Why aren’t people happy with themselves? Why do they have this nocuous temptation to berate themselves because they don’t think they live up to their own expectations? They walk down a hallway and see someone much more “attractive” then they are, and suddenly they aren’t happy with their looks or their body. Or they are walking by the football field and they wish they could play as well as the teenagers they pass.

What makes a teenager think this way? Is it some sort of inferiority issue where they think someone is better than they are? I don’t quite get it. What makes someone better than someone else? Nothing, that’s what, one person is no better than another. Sure they may be better at sports or something but they are still no better as a person.

We should be happy with ourselves. We are who we are (no, not the Ke$ha song) and we should be proud of that fact. Nothing is as important as being ourselves and most people, especially teenagers, lose sight of that fact. They go through all the stressful situations that life puts them in and they forget about being themselves when they see other people and they succumb to peer-pressure to be what they aren’t.

As much as we say we try to be ourselves, we eventually do something that we normally wouldn’t and succumb to peer-pressure and we suddenly don’t know who we are or if we even like it.

The best way to combat this is to just be happy with life and who you are.

What I’m saying is just trying to be yourself all the time, because there is no one more critical of you, then you.

Shortly before midnight on May 1 eastern time, President Obama announced the death of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. As the news of this incident raced across the world, sounds of cheering erupted across the country while large crowds were drawn to the gates of the White House and the streets of New York.

This act raises an important question: is it right to celebrate the death of someone, even if this someone happens to be one of the most feared terrorist across the globe?

For many of the victims of the 9/11 tragedy, the death of bin Laden brought closure and peace. The man who took the lives of many cherished family members has finally received what he deserves.

Many U.S. citizens face internal conflicts regarding this ethical dilemma. Even though bin Laden has caused our country an immeasurable amount of distress and fear, is it morally wrong to celebrate the death of him in such a festive fashion?

In my opinion, it is wrong to celebrate the death of someone. Now I understand the pain and damage that this man has inflicted upon this country, but still I hold my point of view.

My view on this situation does not come from any religious morals, I just believe that it is not ethically right to thank god for the death of anyone. How can assassinating someone be a time of joyful celebrations and parading down the streets of New York?

I do however believe that Osama bin Laden’s death is beneficial to our country’s national security. But this is still no reason to thank God that a man has been killed.

When al Qaeda members are seen celebrating the death of a U.S. soldier, we look at them with disgust, so how is this situation any different? We cannot disagree with the actions of al Qaeda members when we just turn around and do the very same thing.

On May 5, the first of the Republican Presidential Primary Debates was held in Greenville, South Carolina. Candidates participating in the debate included the following: Rep. Ron Paul, from Texas; Herman Cain, former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza; Former Pennsylvania Senator, Rick Santorum; Former Governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson; and Former Governor of Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty. Fox News sponsored and hosted the event in Greenville’s Peace Center.

The first thing that people will probably notice from the aforementioned lineup is the absence of the more famous Republicans like Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney. Romney justified his decision not to attend by saying that the debates were being held over six months before voting begins; far too early for his tastes. Huckabee, on the other hand, has yet to announce whether or not he will even run in 2012. This is despite his being one of the GOP’s strongest candidates, even beating Obama in a CNN poll from November 2010.

Despite the lack of any prominent contenders for the Republican nomination, I shall, nevertheless, still attempt to judge those present for the debate. My evaluation shall be in regards to how much I agree with the candidate, as well as his (yes, they are all male) likelihood of winning over the electorate.

I shall begin with Ron Paul, the Libertarian representative from Texas. Paul is arguably the most well-known of the candidates, but similarly the most controversial. Liberals are often opposed to him due to his economic plans to eliminate the Federal Reserve and reinstate the gold standard, while conservatives find his social policies to be too liberal.

Even considering his political divisiveness, I found Paul’s positions to be the most appealing of all the candidates. Bringing the gold standard back would help discourage wasteful government spending, since the government could only print money which is backed by gold, and encourage other countries to continue investing in the U.S. dollar (since it would be backed by something that actually exists). Paul’s desire to end the militarism of the United States would save not only a significant amount of money, but also many lives.  Whether he has a viable exit strategy, however, is unclear.

