Don't you just loathe it when your parents say that it's their house in an argument but then say that it's OUR house when it's time to clean the house or do something concerning the house? I know I do. Why do they abruptly change their minds when they've already said something? Why? Why is that so? 

In my opinion, houses shouldn't be classified as MY house. Unless you're speaking to friends or others. Yes, you pay the bills or bought it with your own money or take care of it more than others do. But does that really matter? It may give parents power in an argument but otherwise, I don't see the point why we say MY house. Aren't homes supposed to be for ALL of us? No matter what won't the wooden structure that shelters and protects us always be there for ALL of us?  In an argument, parents pull out the "This is MY house card' which is supposed to give them the advantage or even the win. Honestly, it's a shallow trick. Parents, do you usually buy a house just for yourselves and to say that it's yours, or as a place for your family to be safe and warm? Do you? I don't think so. But then, there's another card they pull out.

The "it's OUR house" card. When there's some family chore of cleaning the house or a family project, parents say that it's OUR house, and we should take care of it. Didn't you just say the other day that this was YOUR house? I don't see why parents do that. They change what they said and act like it's no big deal. I don't remember having an incident like this when I was younger. ( Mainly because I didn't realize what was happening) But now that I'm older, I'm starting to see how quickly parents change what they say. 

When I do something wrong or said something that wasn't very kind, they make me explain what happened. You say what happens, and of course, you'll feel guilty explaining the mistakes of your actions. But something passes through your mind. You don't want to have a consequence, so without realizing you'll change a few things. Parents get mad about this. In a way, it almost feels hypocritical. They say that we shouldn't twist our words or change what we said when they do the EXACT SAME THING.  Sometimes they have a fair reason for changing their words.
Parents say that it's our house to persuade us. They say that we should take care of our house because we live in it. And they are right. We should take care of our house. After all, it does provide us a place to live, a roof over our heads, and warmth. If we don't take care of it, it's almost like we aren't grateful. Yes, saying this may be the only way to actually get kids to help around, but it's not the best way. 

After all this, it may be a little confusing what my main point is. My main point is whether a house is united or divided. ( Figuratively, of course) When parents say that this house belongs to them, it's like a division between the family. It almost feels as if parents are saying that they are LETTING us live in their house.  This is probably not at all true, but it does feel like it. ( It's not what you say, how you say it) Like I said many times before, a house should be a place for the family to feel comfortable and safe. For the FAMILY. Not just the adults. Not just the ones who actually bought the house or pay bills for it. I really think parents should consider whether to continue using this expression or not. If my parents were to stop saying that it's their house and instead say that it's our house, I might be more motivated to help out when doing a spring cleaning or family project. It convinces me that this actually IS our house and that I should help out. But, you never know. Everyone is different. After all, I'm just sharing my perspective on things. 

I do hope that parents stop saying that this is their house. It really isn't. It's our house. They may have power in the house, but that doesn't mean that it's theirs. I hope you all have a wonderful Christmas, and an excellent day. Bye!!11

 What's the difference between a right and freedom? Well, a right is a legal, social, or ethical principle of freedom. It's like a rule about what is allowed of people. To have a right is to have some sort of legal claim or just on something. Freedom is the power or RIGHT to act, speak, or think as one wants without interference or restraint. In the Constitution, we have something called The Bill of Rights, which are the first 10 Amendments. They guarantee rights and liberties to the individual such as freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly, and petition. but we'll get to that later. So, knowing this, what's the problem? Well, the problem is knowing when something is a right or freedom. 

The first problem, vaccines. As we all know, we finally have a COVID-19 vaccine. While many would be impatiently, or even patiently, waiting to get vaccinated, others would be staying far away and opposing the vaccine.  But why? Many cite that its religious beliefs. They believe that a vaccine won't help them and that God will save them and give them a cure. Before I say anything else I want to share a story, but I don't know the name of it is. You may have heard it before. So, the story goes that a flood is coming to a town. Everyone evacuates except a man. He stays inside his house and says that God will save him. As the water starts to rise, a man in a canoe comes to him and offers him to come with him. The man refuses and says that God will save him. A helicopter then comes and the crew throws a ladder. They tell the man to climb it but the man refuses, saying that God will save him. A person swims to the man and says to get on his back. The man refuses, and yet again says that God will save him. When the man drowns, he goes to heaven and asks why God didn't save him. God says that he sent a canoe, helicopter, and even a person to save him but the man refused.
This should be similar to the vaccines. The vaccine is something that God has "made"/created to save you from the pandemic. A cure or help can be shown in many different ways, so why not as a vaccine? 

