The root cause of a community's downward trend:

I think that where the disconnection between you two comes from the way you assign “bullying” to behavior that Leo and I do not. I think I can safely speak for Leo and me when we agree that most of the world’s population isn’t out to “hurt” anyone. It’s how being unaware, or denying certain truths, that we end up doing so. It’s rarely ever malicious, yet can still be just as damaging.

I respect your first hand opinion, but the definition seems fairly fitting to me especially given the way in which, IMO, racism has evolved to this point. This is the basis of my argument as far as this area of the subject is concerned - that racism has evolved into a form of bullying, as opposed to first hand, aggressive oppression. Obviously some cases are unique, in the same way that sometimes traditional bullying goes to far and becomes assault, harassment, etc., but now a days the vast majority of racism equates to racial slurs, jokes and name-calling. Very rarely does the system allow for blatant racism to be used to oppress an individual:

Actual Definition: 

bul·ly1
ˈbo͝olē/
verb
gerund or present participle: bullying
1. 1.
use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants.
"a local man was bullied into helping them"
synonyms: persecute, oppress, tyrannize, browbeat, harass, torment, intimidate, strong-arm, dominate; More

Honestly though, that’s neither here nor there as far as the original debate is concerned, IMO.

That said:

Extreme Example:

Obama’s daughters were not born into poverty. They are growing up being given almost every luxury imaginable. Education, travel experiences, adult conversation and etiquette, etc. These young women have more opportunities to be successful than most other people dare dream. So if one becomes a doctor, and another a lawyer, and both end up rich and happy, few people would act surprised. Why? Because from the beginning, they were set up to be successful. Sure, it doesn’t mean they didn’t work hard, and that their lifestyle didn’t have its own issues and hardships. But relatively speaking, all they had to do was continue down a track that was already laid out for them. They didn’t have to “overcome”, but simply “not deviate”. The doors were already open. All they had to do was choose one, and walk through it. They don’t HAVE to be especially bright, or gifted, or extremely hard working (though they may end up being so). They just have to be “normal” in comparison to their surroundings, and their community will do the rest. Their success won’t be seen as extraordinary. It will be seen as normal.

I guarantee you, these ladies are not being taught that everyone else had the same opportunities as them. So when they get into Yale, Harvard, whatever, with the same kid from the South Bronx on a football/academic scholarship, I’m sure they won’t have issue saying to themselves, “That kid had half the opportunities, and had to work twice as hard to be in the same class as me.” And they will act to situations accordingly.

I agree. This is an example of the scenario I gave about inheritance being a big part of keeping ones line going in a positive direction, that’s not a secret. That’s the beauty of hard work; you can pass on the benefits to those you love most. That said, this specific debate has to do with a statement I made about this being a land of opportunity, not outcome. Your example bolsters what I am talking about, by showing how hard work on behalf of Obama benefited his children. I’m not by any stretch trying to say that there is not going to be an imbalance in living conditions, there will always be an imbalance, that’s the nature of a competitive environment, someone is always better than you or I; someone always has a one up in some way. This doesn’t mean though, that the opportunity to succeed isn’t there, because it is. Politicians, IMO, are not good examples to include in this discussion, though, for the simple fact that there are many perks available to them that the typical wealthy family may not have available to them. To somehow say that the reset button should be hit for every new generation that is born, though, is a bit far fetched, IMO.

But that also means that relatively speaking, the rest of the kids in the South Bronx who only “walked through the doors” they were given, weren’t necessarily “Lazy”, they just weren’t extraordinary, like the one who got in on the scholarship. The only difference, is that in their community, “normal” won’t get them as far is it would get Obama’s girls, because the communities are so fundamentally different.

