As we enjoy a day off from work and school in order to celebrate and honor the historic voyages made by Christopher Columbus more than 500 years ago, many across the country are calling for an end to the holiday claiming that it celebrates an individual who's voyages resulted in the destruction of the indigenous peoples and cultures of the so-called "New World."

By now most people realize what Columbus did do and what he did not do.  He didn't "discover" the New World, he didn't "discover" America, and he most certainly did not prove the world was round.  There are several confirmed voyages to the Americas long before Columbus, not to mention the native population who had lived in the New World for something around 12,000 years...  and ancient Greek geographers had long understood the shape and relative size of the Earth.  So it begs the question, what did Columbus do?

It may be more accurate to say that Columbus was the last person to "discover" the New World.  Columbus may not have been the first, but in so many ways his voyages were the most significant for the continued development and expansion of Western Civilization.  Essentially the reason why Columbus' voyages are so important is that others followed him, which began a centuries long obsession with colonization and empire building.

That being said, those empires were built through the destruction of native populations.  Because of this reality some cities and states around the country have begun to celebrate October 12 as Indigenous Peoples Day, rather than Columbus Day.  They choose to honor the memory of those civilizations that were destroyed as a result of Columbus' voyages rather than the man himself.

So what do you think?  Has the time come to put aside the great myths of Columbus?

Thoughts? 

This past Thursday the small community college of Umpqua in Roseburg, Oregon became the site of the latest mass shooting in seemingly never ending string of such events.  In this case nine innocent people are left dead with many more wounded.  And just like after every mass shooting since Columbine in 1999, the gun debate begins anew.  And unfortunately, just like every mass shooting since Columbine in 1999, it is likely that very little, if anything will change.

The issues of gun rights and gun legislation are some of the most divisive topics in contemporary American life.  Generally speaking, on the political right people feel that responsible, law-abiding citizens should have the right bear arms without interference from the government.  On the political left people tend to believe that access to certain kinds of guns needs to be limited and perhaps even eliminated... and there is a lot people in the country who lie somewhere in the middle.  

Whether you are on the right or the left of this issue, it does seem that the one thing people can agree on is that these types of incidences need to be stopped... and that is about all people can agree upon.  With views ranging from, "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun..." to "getting rid of guns will get rid of gun violence..." it is often difficult to have productive debate and discussion about the topic.

However that is exactly what our leaders need to do.  They need to have an actual conversation about this issue and do something that for the past decade or so they have refused to, work together.  President Obama nailed it when he said, "thoughts and prayers are not enough."  Something in this country needs to change because put very simply, the system we have in place now is not working.

​Thoughts? 

As Pope Francis wraps up his first (and perhaps only) visit to the United States, many are speaking out over what the Pope means to not only Catholics, but non-Catholics as well.  As strange as it sounds, this Pope is enormously popular among non-Catholic Christians who do not see the necessity of the papal office.  That being said, Pope Francis' position as the leader of the largest denomination within Christianity gives him great influence in world affairs.

During his visit to the United States the Pope addressed both Congress and the United Nations.  During his congressional speech he addressed issues of climate change, income inequality, and care for the less fortunate.  He pleaded with congress to work together for the benefit of all mankind instead particular political parties.  His tone to the United Nations was very different as he reprimanded world leaders for doing nothing to stop persecutions of religious minorities all over the world, but especially in the Middle East.  Members of all faiths are being persecuted in different regions and the Pope attempted to remind the United Nations of its purpose.

So what is the Pope?  Why is he able to address these illustrious assemblies?  Why does what he says matter so much to so many people?  And why is he so popular among non-Catholics and the more youthful members of his own faith?

​Thoughts? 

Ahmed Mohamed is a fourteen year old high school student from Texas.  Last week, Ahmed brought a homemade clock into school in order to show his teachers and friends.  According to reports, one of his teachers became nervous as she thought the device resembled a bomb.  She reported it to school administration, who then called the police.  The police have said they knew the device was not a bomb, but were concerned that Ahmed could make one based on what they saw.

Ahmed was arrested and interrogated without being allowed to phone his parents, which is illegal because he is a minor.  Some have argued that the only reason Ahmed was treated in this way is because he is Muslim.  The police are denying this was a motivation in their investigation.  Since the incident everyone from Donald Trump to Sarah Palin, to Mark Zuckerberg have weighed in on the issue.  Zuckerberg actually offered Ahmed a job at Facebook and President Obama has invited him to the White House.

What are your thoughts?  Do you think that Ahmed was treated differently because of his religion?  Or do you think that because of the numerous attacks on schools over the past several years, that the school did the right thing... as the saying goes, "it's better to be safe than sorry."

Thoughts?