Problems for the Texas politician could arise from his social views, as I mentioned before. In the debate, he expressed his belief that issues like gay marriage, drug use, and prostitution should not be up to the federal government to decide. While I agree with him that it isn’t the national government’s job to get involved in most social matters, I’m willing to bet that most conservatives and Republicans disagree.

His position on torture may also prove to alienate some voters. When Chris Wallace, one of the hosts, brought up the issue, Paul argued that torture has yet to yield any valid information. I disagree with him here, as I assume most conservatives do (considering the fact that most polls indicate an even split on the subject, I think it’s safe to say those favoring “enhanced interrogation” are conservative).  His assertion that the results are not useful is especially inaccurate considering Leon Panetta, the Democratic Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, has confirmed that the waterboarding of Khalid Sheik Mohammed led to the capture of Osama bin Laden.

Among other important facts regarding Ron Paul are his age and past profession. Seventy-five-year-old Paul could find his age to be detrimental to his campaign by offending some of the more gerontophobic younger voters. Some may also worry that he may not be able to live through his full term. As for his profession; Paul’s experience as a doctor lends credibility to his criticisms of the harm of Obama’s healthcare bill to physicians. However, this long after the bill has passed; I doubt that anyone is still undecided about it.

Herman Cain’s most obvious flaw is relatively obvious from the moment he is introduced. It doesn’t quite fit having several former governors and congressmen and then the former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza. I, personally, didn’t mind this too much at first (I’ll explain why “at first” later), as I don’t really know how well experience as a congressman translates to an executive position like the presidency. The problem for Cain is what the voters will think. His former job will be too easily ridiculed and dismissed by any of his opponents.

However, Cain’s lack of political experience could similarly be turned into a positive if voters wish, not to see it as a lack of experience, but a lack of the corruption so prevalent in politicians. Whether or not the other candidates are corrupt is unknown to me, but I doubt Cain has received many bribes to cut the price of the Bacon Cheeseburger Pizza or to look the other way while a chef skims mozzarella from the storeroom.

Regardless of the voters’ thoughts, mine are more important, and while I found Cain’s inexperience to be excusable at first, I later realized it is a serious problem. Often he would answer questions by saying that they would require more clarity. Rather than explaining what he would do in Libya, he explained that, due to his not having a government position, he was short of information, and would decide what he would do based on the information given to him as president.

I think making informed decisions is important (which, I know, is very surprising), but to me it seemed like his answers were unsuitable for a future Commander-in-Chief. Many of his answers indicated a lack of knowledge regarding international affairs. Cain seemed to repeatedly fall back on the idea that it is necessary to define the objectives of whatever policy or situation was being discussed. While the president does have access to information unavailable to most in the pizza industry, Cain could have at least stated his positions with the information at hand. An adequate understanding of international issues is an important attribute for the president and, unfortunately for those sick of “Washington insiders”, may require someone with a political background.

Though Cain may have been weak on Afghanistan and Libya, I believe his strong policy on the border with Mexico would be appealing to many conservatives. He criticized previous administrations for merely pretending to secure the border, while he would do so in actuality. The problem with this is that the border is not going to be on the voters’ minds in 2012, jobs will.

His attack on the National Labor Relations Board for preventing the Boeing Company from relocating to South Carolina and his further assertion that businesses create jobs, not governments, will appeal to both fiscal conservatives and libertarians. Despite this, Cain still suffers from consistently low name recognition in Gallup polls, even though those who have heard of him often express passionate support (at least in comparison to the other candidates). Overall, I have no quarrel with Herman Cain, but I think that his inexperience would make him an impractical candidate for president.

Rick Santorum, the former Senator from Pennsylvania, represented a more traditional Republican candidate than the previous two. Santorum seemed more eloquent in his speech and more professional than Paul or Cain. This may be enough to convince the more superficial voters, but it will not win the Republican nomination or the presidency.

His economic positions were standard for conservatives, nowhere near as extreme as Paul’s, while his social positions may be a source of support from many Republican voters.  Though he may not win over left-leaning moderates to his side being ardently against gay marriage and abortion, it’s unlikely that he would have them anyway.

