an individual existing between two realms. Becoming a member of the British royal family is essentially one of the most British things a person can do. On the other hand, being born in America is also, arguably, one of the most American things a person can do. This then begs the question-what should an American member of the British royal family do when the Fourth of July appears on the calendar? Well, the Duchess of Sussex celebrated July 4th by supporting her American friend, Serena Williams, at Wimbledon. To many, this seemed an entirely appropriate way to spend this most American day, as Her Royal Highness straddles life as both a “former colonist” and a royal.

Like many people across the United States, Her Royal Highness spent the Fourth of July holiday among friends. Lindsey Roth and Genevieve Hills, both friends of the Duchess from Northwestern University, sat in the Royal box at Wimbledon beside her. Some have speculated that the arrival of her close friends actually serves a dual purpose-that is, spending the Fourth of July with Her Royal Highness and acting as godmothers to her child, Archie, at his christening on Saturday. Unfortunately, we will likely never know for sure, as the royal couple has opted to keep this information private.

This is not the first time Her Royal Highness cheered on Williams at Wimbledon. Last year, she and her sister-in-law, Her Royal Highness, Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge, cheered on Williams together. However, this moment occurred back when the media appeared poised to admire two strong women concurrently, and before the appearance of any ludicrous feud rumors. Arguably, this bygone time represented a golden age of feminism.

The Duchess of Sussex has actually enjoyed, as of late, quite an American week in the United Kingdom. For instance, this week began with a surprise visit to the UK from the Boston Red Sox and the New York Yankees. Both teams recently landed in the U.K. to play their first ever British game. They also, jointly, gave the Duke and Duchess of Sussex baseball paraphernalia for newborn Archie. Most significantly, the Duchess appeared ecstatic to be, once again, among her native countrymen.

Presumably, Her Royal Highness is quite happy with her new life as a member of the British royal family. Nevertheless, at least every now and then, an American Duchess needs to return to her roots. What better compromise could we have than Her Royal Highness cheering on Serena Williams at Wimbledon, on the Fourth of July, no less?

The Border, Immigrants, and Humanity

As an American, I am well aware of the issues with immigrants and the border. I have heard on the news every day, recently, that concentration camps exist there. As I am from German ancestry, and a person, I am well aware that concentration camps are unacceptable and inhumane, bringing misery to humanity. I am also aware that the Germans perpetrated a huge disservice to mankind, and as a result, lost the right to have a standing army. Concentration camps are wrong.

As an American, I am aware that native Americans existed on the American continent long before we did. As a result, I am also aware of the argument that they, therefore, have more of a right to this continent than we do, as we are simply the descendants of European immigrants.

In 1776, the American colonies of Great Britain broke away from the motherland and declared a new country. Subsequently, we became the United States of America. To some, we represented freedom fighters; to others, we represented usurpers of land from an indigenous people. In reality, we represented a group of individuals in need of food, land, and resources. Royalty did not move to the Americas-starving peasants did-and starving people will do just about anything to survive.

Effectively, immigrants stole land from the native Americans, and created a government by the Europeans, for the Europeans. Usurpers stole land from an indigenous people and created a most excellent form of government. It is so excellent, in fact, that indigenous people from other parts of this continent wish to move here and benefit from its trappings. They too want the benefits of land ownership, capitalism, and freedom. But how can an indigenous person claim that they want to benefit from their conquerors? Does this not create a conflict?

The reality is, starving Europeans conquered the indigenous peoples of the Americas. Whether in Vermont, Seattle, or Texas, we conquered them. Native Americans have subsequently received a raw deal in the USA, and they will continue to receive a raw deal when other indigenous peoples attempt to come here from Middle or South America. We conquered the original peoples of this land and created a country called the USA. They wish to come here because it is better than the governments they themselves have set up in Middle and South America. What we have created is very special, regardless of its legitimacy or fairness. It is so special, in fact, that, the indigenous people from surrounding areas wish to partake in it.

Today, Mexico and South America are in turmoil. Socialist experiments, like the one in Venezuela, have led to civil war. The violent cartels in Mexico have led to individuals wanting to leave their country, and move to America, where the cartels have little to no power. After all, America is, for many, a dreamland of unlimited resources and freedom.

