WHAT ARE SOLUTIONS TO ISREALI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT?

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the world's
longest standing conflicts. Many people feel that
resolving this conflict is the key to resolving the various
conflicts throughout the Middle East. Some observers
see this conflict creating Arab resentment towards the
"West" and fueling radical Islamic terrorism. Although
the conflict generates massive public discussion and
debate, there are relatively few (if any) forums that
inherently maintain an impartial and non-partisan
approach to understanding it. We intentionally expose
the massive variations of opinion, narrative and fact, to
give our readers the best "big picture" understanding of
the conflict and its potential solutions.

SHOULD UNITED STATES CONTINUE ITS USE OF DRONE STRIKES ABROAD?

Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), otherwise known as
drones, are remotely-controlled aircraft which may be
armed with missiles and bombs for attack missions.
Since the World Trade Center attacks of Sep. 11, 2001
and the subsequent "War on Terror," the United States
has used drones to kill suspected terrorists in Pakistan,
Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and other countries.
Proponents say that drones have decimated terrorist
networks abroad via precise strikes with minimal civilian
casualties. They contend that drones are relatively
inexpensive weapons, are used under proper government
oversight, and that their use helps prevent "boots on the
ground" combat and makes America safer.
Opponents say that drone strikes create more terrorists
than they kill. They contend that drone strikes kill large
numbers of civilians, violate international law, lack
sufficient congressional oversight, violate the
sovereignty of other nations, and make the horrors of
war appear as innocuous as a video game.
Civilians accounted for 8-17% of all deaths from US
drones in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia.

SHOULD UNITED STATES MAINTAIN THE EMBARGO AGAINST CUBA?

February 7, 2012 marked the 50th anniversary of the
ongoing US embargo against Cuba, an island nation 90
miles off the coast of Florida. The embargo, known
among Cubans as "el bloqueo" or "the blockade,"
consists of economic sanctions against Cuba and
restrictions on Cuban travel and commerce for all
people and companies under US jurisdiction.
Proponents of the embargo argue that Cuba has not
met the US conditions for lifting the embargo, including
transitioning to democracy and improving human rights.
They say that backing down without getting
concessions from the Castro regime will make the
United States appear weak, and that only the Cuban
elite would benefit from open trade.
Opponents of the Cuba embargo argue that it should be
lifted because the failed policy is a Cold War relic and
has clearly not achieved its goals. They say the
sanctions harm the US economy and Cuban citizens,
and prevent opportunities to promote change and
democracy in Cuba. They say the embargo hurts
international opinion of the United States.

SHOULD PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUGS BE ACCEPTED IN SPORTS?

Proponents of accepting performance enhancing drugs
(PEDs) in sports argue that their harmful health effects
have been overstated, that health risks are an athlete’s
decision to make, that using drugs is part of the
evolution of sports much like improved training
techniques and new technologies, and that efforts to
keep athletes from using PEDs are overzealous,
unproductive, unfairly administered, and bound to fail.
Opponents argue that PEDs are harmful and potentially
fatal, and that athletes who use them are cheaters who
gain an unfair advantage, violate the spirit of
competition, and send the wrong message to children.
They say PED users unfairly diminish the historic
achievements of clean athletes, and that efforts to stop
PED use in sports should remain strong.

SHOULD PROSTITUTION BE LEGAL?

Proponents of legalizing prostitution believe it would
reduce crime, improve public health, increase tax
revenue, help people out of poverty, get prostitutes off
the streets, and allow consenting adults to make their
own choices. They contend that prostitution is a
victimless crime, especially in the 11 Nevada counties
where it remains legal.
Opponents believe that legalizing prostitution would
lead to increases in sexually transmitted diseases such
as AIDS, global human trafficking, and violent crime
including rape and homicide. They contend that
prostitution is inherently immoral, commercially
exploitative, empowers the criminal underworld, and
promotes the repression of women by men.

IS SEXUAL ORIENTATION DETERMINED AT BIRTH?

Whether sexual orientation is a trait we are born with
(nature) or is caused by the environment we are raised
in (nurture) has been debated by scientists, religious
leaders, elected officials, and the general public.
Proponents argue that sexual orientation, much like
handedness or tongue curling, is determined by natural,
immutable biological factors such as genes or
hormones, and therefore gay people should be entitled
to the same legal rights and protections as other human
beings.
Opponents argue that homosexuality is a reversible and
unfortunate lifestyle choice resulting from poor child-
parent relationships, sexual abuse, brainwashing by
pro-gay influences, or other developmental causes.
Some contend that gay people should be denied
marriage, discrimination protection, and social and
religious acceptance.