Again, I don’t think the children of any politician would be good examples to give in this scenario, but that said, given your example and replacing Obama's girls with, say, a family from the Polo fields in Wellington, we could only draw the conclusion that those children would succeed because of the combination of what they were taught, how they were taught what they were taught, the work their parents put in for them. It’s a foundational issue and one that involves nurture as much as preexisting factors. Had the kids been taught that they were supposed to become basketball players and rappers, and that there were millions of people out there who hated them for no reason (which we can argue would be a true statement) rather than been taught that education was the norm, and that a real job in a booming sector was probably the best route, and then on top of that had these ideals reinforced by the actions of their parents, they would probably not get into Harvard, Yale, etc. I think this is an interesting example, particularly for me, because Karla was just accepted to Yale for her pre-med post bacc, and were talking about a girl who was born 3 months premature, whose family is still to this day in dire financial need, who came from an island in the middle of the Atlantic whose population speaks Spanish as a first language, and yet managed to put in the work, flew over here and will start at Yale this summer. Now, I know she has lighter skin than some folks, but I would venture to say that the reason she was able to do this was because even though her situation was dire, her foundation was supportive and nurturing, she was taught that she could do whatever she wanted, and the opportunities were there for her. If she manages to become very wealthy, would you say that we should then take what she has worked for, and give it to someone else who skipped school, did drugs, and rode their bikes around town all day while she was in class, so that those people can live the same as she eventually will? She came from a situation that was far different from ours, but if you asked her, she was used to it, so she doesn’t see it as her having to work any harder than any of us when it comes to the content of her education, rather she came to school, went to class, studied, on the same loans we all take out, and is now going to Yale. Why did she succeed? Because of her mindset, the way she was raised, and the messages she was taught. Do you think she would be in her current situation had she been taught that she was hated, preyed upon and should be a rapper? It’s a systemic issue with the messages and foundation of these children, not their situations – the re-engineering of one will lead to the evolution of the other, that said, there is no such thing as a magic wand that will automatically give everyone as much as the next guy/girl has, and creating racial division sure doesn’t do anything for the foundational stability of poor children.

It’s this type of awareness that Leo and I are saying we need to apply to our everyday living when we interact with others and judge education, economic, and social situations. Not so we feel guilty about our success, but so we have empathy, compassion, and context for why many others aren’t as successful. When we are telling them to “work hard and you can achieve anything” it’s important to realize that we may be asking something of them that we didn’t, and in all likelihood couldn’t, do ourselves given the same tools.

I agree, and I agree with your message of compassion. That’s why I feel so strongly about deleting this mentality of victimization, which serves no purpose other than belittling the individual. I just know how important a strong foundation is, I wouldn’t be here if my base weren’t solid and I didn’t put in the work, and that’s what we need to be teaching people, all while helping the out, but to sit back and say that the government should tax people who are successful, at a higher rate, to funnel money into a family that is not foundationally equipped to ever make it on their own, infuriates me - especially when we are fully capable of doing it on our own, and the governments only motivation is job security.

Simply saying this exists, doesn’t mean you are creating a society of victims and bullies. It simply means you see things for what they are, through a relatively clear set of contexts.

I’m not saying it does, but saying that there are difficult situations out there, and reprogramming the way an individual is raised, are two completely different issues.

Now I will agree with you that there are some out there who claim victimhood, but I would also argue that that’s not from the knowledge of what I just laid out. That sense of being a “victim” comes from simply noticing that something is OFF, being on the lower end of things and not being able to understand WHY. On the other end, we view “bullies” as those who come from being at the higher end of things, and not understanding HOW. Both these positions come from lack of context.

I would say that the some notion of victimization permeates through more than half of certain communities, IMO, most, not some. Yes, something is off in these situations, individuals were taught to live and act in a certain way, and that reverberated throughout their lives, causing them to not be as successful as others who were taught the right ways to succeed. Obviously not in every situation, but most. Some parents were addicted to drugs, were unable to raise their children effectively and didn’t do anything about their situation – while others were simply more concerned about buying iPhone's they couldn’t afford, their nails and their rides, than teaching their children to be financially responsible, to put education first and concentrate on building a good family and a future.

But both are not equally damaging. Because the ones on “top” don’t NEED this knowledge to be successful, while the vast majority of the ones on the bottom will continue to suffer if they are unaware. I believe this is why you call upon those on the bottom to rise up. Because you believe that’s the only way for them to succeed.

I disagree. Having the ability succeed and utilizing your capabilities to do so are two completely different things. Had I or Karla done nothing but bounce basketballs around all day, and blew our paychecks on shoes and iPhone's we couldn’t afford, all while I ran around worrying about being hated because my parents have money, would I expect us to be where we are? Nope. It wouldn’t happen. And sadly, this is the reality of most minority children because of the way they were brought up. I also disagree with your definition of successful individuals being “on top.” The comment actually concerns me because it would imply that we have come to a point where having the ability to care for a family and children, brought about by hard work and ethical living, is now considered being “on top,” or “superior” to most. What happened to the times when living in those types of situations was simply, normal? I’m not calling for them to rise up, I’m showing them how “we” live, and explaining that this is why we are where we are, and that it should be normal (and once was) for people/families to be raised this way and accomplish good things, as Karla and I have.