Regardless of our ominous beginnings, as conquerers, who created a government by the people and for the people, we should take better care of individuals seeking asylum. Putting them in concentration camps, separating children from their families, and failing to provide food and water to individuals in need is simply inhumane. Regardless of the sins we committed in the beginning of this country, we owe our fellow human beings seeking asylum at least the basic necessities of life. Anything less is simply shameful. After all, we have created the wealthiest country in the world.

As the descendant of European immigrants, I feel empathy for the plight of Middle and South Americans seeking asylum here. I feel very sorry that they are starving, or the victims of violent and inhumane drug cartels. But I am a part of a group of people who came here out of desperation, and who conquered the indigenous people of this continent. I am not German any longer. I am an American, and I love this country. It is all I know, and in order to protect this country, we must have borders. However, this country can have borders and still be humane. Hopefully, our current administration will begin practicing the empathy that we as Europeans failed to receive from our original home countries, so many years ago.

What is White Privilege and How Can Our Society Overcome It?

White privilege is a complicated truth in our society. To some, it is seen as direct advantages given to Caucasians over other ethnicities. These advantages can exist in the business world, the medical field, or everyday life. Some believe that white people are given more opportunities to prevail because of white privilege. While white privilege may not be intentional, it is nevertheless a very real issue. Throughout our country’s history, it has become embedded in our society, and it is only through the acknowledgment that such an issue can be overcome.

Before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the term white privilege generally referred to both the systemic and legal advantages provided to white people within the United States. Examples include the right to purchase a home in the neighborhood of one’s choice, citizenship and the right to vote. The persistence of discrimination after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act led to “white privilege” being interpreted as something more psychological—a subconscious prejudice bolstered by white people’s lack of awareness of holding such power. White privilege could be found in daily transactions and in the ability of white people to navigate their professional and personal environments with relative ease. (1)

Contemporary dictionaries define “white privilege” as “inherent advantages possessed by a white person on the basis of their race in a society characterized by racial inequality and injustice.” (2) White privilege is often perpetuated in a nonchalant manner by perpetrators who are often unaware of the motivations or results of their actions. Essentially, it seems to just happen, making the existence of white privilege very difficult to prove, much less overcome.

How do we as a society bring the issue of white privilege to the forefront, when people are not even aware they are abiding by it? One simply can not assume that a person’s achievements are because of the color of their skin. Additionally, It is often incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to confront individuals when one suspects it is happening. The more complicated truth is that white privilege is unconsciously enjoyed while consciously perpetuated. It is simultaneously embedded into American life while also overtly on the surface.

There are no straightforward answers for how American society can overcome white privilege.. However, one can start by acknowledging it within oneself and one’s own actions. White individuals can begin by analyzing their own actions and motivations when providing favoritism or privileges to those who are a part of their world. This one small step can then lead to larger social changes over time.

White privilege represents a complicated societal truth. Some view it as direct advantages provided to Caucasians at the expense of other ethnicities. White privilege while not necessarily intentional, nevertheless encompasses a very real issue within the United States. It is interwoven into our society, and as a result, its machinations are invisible to many. As a result, one can assert that acknowledgment represents the first step in overcoming this issue. This one small step can then lead to a giant leap for mankind.

  1. https://www.tolerance.org/
  2. https://legacy.drphil.com/videos/suggested-solutions-for-overcoming-the-white-privilege-problem/

Should Birth Control Be Available Over The Counter?

AOC, Ted Cruz, and a Bi-Partisan Solution

The internet went abuzz today with news that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) and Ted Cruz bipartisanly agreed to lobby for a bill that would make birth control pills available over the counter. This is significant because these two individuals represent different parties with very different philosophies regarding reproduction.

Ted Cruz represents the Christian right. He asserts that if a woman falls pregnant, the child she is carrying is ordained to be here, regardless of the circumstances leading to conception. He argues that abortion is out of the question, and the child must be born. Solutions include giving the child up for adoption, or caring for the child oneself. As a conservative Republican, he doesn’t feel that the government should pay for the raising of unplanned children. Instead, he advocates abstinence or birth control to prevent unplanned pregnancies before they occur.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a feminist who represents individuals who are left of center. As a result, her belief structure advocates the rights of women over unborn fetuses. Consequently, she is in favor of women taking over their reproductive systems and preventing or terminating pregnancies as they wish. Under such a philosophy, women are the masters of their reproductive systems, dictating to their uteruses what will occur, and not the other way around. Such power allows women to plan to have a family and keep their careers. Furthermore, it advocates women becoming the architects of their own lives, with something as significant as having a child not being left up to chance.