IS HUMAN ACTIVITY SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE OF CLIMATE CHANGE?

The US National Academies of Science, the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), and many others, say that greenhouse gas
levels are rising due to human activities such as burning
fossil fuels and deforestation which are causing
significant climate changes including global warming,
loss of sea ice, glacier retreat, more intense heat waves,
stronger hurricanes, and more droughts. They contend
that climate change requires immediate international
action to prevent dire consequences.
The Heartland Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and
the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, and
many others, argue that human-generated greenhouse
gas emissions are too small to substantially change the
earth’s climate. They contend that our forests and
oceans are capable of absorbing these small increases,
and that 20th century warming has resulted from
natural processes including fluctuations in the sun's
heat and ocean currents. They say that global climate
change is based on bunk science and scare tactics.
Human activities release greenhouse gases such as
carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide
(NO2), into the atmosphere. As of Apr. 2010, CO2 levels
were 389 parts per million (ppm) - reportedly higher
than at any time in the last 650,000 years when levels
fluctuated between 180 and 300 ppm. [3] This rise took
place alongside a 20th century global temperature
increase of between 1°F and 1.4°F.[ 1][ 43]
Although there was a period of cooling from 1940 to
1970 [ 2], and uncertainty exists in computer climate
models, [ 8] many researchers think the earth will
continue to warm by 3-10°F [ 1] over the 21st century.

ARE CELL PHONES SAFE?

The radiation emitted by cell phones, known as
radiofrequency (RF) radiation, is regulated by the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Hundreds
of millions of Americans use cell phones and many of
them wonder if there are any health risks.
People who say cell phones are safe reference
statements by the FCC and Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) and point to peer-reviewed studies
which conclude that cell phone use is not associated
with an increased risk of brain tumors or the onset of
other health problems. They contend there has been no
increase in brain tumor rates despite hundreds of
millions of people now using cell phones.
People who say cell phones are not safe cite peer-
reviewed studies showing an association between cell
phone use and tumor growth, DNA damage, and
decreased fertility. They say cancers take 20-30 years
to develop and cell phone studies have monitored
periods of 10 years or less. They highlight the
International Agency for Research on Cancer’s
classification of cell phone radiation as a possible
carcinogen.
Cordless home phones, television, radio, laptops, and
tablet computers all produce radiofrequency (RF)
radiation, the same type of radiation that is produced by
cell phones.
The radiation emitted by a cell phone can penetrate 4 -
6 cm (1.6 - 2.4 in) into an adult human brain. [ 1] The
amount of RF absorbed into the head can be reduced by
using a wired ear-piece (not a Bluetooth) rather than
placing the phone against the ear.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)
of the World Health Organization (WHO) announced on
May 31, 2011 that it had added cell phone radiation to
its list of physical agents which are "possibly
carcinogenic to humans" (group 2B agents). [ 37] Other
group 2B agents include coffee, DDT, pickled vegetables,
and lead.

CAN ALTERNATIVE ENERGY EFFECTIVELY REPLACE FOSSIL FUELS?

Whether alternative energy sources such as biofuels,
hydrogen, solar, geothermal, or nuclear energy can meet
energy demands better than finite fossil fuels such as
oil and coal remains hotly debated.
Proponents of alternative energy argue that fossil fuels
are inefficient, unsustainable, environmentally
destructive, and the primary contributor to global
climate change. They say renewable energies are a
viable and immediately needed alternative to fossil fuel
use that could boost the US economy and reduce
reliance on foreign energy sources.
Opponents contend that many technological hurdles
have to be overcome before alternative energy can
replace even a small portion of the power provided by
fossil fuels. They say that fossil fuels will last hundreds
of years longer, be made increasingly efficient, remain
the most economical choice, and that reliance on
inefficient alternative energies will hurt the economy.

SHOULD CHURCHES REMAIN TAX-EXEMPT?

US churches* received an official federal income tax
exemption in 1894, and they have been unofficially tax-
exempt since the country's founding. All 50 US states
and the District of Columbia exempt churches from
paying property tax. Donations to churches are tax-
deductible. The debate continues over whether or not
these tax benefits should be retained.
Proponents argue that a tax exemption keeps the
government out of church finances and thus upholds the
separation of church and state. They say that churches
deserve a tax break because they provide crucial social
services, and that 200 years of church tax exemptions
have not turned America into a theocracy.
Opponents argue that giving churches special tax
exemptions violates the separation of church and state,
and that tax exemptions are a privilege, not a
constitutional right. They say that in tough economic
times the government cannot afford what amounts to a
subsidy worth billions of dollars every year.
The first recorded tax exemption for churches was
during the Roman Empire, when Constantine, Emperor of
Rome from 306-337, granted the Christian church a
complete exemption from all forms of taxation following
his conversion to Christianity circa 312.