But Leo and I believe it just as important (if not, more so), for those on top to see their positions in proper context, because the systems many of them set up for success only work for “normal” people like them, or the extraordinary ones from the bottom. Many mistake their “normal” work for extraordinarily hard work, and don’t recognize the extraordinarily hard work of the few underprivileged as the statistical anomalies they are, relative to the normal or hard work of their communities. They see one rise up out of 100, and say, “See, the rest of you just need to work hard, like US.” Meanwhile ignoring the near impossible climb they never had to (and probably couldn't) climb themselves.

I’m not sure that “extraordinarily hard” is the right phrase to use when describing the path that the majority of those who live comfortably/well off take, simply because you’re referring to someone who falls below the poverty line. The methods you’re referring to are the things that normally successful and stable individuals do on a regular basis, because it’s how they were taught to think - some come from wealth, some do not. Also, working smarter does not mean that a job is not an important one. I make my living designing software and databases that make others jobs easier. At some point, someone designed tools to make my job easier, thus it the nature of innovation. As to your “normal work” analogy, I couldn’t be so bold as to assert that Engineers, Scientists, Physicist, Doctors, Lawyers and the like, have easy jobs – that notion is a bit concerning to me. Perhaps you’ve never taken a look at the hour’s med students or dentist works, and the nature of the information they are required to learn? I’m not sure a McDonald's drive thru worker, or a dollar store clerks requirements are quite on the same level, IMO. Obviously this is general, but I don’t think it’s far from a normal comparison. When a “normal” situation consists of single mothers beating kids in public, screaming at them in unrecognizable English, letting them do what they want, skipping school, aspiring to be basketball players instead of scientists, all while a father chills at the bus stop, calling women hoes, dressing like circus clowns and pretending they’re the “bosses” or rap music lore from the front seat of 92’ Mercedes E class, there is a serious need for intervention - injecting someone else’s money into that type of community, all while Farrackhan, Al Sharpton, Beyonce and JayZ are telling them that their situation is the result of “institutional racism,” does nothing to destroy the actual problem. This is the reality of the situation. I see it every day on my way to work, and again on my way home, when I see hoards of young minorities perched on the bus stop stoop when I'm walking to work, and then notice that they haven't moved when I'm walking home. I notice it when I see hoards of illiterate minority parents on television, screaming about every instance of white on black crime, all while blacks kill blacks by the busloads. There is a problem here, and it's not that were not paying enough attention to the imbalance, it's because were not addressing the real cause of the imbalance.

About Me: I am a Computer Scientist, more specifically a Database Administrator, a business man (Holding a Bachelors in Business with a focus in Enterprise Administration from Fordham University, Magna Cum Laude), a writer, a blogger, as well as a philosopher, a philanthropist (as much as one with limited finances can be..) a veteran, and in general, an all around thinker and do'er. My purpose is to point out that there is a reason for everything and an opinion for every reason. I am designed to interpret what I see and dictate what I've interpreted. My hope is that my words will not be seen as harsh, rather as liberating, and at very least, thought provoking. I enjoy everything from technology, to race relations, biology, genetics and economics.. for a start.. 

Read More

Why Putin and Russia could care less about Obama and the west:

While the American status quo of pure chaos on the home front does not go so far as to promote outright drooling at the mouth from the old powers, what it does do is make opportunities to gain an upper hand seem like a much more delectable route to take. For those like Putin, who are hell bent on resurrecting the “Russianesque” era of old, there is simply a, “hey, why not?” mentality to it all. As the old adage goes, “while the cat is away, the mice will play,” suffice it to say, if America is a feline, it has fallen into a self induced catnip coma, and will out of the litter box for the foreseeable future – Putin is merely seeing how far he can go. Who’s going to stop him?

Opportunists are taking notice as western world sits on it’s hindquarters and shakes sticks at itself – when you consider the inaction in 08’ during the Georgian invasion, and the same during the Syrian civil war, the inability to balance a budget, the levying of massive cuts to the funding of what was at one point the worlds most feared and ready military unit, a president who all but annihilates any legal boundaries that stand in his way, European weakness, and lest we forget history’s biggest international incident in which the US was caught illegally spying on just about every faction in the world, including itself and it’s own citizens, it’s not hard to see why those who are on the outside looking in are taking a vested interested in the toxic nature of the recent events America has been involved in, and are acting on it.