Despite their party and philosophical differences, AOC and Cruz agree on one thing- that it is preferable to prevent pregnancies before they occur. They have found common ground in advocating a bill that allows the availability of birth control over the counter (OTC).

The question then presents itself-why would anyone be opposed to the birth control pill being available over the counter? As an informed consumer, I am well aware that the medical doctors of this world have fought very hard to faze out alternative forms of health care, including OTC remedies. Resultingly, those without health care insurance or money to pay the doctor’s bill for an abortion either end up continuing a pregnancy without doctors supervision, or having an abortion at the hands of an unlicensed provider. Both of these alternatives are unfortunate. It is when faced with such an unfortunate lack of choice that bipartisan options begin to present themselves. In this case, the most obvious bipartisan option is OTC birth control.

Why is over the counter birth control the most obvious bipartisan option? The answer is because it’s affordable, effective, and overwhelmingly easy to implement. If women are easily capable of obtaining OTC birth control, the need for abortions will exponentially go down. The controversy regarding whether life is being ended becomes largely irrelevant, because the OTC birth control solution, in many cases, will prevent unplanned pregnancies from occurring in the first place. It truly represents a win-win for everyone.

OTC birth control represents a bi-partisan solution to the abortion controversy. In short, it will prevent many unplanned pregnancies from occurring by providing a cheap and effective birth control solution. Ted Cruz and AOC represent two often opposing parties joining together to agree upon a meaningful and effective solution for women. Should this bill pass, it will represent a coup for all women in the USA, regardless of their political affiliation.

Corporate Taxes, Tariffs, Democrats and Republicans

How the Proposed Mexican Tariff Reveals the Hypocrisy of the Left

“Tax the rich!” has been the rallying cry for the Democratic party for many years now. Many of them argue that, by selling goods and services, the rich are not only exploiting the labor of the poor, but also overcharging for goods that should be provided as a right! Taxing the rich is the Democrat’s way of leveling the playing field and giving the money back to the poor the money that they effectively argue is already rightfully theirs.

On the same token, the majority of Democrats are opposed to corporations outsourcing labor. When American corporations outsource, they are taking jobs away from American citizens for the purpose of benefiting their own bottom line. Goods and services are often cheaper in foreign countries, mostly due to the lack of regulatory agencies such as OSHA and the EPA. In purchasing goods and services abroad, corporate leaders are effectively bypassing US labor laws and regulations, at the expense of Americans.

President Trump has been in the news most recently threatening to impose a 5% tariff on all goods coming in from Mexico. Democratic Senator Gary Peters of Michigan argues “the Trump strategy does little to address the illegal flow of migrants, and it will only hurt workers in American states.” (1) “The Michigan Democrat says he’s especially concerned about Detroit automakers that have major production facilities in Mexico.” (1) This senator is concerned that an additional corporate tax will place an undue burden on corporations, leading workers to lose their jobs. But is this not what Republicans have said all along-that taxing the rich does not benefit the poor but instead hurts them?

By opposing the tariff, Democrats are playing right into the Republicans’ hands. Republicans typically oppose additional taxation on corporations, arguing that doing so overall hurts the economy. Regarding the proposed Mexican tariff, which is truly a corporate tax, Democrats are revealing that they feel the same, and instead favor a more laissez-faire economy.

Trump, who ran for President as a Republican, used to be a registered Democrat. His move of placing a tax or tariff on Mexican goods is undoubtedly a Democratic one. So then why do the majority of Democrats disagree with it? One can argue that any proposal made by Trump at this time will be opposed by the Democrats merely because of his unpopularity with them.

The Mexican tariff proposed by Trump reveals the hypocrisy of the American Left. How can a party, supposedly based on supporting the laborers of the USA, oppose a tariff that would almost certainly create more American jobs? How can a party that advocates heavier corporate taxation, vehemently oppose a proposed corporate tax on Mexican goods? The answer most likely lies in the supposition that they oppose it simply because Trump proposed it. No matter what Trump proposes, he simply cannot win with Democrats. By opposing Trump on the Mexican tariff, Democrats are essentially playing right into Republican hands, and asserting that they too believe in a more laissez-faire economy. If this trend continues, one can assert that the only two parties truly dominating the American landscape are not Republicans and Democrats, but instead, those who are for or against Trump.

  1. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/05/sen-gary-peters-sees-bipartisan-opposition-to-trump-mexico-tariffs.html