The (miniature) speech he gave in response to Shannon Bream’s question as to whether he was willing to compromise his social views to focus on economics seemed quite presidential. I don’t think it really meant very much, but saying things like “if we abandon [our values] we have given up on America” can reach supporters in ways that discussing actual policies can’t. Not necessarily in a way that would help the country much, but in a way that would help when voting comes around. I found Santorum to be an average candidate.

Santorum’s economic positions were solid and, while I disagree with his belief that the federal government should be involved in certain moral issues, I doubt any Republican victor would focus on them during his presidency, anyway. He may not be my favorite of the choices, but I think he would fare slightly better in the presidential election than Cain or Paul.

Gary Johnson was the governor of New Mexico from 1995 to 2003, and as far as I could tell, that’s the highest position he’s going to hold. Regardless of how great a politician Johnson will ever be, he seems to have a serious problem with his mannerisms. While I would say that I don’t really care about how a candidate looks, I think that, subconsciously, we all do. Example: Would Ronald Reagan still have won the 1984 election if he looked like Clint Howard? The answer is most likely “Yes”, due to Mr. Howard’s dashing leading man looks and tousled hair. Gary Johnson’s voice and appearance, however, make him seem unconfident and, frankly, a bit whiny. I can’t imagine him delivering a crowd-inspiring speech. Obviously that doesn’t mean that he can’t, but it would take a very good speech writer…and probably a better candidate. Acclaimed orators like Presidents Reagan and Obama are able to bring about increases in economic confidence and consumer spending in ways economic policies can’t. It may be unfair to Johnson, but it’s reality.

Aside from his outward appearance, Johnson’s economic policies are almost identical to the other candidates. The exceptions to this statement, however, are quite significant. He has a much more lenient border policy than the other candidates, backing the idea of a completely open border. Former Governor Johnson neglects to consider the drug cartels and security risks associated with such an approach, as well as the billions of dollars taken back to illegal immigrants’ home countries each year.

His explanation for his opposition to tariffs on products made in China will be enormously problematic. Johnson justified his objection to tariffs by saying that he believes in a 100% free market. This is a bit ridiculous. That’s like allowing counterfeiters to use fake money as legal tender. As long as China is going to artificially inflate its currency, tariffs on its products should not be out of the question. Johnson’s opposition to any interference from the government economically is ideological at best and dangerous at worst.

Among other problems with the former governor is his belief that abortion should be allowed before a fetus becomes viable. This will lead to hostility from social conservatives, many of whom are very passionate about the abortion issue in particular.

He is most likely to find support from the intellectuals among us whose primary concern is the legalization of marijuana. Unlike Ron Paul, who favors legalizing marijuana out of principle, Johnson admits to actually using the drug in recent years. This fact alone is enough to deter many Republicans from supporting him.

Johnson has also come up extremely weak in poll numbers, both in name recognition and favorability, as you can see from the Gallup polls. Of all likely Republican contenders, he only managed to beat Donald Trump’s “Positive Intensity Score” by 3%…with 3%.

Last on the list of Candidates is Tim Pawlenty, the Former Governor of Minnesota. What stood out to me about Pawlenty was that he didn’t stand out. I believe that is his biggest weakness. Voters won’t be attracted to someone who doesn’t have a magnetic personality like Barack Obama or a well-defined set of beliefs like Ron Paul. I don’t have much to say about him, based on what I saw in the debate.

One thing, however, which I took note of was Pawlenty’s changing his stance on the cap and trade bill. In 2007, as governor, he signed and endorsed a cap and trade bill similar to the one passed by the federal government in 2009. This is certainly bad for his chances at receiving the Republican nomination. It made him appear to be disingenuous in his conservative beliefs, and will likely haunt him like the Massachusetts healthcare bill did Mitt Romney. Pawlenty could have justified his changing point of view by saying that he believed the issue should be left for states to decide, justifying his passing the law in Minnesota. This was not the case, apparently.