Crimea has been a sore spot in the side of Russia since Nikita Khrushchev handed it over to Ukraine in 1954. What adds to the volatility of this situation is the inclusion of old world powers that are longing to restructure their borders and expand their power, all in the name of national honor and restored glory. Staying true to his ever so Hitler’esq style, Putin is playing our bluff and is gambling big time on our track record of doing absolutely nothing when the time called for action. It's a bluff that he will most likely win if the track record of inaction continues.

What is so infuriating about the situation for the west is the reality that a small flexing of the muscle would most likely cause Putin to stand down, and there are many ways that liberals can accomplish this: Freeze Russian purchases in America and the EU, impose sanctions, kick Putin out of the G8 – something needs to be done before the attempts to push America into the background are made a reality. And what has the west done? Threaten a no show at the Sochi meetings. What a chilling thought – cough, cough.

The big issue on the horizon for the western and liberal world is the question of how much insecurity are they willing to put up with? Are liberals willing to bow out, sacrifice power, and in the coming decades add to the insecurity, instability and uncertainty? How far is the west willing to bend? How long can we weather continual slaps in the face in the presence of the reshaping of the global paradigm? If the liberal agenda continues to relent power and fan the flames of the reconstruction that Putin and China are pushing for, there will be drastic changes in the not so distant future. It will take more than a small poke in the eye for Putin to make over Russia in the ways he wishes, but for his opening act, taking Crimea quickly and possibly all of Ukraine at any point in the future certainly adds some wind to his sails. And while Beijing may not necessarily be motivated by emotional instigators, the slow advance throughout Asia certainly smells like the beginning of something much more advantageous for them. The question is, how long will Obama sit in his chair and whack his paddle ball before he feels that he should actually start making good on some of his threats? We have an ace in the hole in our oil reserve, what will Obama and the liberal west do? – everyone is watching.

About Me: I am a Computer Scientist, more specifically a Database Administrator, a business man (Holding a Bachelors in Business with a focus in Enterprise Administration from Fordham University, Magna Cum Laude), a writer, a blogger, as well as a philosopher, a philanthropist (as much as one with limited finances can be..) a veteran, and in general, an all around thinker and do'er. My purpose is to point out that there is a reason for everything and an opinion for every reason. I am designed to interpret what I see and dictate what I've interpreted. My hope is that my words will not be seen as harsh, rather as liberating, and at very least, thought provoking. I enjoy everything from technology, to race relations, biology, genetics and economics..  for a start.. 

WhoisJamesRoberts.com

Read More

Government Aid and How it Creates Dependency Amongst the Minority Community:

It’s well understood that innovation is the key to advancement for any society/civilization. The truth is, without new discoveries we would grow stagnant as individuals, and our economies would inevitably grind to a halt – monopolized by those corporations who, over the decades, would eventually buy out smaller companies in an effort to claim supremacy over market space. It takes the branching-out of new ideas to stimulate growth, add to the job market, and eventually produce “the next big thing.” There is something far more inherently fascinating, and otherwise terrifying about the nature of innovation though – not to say that progress is negative – and that is the fact that with all of the individuals who prosper from the ability to apply their knowledge to their prospective sectors, and with all the jobs created, money earned and milestones achieved as a product of progress through innovation, there will inevitably be those who do not prosper, those who are simply not mentally prepared or intellectually equipped with the ability to do things like hardwire computers, provide patient care or code software.  What happens to those individuals?

My concern stems from the reality that the majority of those in the lower middle and lower classes in this country are becoming inherently dependent on a government that, it seems, would prefer to keep them that way. Government programs supply a steady stream of income – in the way of food stamps, welfare and so on – that those who have access to would be foolish to give up in exchange for unskilled labor, whose end result would often times see them pull in far less compensation than they would if they were to remain on government assistance. The aim of these programs is to provide assistance, some short term, and some long term; more often than not, though, this creates a dependency. I read a statistic recently that translated the government assistance programs of different states, to a “dollar per hour amount” based on a 40-hour workweek. Most states averaged around the $12 - $14 dollar an hour mark, with the highest numbers - like those of Connecticut, New York, Hawaii and Rhode Island - equating the amount of the average government aid to an individual making between $17 and $22 per hour. Who needs to get a job when you’re pulling in that kind of money for nothing?