Last week Kim Davis, the Rowan Country clerk in Kentucky who was made famous by her refusal to issue marriage licences, was released from jail under an agreement that she would not be forced to issue the licences, but that those working under in the office would do so.  However following her release she has since boasted that she does not intend to allow others in the office to issue the licences after all. 

The issue raised by Mrs. Davis is one concerning religious freedom... hers vs. those seeking a document needed to legally wed.  This past summer the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges that states could no longer deny same sex couples the right to marry.  Mrs. Davis claims that by granting the marriage certificates, her personal religious freedoms were under attack as she views marriage to be only valid between a man and a woman.

Does Mrs. Davis have a case?  If she is not forced to issue the marriage licences, but the office she works at continues to do so, can she still legally claim that her religious freedoms are in jeopardy?  The United States Supreme Court has already denied her application to hear the case.  

Where does one person's rights end, and those of a group begin?  Is there a happy medium in this case?

Thoughts?

Recently Central Falls School Department has put in place a new policy regarding its dress code.  Tired of battling students regarding what is and is not appropriate school dress, the district has decided to pilot a school uniform program.  Uniforms are common in private schools, however it is fairly rare in public schools.  The argument for using uniforms is that it eliminates distractions and helps focus students on academics.  Proponents of school uniforms claim that the provides a more stable school environment in which students and teachers can all focus on the material rather than addressing potential issues arising form inappropriate clothing. 

Opponents however argue that there has never been any study which proves school uniforms have any measurable effect on student performance or student achievement.  Additionally the ACLU argues that uniformity takes away from student self-expression and individualism... both essential components of healthy childhood development.

Do you feel uniformity could create a more productive school environment, or do you feel it could potentially create more problems than it solves?

Thoughts? 

In the most recent issue of the MIT Technology Review Antonio Regalado discusses the possibility of editing the DNA of children in order create designer children.  Researchers from Harvard and Beijing have begun testing different techniques on pigs and monkeys and what they have discovered is that it is theoretically possible to engineer babies with the most desirable traits, while at the same time eliminating those deemed to be undesirable.
Aside from general physical traits like eye or hair color, this technology can also be used to create more intelligent babies, taller babies, babies with increased lifespans, and babies with a stronger desire for increased wealth.  


Thus far this technology is still in the trial phase, however if it were to be made available to the general public, the cost could be as much as $100,000 per child - meaning that only the most wealthy segments of the population would be able to take advantage of it. It would also mean that these wealthy people would be able to develop children who are far superior, both physically and intellectually, to the general population... which means it would be even more difficult for the "have-nots" to catch up.


While this technology was originally focused on eliminating certain genetic disorders like Huntington's disease, it can also be used at creating a "Master Race." If scientists can simply eliminate certain physical features for the advancement of others, this technology, in the wrong hands could be used as a means of genetic genocide.


Like every developing technology, there are positive and dangerous potentialities.  Some would argue that the scientists behind these technologies have a moral responsibility to consider these potentialities before unleashing such a paradigm shifting technology.  Others however argue that it is the job of the scientist to explore and create while it is the job of philosophers and the general population to worry about the moral implications of developing technologies.


Thoughts? 

Last week a restaurant in Nigeria was shut down by police when they were tipped off by locals who suspected something strange was going on.  When police raided the hotel restaurant they discovered something out of a horror movie or The Walking Dead's Terminus... human heads still dripping blood into plastic bags.   A local priest made the first complaints when he notices odd looking men walking in and out of the restaurant and meal prices being extravagantly expensive by Nigerian standards.

So far ten people have been arrested and authorities are now attempting to identify the many victims; as well as determine how long this ghoulish practice has been going on. 

Thoughts? 

By now the results of the investigation as to whether or not the New England Patriots deflated footballs during the AFC Championship Game is well known... It is more probable than not that Patriots' Quarterback Tom Brady was generally aware that the balls were being illegally deflated.  The findings from the now infamous Wells' Report, a document over 240 pages, have been analyzed by Patriot defenders and Patriot haters alike and essentially what it comes down to is that if you are a fan of the team the report is flawed and if you hate the team the report is brilliant... in this case there is no such thin as impartiality. 

This case however has proven to be bigger than a football, bigger than Tom Brady, and bigger than the fact that the Patriots have gotten the largest fine ever handed down by the NFL.  At the end of the day this is still about a game.

This story has been covered by every major news outlet in the country.  It has been the lead story on the World News, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and a host of local news channels as well.  Pushed aside is news of devastating earthquakes and other natural disasters, poverty, racism, and domestic violence... 

Thus I ask the question, has our society finally become too sports crazy?  The cost of the Wells' investigation was over five million dollars!  

Thoughts?