I found Tim Pawlenty to be somewhat of a generic candidate who is unlikely to win an election against Barack Obama, similar to Rick Santorum. Though Pawlenty shows high favorable ratings among Republicans, his lacking in any fervent support make him a weak choice for the nomination.

By the end of the debate, I still found myself supporting Ron Paul the most, followed by Rick Santorum, and then Herman Cain. Honestly, though, I’d only really consider voting for Ron Paul, and even with that I’m doubtful that he could win in the general election. Santorum’s positions on social issues and Cain’s lack of experience make them unlikely to emerge victorious against President Obama.

I would like to end my novel by writing something inconclusive that would lead you to believe an extremely strong candidate will come forth soon, like Mike Huckabee (who I’d more describe as pretty strong, but nevertheless), but he is far too soft-spoken to ever be epic or looming in any way. It would be like ending The Godfather with the silhouette of Andy Griffith. While Andy Griffith may be a nice guy, he doesn’t exactly fit in with the rest of the movie. Instead, I shall merely attempt to complete my goal of being inconclusive with my closing.

So how did you spend this year’s Prom? Did you spend it having fun with your friends while shaking what your momma gave you? Or did you spend a romantic candlelit dinner before the prom with your significant other and then go dance the night away? Or maybe you bee-bopped to the music and spent the night in jail afterwards…

 However you spent your Prom night it should have been one to remember. Prom is something special that only happens once a year. It’s like Christmas except without the presents, snow, and Santa Claus. In fact, the only way it’s like Christmas is that it happens once a year so I guess it’s nothing like Christmas. Moving on!

 Prom is technically called a couple’s dance. It isn’t like Homecoming or Winter Formal (if we ever have another one) where you can go by yourself and not feel lonely and pathetic. Compared to Prom, those dances are informal and you can go alone. Prom on the other hand is a dance where it is considered impolite to go alone. Prom is there to have fun with your date. I’m not saying you can’t have fun with your friends but the main focus for Prom is to enjoy the nigh with your special someone.

 Only then will Prom be a Walk in Wonderland.

 Oh wait, it already was. The theme for Prom this year was a “Walk in Wonderland”. This theme just didn’t seem very “Prom-y” to me. No one went to Prom to “walk in wonderland.” They went to “dance like idiots.” Maybe that’s what the theme should have been. Instead of having a giant butterfly our front of Hager Hall there could have been a giant statue thrusting his hips in the direction of the statue in front of it. That would have been a little more appropriate.

 I am not writing this blog to bash Prom though. I did have the time of my life with my girlfriend, and I acquired the coolest souvenir out of it too. Out of all the randomly colorful decorations that illuminated the Hall, there was one that lit up like a shining flower; literally. They had these battery-operated flowers with installed LED lights, and when you pressed the button on the side they exploded into a myriad of colors. I promptly took it home with me when I left.

All in all, Prom was a very nice experience. This is my senior year and I am so glad that I had a good time at one of the supposedly most important dances of high school.

Senior photos are supposed to be important, so I’ve been told, but I had never really subscribed to the value of them.

They would make sense, of course, if my scintillating beauty had propelled me through my high school career, for it would be necessary to encapsulate it. However, I fail to believe that my looks were my strongest asset (despite the inscrutable quality of my hips, which are very honest).

I finally ended up getting the pictures taken a few days ago as they have been causing tension between my mother and I the whole week preceding it. I’m not a slob, by any means, but I’m not a paragon of human excellence or anything. Because of my ‘sleep as an option’ mentality, my hatred of weight-lifting, and my devotion to french fries and root beer, I’ve never been viewed as particularly healthy or attractive, but it hadn’t affected me until talk of pictures came up.

My mom really wanted to preserve my unassuming, 18 year-old face so that we could view them when I have an unassuming middle-aged face. It would have been fine, had she not begun to campaign for me to worry more about my looks.

Upon seeing myself in mother’s Yenta-lenses, I saw a lot more wrong with myself than I had ever really cared to see. My skin grew paler, my lack of muscle definition became more visible, and I developed an uncanny sense of loss; as though my looks were a long-lost friend that I abandoned.