Here is the troubling part: If we combine these facts with statistics which show that minority households make up the majority of the lower end of the income scale – earning almost half of the income that Asians and white households do (as seen in image 1) – it would be safe to assume that these programs would inevitably have a devastating effect on the minority populations of this country for several reasons:

1.) The first issue I see is what I like to call “The rebound effect.” While not in every case, chances are good that an increased flow of money will lead to purchases that were otherwise not affordable for a low income household, say for instance a new car, which was not previously an option, but is now feasible given the new income. The rebound aspect of this scenario has to do with the inability of the low-income individual to maintain payments on a car note that will inevitably last far longer into the future than the aid will. This leads to a default on payments, credit issues and a financial burden greater than what was initially an issue. 

2.) A second issue I would like to highlight occurs when an individual cannot realistically match the income that was previously being gifted to them. Nine times out of ten, an aid recipient’s funds run out – this is the unavoidable end result of most government aid. When this happens, the individual now faces a situation where they have no better options for employment than they were initially facing, prior to applying for aid, and the money vein has run dry. If and when an individual does become employed, the new position is often not a skilled one, and therefore does not command a wage anywhere close to that which was the average of their aid. This scenario sees a person use up what little government backing they receive only to come out on the other end with no formal training or learned skills that would better their chances of obtaining a job, and no more funding coming in from the government that once enabled an unsustainable way of life. This could eventually lead to depression, anxiety and other forms of mental illness, which will only serve to complicate an already dire situation - when all else seems hopeless, suicide could result.

3.) We also can’t overlook the fact that in the majority of these situations, there are children involved. Often times these children become accustomed to seeing single mothers or single fathers, seeking out and living off of government funding. As children grow, these observations would undoubtedly lead to the  notion that it is normal for individuals to live off of the government. Children are rarely taught where this money comes from, and so, never learn to truly appreciate how the system is supposed to work, and that they should indeed try their best to contribute to the fund, as opposed to taking away from it. Despite the balancing act one must do with political correctness in this country, I feel it must be said that the reality is that the seeds planted into a child’s mind in this way, will undoubtedly have disastrous effects on the mindset of future generations, and will only serve to anchor these generations into an imaginary fallback plan, where we will then see this inhumane cycle occur all over again – and these are only a few of the proposed problems that I have chosen to expound upon.

The department of commerce shows us that even though the minority population makes up less than 30% of the nation's population, it accounts for over 55% of the nation's government aid recipients. (http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/) Where will that leave the majority of the minority population in the future? One would have to imagine that this combination of evolution and the inherited diseases of addiction and dependency will inevitably have disastrous effects on the psyche and the overall wellbeing of entire categories of people – evolution is funny in the way that is slowly changes things, and one would have to understand that just as traits for alcoholism and other forms of dependency and mental illness are passed down through genetic transfer, this form of dependency too, is transferred from generation to generation.

(Image 1)

This leads me to consider: It being the case that the upper levels of the income gap are inhabited by those who hold jobs that most would consider as having a direct impact on innovation and therefore progress – tech jobs, money management and analytical positions, etc. – we can assume that the individuals in these sectors will pass on more well adapted cognitive and analytical functions to their children. As this trend continues, it should have a much more positive long term effect on its line, producing minds which are much better suited for problem solving, analytical processes, and which are generally better equipped to thrive in a future that will be dominated by industries of innovation. With one group heading down a more positive evolutionary path, while the other develops crippling dependencies as a result of it being hardwired into the brains of those who will have been dependent for so long, I can only conclude that we will continue to see a widening in the gap not only between the poor and the wealthy, (or at least the well off) but also between those effected by the mental and psychological aspects of dependency. Take this into consideration as you try to visualize these situations: What do you suppose the effects would be on the nation or on a particular sub category of the population, if that population consisted of, say, 40% alcoholics, as opposed to the 4% that is the current rate? I will leave that open for you to consider, but will point out again that 40% receiving government aide is where the minority community currently stands, while making up less than 1/3 of the total population – food for thought.

Why then would we continue to enable individuals to maintain their dependency on government programs that only serve to diminish their chances of competing in a future that will demand sharp intellect if we are to be successful, both as individuals and as a nation? Should we not be concerned that this type of dependency will inevitably lead to a decline in the mental and emotional health of those dependent? These are simple evolutionary principles we are talking about here. Despite what we would like to believe, human beings are evolved animals, in so much that we continuously evolve as any other creature on this planet does – be it by the doing of a divine being or a big bang, the evidence of science is still the same. Would we be so foolish as to allow unbeneficial traits to be bred into large portions of society by our own hand, even if doing so will only continue to influence the onslaught of mental illnesses, depression and dependence? We should be focusing our efforts on removing the vein of dependency, and redirecting individuals to programs that will nurture the intellectual capabilities so that in a future where complexity is common, entire categories of people will not be hindered by their ancestor’s inability to better themselves, and a system designed to ensure that there is a reason for this inability.