IS ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION WORTH IT?

With over 11 million immigrants in the United States
illegally (as of 2011), the issue of illegal immigration
continues to divide Americans.
Some people say that illegal immigration benefits the
US economy through additional tax revenue, expansion
of the low-cost labor pool, and increased money in
circulation. They contend that immigrants bring good
values, have motivations consistent with the American
dream, perform jobs that Americans won’t take, and
that opposition to immigration stems from racism.
Opponents of illegal immigration say that people who
break the law by crossing the US border without proper
documentation or by overstaying their visas should be
deported and not rewarded with a path to citizenship
and access to social services. They argue that people in
the country illegally are criminals and social and
economic burdens to law-abiding, tax-paying
Americans.

SHOULD THE DEATH PENALTY BE ALLOWED?

1,188 people were executed in the US from 1977
through 2009, primarily by means of lethal injection.
Most death penalty cases involve the execution of
murderers although capital punishment can also be
applied for treason, espionage, and other crimes.
Proponents of the death penalty say it is an important
tool for preserving law and order, deters crime, and
costs less than life imprisonment. They argue that
retribution or "an eye for an eye" honors the victim,
helps console grieving families, and ensures that the
perpetrators of heinous crimes never have an
opportunity to cause future tragedy.
Opponents of capital punishment say it has no deterrent
effect on crime, wrongly gives governments the power to
take human life, and perpetuates social injustices by
disproportionately targeting people of color (racist) and
people who cannot afford good attorneys (classist).
They say lifetime jail sentences are a more severe and
less expensive punishment than death.

SHOULD DRINKING AGE BE LOWERED?

All 50 US states have set their minimum drinking age to
21 although exceptions do exist on a state-by-state
basis for consumption at home, under adult supervision,
for medical necessity, and other reasons.
Proponents of lowering the minimum legal drinking age
(MLDA) from 21 argue that it has not stopped teen
drinking, and has instead pushed underage binge
drinking into private and less controlled environments,
leading to more health and life-endangering behavior by
teens.
Opponents of lowering the MLDA argue that teens have
not yet reached an age where they can handle alcohol
responsibly, and thus are more likely to harm or even
kill themselves and others by drinking prior to 21. They
contend that traffic fatalities decreased when the MLDA
increased .
Although many believe that anyone under the age of 21
is prohibited from consuming alcohol in the United
States, underage drinking is allowed in 29 states if done
on private premises with parental consent, 25 states if
for religious purposes, and 11 states if for educational
purposes .

SHOULD GAY MARRIAGE BE LEGAL?

As of May 21, 2014, gay marriage has been legalized
in 19 US states (CA, CT, DE, HI, IA, IL, MA, MD, ME, MN,
NH, NJ, NM, NY, OR, PA, RI, VT, and WA) and the
District of Columbia. 31 states have gay marriage
bans through either laws or constitutional amendments
or both.
Proponents argue that same-sex couples should have
access to the same marriage benefits and public
acknowledgment enjoyed by heterosexual couples and
that prohibiting gay marriage is unconstitutional
discrimination.
Opponents argue that altering the traditional definition
of marriage as between a man and a woman will further
weaken a threatened institution and that legalizing gay
marriage is a slippery slope that may lead to
polygamous and interspecies marriages.
As of Apr. 11, 2014, 15 out of 194 countries allow
same-sex couples to marry: the Netherlands (2000),
Belgium (2003), Canada (2005), Spain (2005), South
Africa (2006), Norway (2009), Sweden (2009), Argentina
(2010), Iceland (2010), Portugal (2010), Denmark
(2012), Uruguay (2013), New Zealand (2013), Brazil
(2013), and France (2013). Same-sex marriage is legal
in some jurisdictions of Mexico, the United Kingdom
(England, Scotland, and Wales), and the United States.

DO VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES CONTRIBUTE TO YOUTH VIOLENCE?