To prepare for the pictures, my mom had given me special toothpaste, skin cream, a new razor and consistently oversized shirts, and in turn, I avoided her at all costs. Like all abandoned friends, there was a reason I didn’t concern myself with appearance; a well groomed face is persistent, needy and selfish.

The shoot itself, in contrast, took twenty minutes. The photographer was a very nice woman and the sheer absurdity of my mother’s deliberate, anxious facial expressions kept my face in a perpetual smirk. I’ll get my pictures in a few days, and unfortunately for my mom, I’ll look a whole lot like myself. In the meanwhile, I’ll go back to my standard, slovenly routine.

Although I’m mildly relieved that this experience (both the pictures and my senior year) is coming to an end and, as I had expected, it’s never really as big of a deal as anyone would like to make you believe, I don’t think this story has a coda. I didn’t really learn anything, but there are a ton of other age-old, slightly mindless senior traditions, and I plan on weathering every single one with a grain of salt on my french fries.

Lack of inspiration is a common occurrence among high school students. We are often stuck with completing projects, papers, and homework for which we are severely uninspired to not only complete; but even pick a topic to begin writing or designing about.

It is not that we are lazy, well we are to a point, but come on; we are assigned essays to write that have a list of requirements and ways that the essay itself must be formed and organized. So is it any wonder why we lack inspiration and motivation?

It’s difficult. I understand that as teachers there are things that must be taught to us high schoolers and we have to learn the proper form for writing a letter and “which witch is which”. But, when it comes to writing essays, there are so many restrictions, guidelines, and rules that we must follow that it takes away all the creativity that we might have actually been feeling.

The same goes for projects that are assigned to us. It can be exciting to receive a new project, especially if it is on a topic that you do actually enjoy. Say you are in English and your teacher tells you that you need to make a visual aide to go along with the three page paper that you already wrote. Well, making a visual aide actually seems pretty cool, that is, until you get the paper with instructions on how to make a visual aide and the poster that you had wanted to do doesn’t meet the requirements. So, now you are lacking the motivation to even make a visual aide seeing as how what you wanted to do fell through and you are lacking the inspiration to even think of another idea.

Inspiration is a funny thing; it will strike at the most random of times and it cause great things to occur. For example, if you are a poetry fanatic or a musical genius, and even if you aren’t, it can cause great songs and poetry to be written. But, you have to be allowed to express yourself and put that inspiration to use. Next time, try and remember that if you are faced with a project for which you are lacking inspiration (due to all the guidelines you are given) try not to blame your teacher. The guidelines are there to help you, if not inhibit you a little bit.

Change; it’s all around us. It is as constant as the earth we stand on. It happens everywhere, everyday, to everybody, and there is nothing we can do about it. We see it biologically, with the “evolution” of species, or more like just plain adaptation. We see it psychologically, with the differences in human cognitive reasoning that have been happening as we turn into a more constant race. We see it technologically, with the drastic steps that have been taken in the evolution of how we create and impart our knowledge into the machines we are slowly becoming.

The atmosphere is changing, life as we know it changes every day. It’s like the flow of a waterfall: the water falls over the precipice into a magnificent pool of splendor and beauty, only to do so again later when it reaches another drop. Change emerges and falls over the human race with grace (sometimes being accepted with even less grace), and it flows through the earth until it covers it all and then it falls on its own when the change itself changes.

That is just the change that affects events globally. There are all sorts of types of changes, some small, and some large. All of the types have equal effects, though, because whether the change is big or small, it still affects someone the same way.

Why do we find such adversity to change? Why do we get so distressed when even the littlest things change? Coming from my point of view, I think it’s because, as humans, we don’t like having our surroundings transform into something else and having to adjust to something completely new. We are creatures of habit, so that means we do things like our morning rituals or how we act around others the same way over and over and over and when we have to change what we normally do it upsets our balance of normalcy and we try to fight back.

Say you have to change how you get up and get ready for the day. Instead of brushing your teeth, taking a shower, and going downstairs to eat, you have to do all those things out of order or maybe not do any of them at all. How different would that be? I for one would be kind of upset because it is so different from what I normally do day after day.