This system must change, and it is for this reason that I propose we enact an incentive initiative for those who seek assistance - be it in the form of courses that teach programming or other relative computer skills, or program goals that require participants of government programs to complete reading and writing assessments, financial management training, or gain skills in engineering. We must make an effort to not only keep those in need afloat, but also to better their chance of thriving in the future. We should empower those who need to take from the pot, to eventually possess the skills to be able to put back into it. This is the nature of a self-sustaining system. These actions will see those who are currently, or were once addicted to a vein, to the trap of free income, no longer be dependent on a system that is taking from those who are producing, to give to those who have no choice but to further cripple the intellectual capacity and the probability of success, of future generations.

It is understandable that not every situation is the same. There will always be a select few who need help because they just need help. My proposed vision serves multiple purposes: It allows individuals to better themselves by requiring the learning valuable skills that will eventually lead to some finding good jobs in booming sectors. This type of system would also serve to eliminate those who milk the system as merely a way to pull an income without having to work for it. If one is not willing to seek a means to an end, said individual will not be allowed to simply sit around and collect a paycheck – despite what we like to think, there are many individuals who do slip through the cracks in this way. This type of system will also serve to strengthen the intellectual capabilities passed on to future generations. This may seem like a laughable point, or even one that offends some – the notion that intellectuality may not be even across the board – but the reality is that it’s fairly basic science which shows us the links between issues such as intelligence, heart disease and addiction, and how they are passed on through our genes. It is well known amongst scientists that family history is a strong predictor of who is most at risk for becoming addicted. Biology – for example, age, and presence of other diseases – and environmental influences – such as stress, diet, and peer pressure – do play a significant role, but according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, addiction is a chronic, relapsing brain disease characterized by a compulsion, despite it’s harmful consequences. This disease process is the same regardless of what a person abuses. Like many other diseases, addictions are preventable and treatable, but left untreated, their damaging effects can last a lifetime – and genetics account for 40 to 60 percent of a person's vulnerability to addiction. While it is true that we are far more advanced than any other species on this planet, the rules do still apply. Certain traits and patterns of thinking will be inherited, and so, passed on to future generations, and this will eventually lead to the rewiring of our brains, even if only at a pace that is not apparent to the human eye. Eliminating dependencies and therefore the inherited traits of dependency will only serve to better our societies, and our species as a whole; and to that I say, we need not wait to advance such ideas.

Sources:

Census Statistics

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0691.pdf

Katherine Hall: Web Article

http://www.qualityhealth.com/mental-health-articles/addiction-hereditary

Boughton, Barbara. "APA 2009: Family History Linked to Alcoholism but Does Not Predict Remission."  

American Psychiatric Association (APA) 2009 Annual Meeting: Abstract NR2-017. Presented May 18, 2009. Medscape Medical News. Web. 25 May 2009.t;>http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/703251

National Institutes on Health. National Institute of Drug Abuse. "Drug Abuse and Addiction." Web. http://www.drugabuse.gov/scienceofaddiction/addiction.html

National Institutes on Health. National Institute of Drug Abuse. "NIH Researchers

Complete Unprecedented Genetic Study That May Help Identify People Most at Risk for Alcoholism." Press release, August 24, 2006. Web.http://www.drugabuse.gov/newsroom/06/NR8-24.html

National Institutes of Health. National Institute on Drug Abuse. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. "Genetics & Addiction." Heads Up. Web.

http://www.drugabuse.gov/PDF/Scholastic/HeadsUp-Student-Yr7.pdf

Brody, Jane. "Addiction: A Brain Ailment, Not a Moral Lapse." Behavioral Health Digest9(4). Web. http://behaviorhealth.org/addiction.htm 

About Me: I am a Software Engineer w/ a Masters in Computer Science, a business man -- holding a Bachelors in Business with a focus in Enterprise Administration from Fordham University, Magna Cum Laude -- a writer, a blogger, a philosopher, a philanthropist, a veteran, and an all around thinker and do'er. My purpose is to point out that there is a reason for everything and an opinion for every reason. I am designed to interpret what I see and dictate what I've interpreted. My hope is that my words will not be seen as harsh, rather as liberating, and at very least, thought provoking. I enjoy everything from technology, to race relations, biology, genetics and economics.. for a start..  

Read More