97% of 12-17 year olds in the US played video games in
2008, thus fueling an $11.7 billion domestic video game
industry. In 2008, 10 of the top 20 best-selling video
games in the US contained violence.
Violent video games have been blamed for school
shootings, increases in bullying, and violence towards
women. Critics argue that these games desensitize
players to violence, reward players for simulating
violence, and teach children that violence is an
acceptable way to resolve conflicts.
Video game advocates contend that a majority of the
research on the topic is deeply flawed and that no
causal relationship has been found between video
games and social violence. They argue that violent video
games may reduce violence by serving as a substitute
for rough and tumble play and by providing a safe outlet
for aggressive and angry feelings.

SHOULD MARIJUANA BECOME A MEDICAL OPTION?

In 1972, the US Congress placed marijuana in Schedule I
of the Controlled Substances Act because they
considered it to have "no accepted medical use." Since
then, 22 of 50 US states and DC have legalized the
medical use of marijuana.
Proponents of medical marijuana argue that it can be a
safe and effective treatment for the symptoms of
cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, pain, glaucoma,
epilepsy, and other conditions. They cite dozens of peer-
reviewed studies, prominent medical organizations,
major government reports, and the use of marijuana as
medicine throughout world history.
Opponents of medical marijuana argue that it is too
dangerous to use, lacks FDA-approval, and that various
legal drugs make marijuana use unnecessary. They say
marijuana is addictive, leads to harder drug use,
interferes with fertility, impairs driving ability, and injures
the lungs, immune system, and brain. They say that
medical marijuana is a front for drug legalization and
recreational use.

SHOULD PEOPLE BECOME VEGETARIAN?

In 2012 the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) estimated that Americans ate an average of
52.3 pounds of beef, 57.4 pounds of chicken, and 43.5
pounds of pork, per person. [ 126] Vegetarians, about 5%
of the US population, do not eat meat (including poultry
and seafood). [ 127] The USDA includes meat as part of
a balanced diet, but it also states that a vegetarian diet
can meet "the recommended dietary allowances for
nutrients."
Many proponents of vegetarianism say that eating meat
harms health, wastes resources, causes deforestation,
and creates pollution. They often argue that killing
animals for food is cruel and unethical since non-animal
food sources are plentiful.
Many opponents of a vegetarian diet say that meat
consumption is healthful and humane, and that
producing vegetables causes many of the same
environmental problems as producing meat. They also
argue that humans have been eating and enjoying meat
for 2.3 million years. [ 14]
In Western culture vegetarianism dates back to Ancient
Greece. The mathematician Pythagoras (570 BC - 495
BC) advocated vegetarianism; a meatless diet was
commonly called the "Pythagorean diet" until the term
vegetarian became popular during the 1800s. [120 ] The
philosopher Plato (428 BC - 348 BC) described a
vegetarian diet as "divinely ordained." [70]
Other well-known vegetarians include Leonardo da Vinci
(1452-1519), George Bernard Shaw (1712-1778), Leo
Tolstoy (1828-1910), Mohandas Gandhi (1869-1948),
and Franz Kafka (1883-1924). [ 71] [81 ] More recent
vegetarians include César Chávez (1927-1993), Jane
Goodall, Paul McCartney, Ellen DeGeneres, Carl Lewis,
Russell Brand, Pamela Anderson, and Dennis Kucinich
(D-

EVIL IS GOOD

Evil is always use to depict something bad or contradictory to the accepted belief/custom,nevertheless, not minding the fact that evil always precede good in life. Every individual is made up of good and evil ,but what he/she is being referred by the society is what manifest/dominate in his/her thinking.
Is WAR evil?how will weapon manufacturing companies survive?
Is ILLNESS /DISEASE evil? how will medical practitioners/hospitals survive? and others.....
Evil and Good are balance mechanism of NATURE. Often a time, EVIL is Good,because it brings a Greater Good.
NOTE: Always ensure you balance the effects of every action taken in life with the measuring force of Nature called Evil and Good.

DANCE TO GREATNESS

http://www.webnetnaira.com/register.php?id=kolix125

BENEFITS OF INSECURITY

MYSTERY BEHIND LIVING AFTER DEATH

The universe existence seems to pose unquenchable search of its connection to TIME and DEATH in the minds of scholars,nevertheless, both LIFE and DEATH are determined by TIME. Death is inevitable for the living as d quote that state “Everyone lives to die”,nevertheless, anyone can choose to live on even after death by leaving a moment to be remembered by the living which invariably, make him/her a mastermind of the living generation.

ALWAYS BE THE POSITIVE CHANGE THE WORLD NEEDS.