Instead of the little changes affecting us, there are the bigger changes that affect us just as thoroughly: The wars in the Middle East, the rising gas prices, the economic disaster, all of these concern every one of us. They force us to change not just our views of life but our attitudes towards others and the basic was we live. The war we have been in for more than ten years has affected the United States dearly. The war caused most of the rising gas prices that we are afflicted with right now and it is putting our government on the brink of economic shut down. Not only that but it has forced us to accept the deaths and the losses we have obtained in the war and it has pushed us into dire straights concerning if we should actually use our own cars instead of walking or biking.

I understand why change is so undesirable; it compels us to revise the very thinking we are so very used to having. We are all comfortable with what we normally do, so we don’t want to change it. But really some changes should be embraced and dealt with accordingly. We shouldn’t always be so closed-minded when concerning the changes we face, maybe some of them are for the better.

Free is not a word that we hear every day. Well, it is, but usually only because we are talking to others about the outrageous price of going to the movies or gas and we just think to ourselves; why can’t everything just be free? It would solve all our problems, wouldn’t it? No, actually it wouldn’t, at least I don’t think so.

Things being free can cause laziness. With everything being free, people will begin to take it for granted and not appreciate what they already had. It can cause people to not work because, really, why would they need to when everything costs them nothing? Laziness is a thing America is already fighting. No one wants to put in the extra effort if it truly isn’t necessary. Okay, sure, there is that random person that will come into work an hour early to get some extra things done but how many times have you actually seen that happen? …I thought so. Laziness already affects us, so let us not further it more by giving us a true reason to be lazy.

Another problem America has? Taking things for granted and taking advantage of things; now imagine if everything was free. This ties in with my last paragraph where I stated that America would become lazy and I truly believe that. No need to work to earn a paycheck, everything will basically be provided for you- all you need to do is go get it. And I feel that people will take advantage of everything being free and I’m not above that, I probably would too but this will cause a lack of work ethic. Heck, would anybody work at all anymore if everything was free for the taking?

I would like to conclude this blog on a positive note, however, so I will provide some examples of when free is actually a good thing. Let us start with a simple but extremely enjoyable one: free samples. I personally have never met a single person who did not enjoy a free sample from Sam’s Club, Costco, or Walmart, what have you. Free samples are a great idea, for the free is in moderation. You try one, you like it, you buy it. You don’t like it, you don’t buy it (that or you just don’t want to spend money on something that was waved in your face just so that you were tempted to buy it).

Another time when free is good is when you are allowed to have a product for a free trial period. One late night when you have nothing better to do then to watch the shopping channel you decide to order a Miracle Blade Knife Set for only $39.95! A few weeks later the Miracle Blade finally arrives and you are so excited but after a few attempts at trying to cut into a simple block of cheese using the Cheese Knife you realize these knives in fact are not up to snuff. But thank goodness the Miracle Blade people thought ahead. You are able to return the knife set because you were awarded a 30 day risk free trial period. Free trials are a great invention for it provides the purchaser of the product a chance to test out the product they are purchasing and see if it is a keeper or not. (Note: I have nothing against the Miracle Blade Knife Set. I was simply using their product as an example of when a free trial period is a fantastic idea.)

So here is where I am going to sum everything up for you. Free can be good, but it can also be bad. It’s your opinion so I won’t press mine upon yours but think of it this way: too much of anything can be a bad thing and the same can hold true if everything, everywhere, became free.

What’s the most common theme among relationships? Perhaps it is the love that the two birds share, or the tenderness they show in their hearts, or maybe it’s even the long list of things they want to do together. Wrong! The most common theme (and possibly rule) among relationships is that The-Guy-Is-Always-Wrong. Never has the man in the relationship actually ever been the man in the relationship. That’s just an act, a very good act that has been played for centuries behind the scenes by history’s greatest women (so every one of them right?)

 They say behind every great man is an intelligent women, pulling the strings from the sidelines and pressing her opinions upon him and orienting him in the direction she so chooses. If there were any good ventriloquists in the world,  they would be women. They are nearly half the population of the world and they have us all tied around strings and dancing to the tango of their will.

 Or so they think…

 Sometimes women are wrong. They might say something and it is quite possibly as incorrect as a dancing elephant in a circus, as unbelievable as it is. If this ever happens to you, please take a picture or a video recording of this historic event for it rarely happens to even the most intelligent of us and it needs to be documented.

 Sometimes, through sheer luck, the man in the relationship is the one who is right. I’m not saying the man is always right, no, not at all, according to most women, but we aren’t always wrong either. Just because we’re males doesn’t mean we are automatically absent-minded and dim-witted about the entirity of decision-making or even the mundane facts. I know most of the physical features that are shown when someone is lying, I know that the Hox gene in our DNA controls body growth, and I am going into psychology as my major. I am far from stupid, so I sometimes win an argument and am I sometimes right (don’t hear that too often, huh?)

 Now I’m not bashing women. I would never intentionally be antagonizing towards any female; it’s not in my nature to do so. I just find the whole concept of the “women always being right” slightly humorous and am being completely satirical about it.

 I do think, however, that it would be a very valuable experience to meet a woman who admitted she was wrong in the relationship; my own girlfriend has trouble getting over me being right periodically and it drives her insane, but I think if I met a female who graciously accepted that a male was right in the relationship, I would surely faint.

 So the next time your girlfriend or wife tries to claim that you’re some ignorant Neanderthal and don’t know jack about beans, tell her that you are sometimes actually right and that just because you’re a man, doesn’t mean you’re wrong. I, for one, would like to hear the three simple words “you are right” a little more often.

Picture this: you’re waltzing through Wal-Mart™ and you see the most magnificent wheelie desk chair, lounging on a pedestal in the office furniture section. You run up to it (in slow motion and with ambient music, of course) and sit down in silent reverie and slowly droop off into a half stupor as you comfortably recline in what could possibly be the best man-made invention ever created. You pull yourself out of your wicked trance and look down at the price tag hanging from the arm of the chair. Your eyes pop wide as you stare at the price tag, thinking about the large amount of moolah you would have to obtain to pay for this chair. You walk away slowly in quiet, unperceivable agony with a hole through your heart but not in your wallet. You suddenly turn around and someone else is in the chair, going through the same motions as you just were. He looks down at the price tag, jumps up in joy, picks up the chair, and runs off to pay for the brilliant piece of work you were just admiring.

Whether we keep it under our mattresses, wallets, pockets, or safes, money is the means of how we do anything. It keeps us safe; it gives us security, gives us food, and allows us to live.

Ever heard of how there are the four necessities we need in life; food, water, shelter, and clothing? Well now we can add a fifth necessity to the list: money.

Money is a necessary item to have when trying to live in a country such as America, or any country for the most part. It allows us to buy the other four necessities we need and without those necessities we would surely perish. It even allows us to buy these in abundance, that is, if you can afford the life of luxury presented on most reality TV shows.

Money is the root of all evil, and it also seems to be the root of where the social ladder begins, one-fourth of the divorces in America, and why McDonalds™ stays in business.

If you have money, you are popular in society. You are powerful, you are liked, and you can use this money to buy whatever you want. But that’s only if you have the money to do that. Most of the population of America is middle class, which means they have enough money to get by, and enough money to buy the necessities (food, water, shelter, and clothing in case you’ve forgotten), but not enough to go out and buy whatever they desire; that’s a luxury for the few times you have an extra bit of cash.

I bet you didn’t know that one-fourth of the marriages in America end in divorce. This happens because of financial problems or problems involving money where the couple just can’t deal with the stressors involved in being together and taking care of your own money. At some points money runs the relationship. It decides what to buy and when to buy it.

As an added bonus money allows McDonalds to stay in business. It’s cheap, affordable, convenient, and at the end you hate yourself for going there (much like Wal-Mart, actually)

In reality, though money in general has come to have such a firm grip and foothold in our society that without it the society wouldn’t even run properly. It would cease to function and it would go into anarchy. Or, we would revert to the bartering system, either one is a viable possibility but in all seriousness money is a living, breathing entity that causes more problems than it fixes.