In my opinion, I think that vaccines should be mandatory order in America. In India, people are so used to getting vaccinated that they assume that it's a part of life and that it's natural. Plus, it's a mandatory order. Why not establishing something similar to this in America? Since getting vaccinated is mandatory, it has been integrated and remembered as something normal and natural in life. It's not really something to question or have doubts about. If we try something like this in America, would it also become thought of as something natural and a part of life? 

If the government issues a mandatory order that everyone gets vaccinated, there will obviously be some complaints. For example, some people may complain that this will be a violation of their freedom of religion or press/thought. Like I said before, people may believe that vaccines aren't going to help them or cure them and instead god will help them. Why don't we try to convince them that a vaccine is a cure from God? ( I'm tying this back to my story concept from above.) Some other reasons why people aren't getting vaccinated include distrust. The WHO organizes a press conference when a new vaccine is released. Of course, they answer questions that are common and from reporters, but why can't there be any questions from people.  Maybe they already do this, but why not hold a survey where you can write down your concerns and what you would like to have asked at the conference? I think that may reduce some tension of getting vaccinated and may cause more people to get vaccinated.

Anyway, I hope that you all are safe and doing well. Happy Holidays, and have a Wonderful Christmas. Let's hope that 2021 will be much better. 

https://www.healthline.com/health/vaccinations/opposition

https://www.meningitis.org/blogs/mrf-view-on-anti-vaccination

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4869767/

It's been some time since I've talked about the 2020 elections, and I've decided to bring this up. I've mentioned this, maybe once or twice, and I feel like it should really be talked about. So, as we all know, President-elect Biden won the 2020 elections, and President Trump has been very upset about this. He has been suing state after state after the result rolled in and constantly has been tweeting about voter fraud and how the elections were rigged. This may be in an attempt to somehow deny that President-elect Biden didn't win and that he was the one who actually won the election. 

But, just a few days ago, the electoral votes were counted and Mr. Biden will be the next president of the United States. It's confirmed. I'm not sure if President Trump is still claiming voter fraud even when the result has been confirmed, but I believe that he should just stop. At the start, it didn't do a lot, and now, after the result confirmation, it still won't do anything. However, there is actually one thing he could do.

There is actually an amendment- the 22nd Amendment- in the Constitution which states that "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice". This means that President Trump is technically ALLOWED to run again, in 2024 since he has only been elected once. This is a big opportunity for President Trump. Despite that he lost the 2020 elections, he could win the 2024 elections. But before he does so, I think President Trump should consider what he does during this term before he runs. Think about it like this. 

Everything that happens either has a consequence or something good comes from it. During a job interview, something you did a couple years ago as a college student may affect your chances of getting a job.  In this case, I think President Trump should get over the results and just accept that he will not be the next president. His behavior right now after losing may affect his chances of winning/being the final candidate in the future. So, this being said I think that President Trump should calm down, accept President-elect Biden as being the next president, and get ready for the 2024 elections.

So, despite that this blog was a little shorter than the others, I hope it explains what happened after the elections. I hope you have a great day, and I will see you next week. Bye!

So, I've been reading, and I've realized that a lot of these presidential pardons are outrageous. A pardon is a government decision to allow a person to be relieved of some, or all, of the legal consequences resulting from a criminal conviction. Basically, it allows a person charged with a criminal conviction to be relieved of some, if not all, of the legal consequences. I think that pardons aren't right, and here's why.

A lot of presidents are generous when giving pardons while others are more rigid. I personally would be rigid if I were allowed to give pardons. To me, it just doesn't feel right to pardon someone for breaking the laws of our country or doing something that violates them, which were meant to protect us and our general safety, as well as ensures our rights as citizens. Here's a presidential pardon I disagree with. President Andrew Johnson, the 17th president after President Abraham Lincoln, pardoned about 7,000 people. Including 3 people who were conspiring to murder President Lincoln. Those 3 people- Samuel Arnold, Samuel Mudd, and Edmund Spangler- served about 4 years in prison. 4 years! I wouldn't have pardoned them at all. They had conspired to murder a president. A president! Here's another example. Oscar Collazo attempted to assassinate President Harry Truman and was pardoned by President Truman himself. I wouldn't really pardon someone who tried to kill me, knowing that they are/were a threat to me. My last two examples were of presidential assassinations. For my last example, I'm going to use a more recent example by our current president. President Trump. 

President Trump has been pardoning people in his office and those who committed crimes for the benefit of him and is even thinking about pardoning his family and himself. I find that selfish. The power of being able to pardon someone is supposed to be for the good of the country and for the citizens of the United States. Not for the people who helped and supported you when you were the president. Although President Trump has gone out of his way to claim that this was false, he pardoned his former national security advisor, Michael Flynn, who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI. Twice. It's like President Trump is taking advantage of his power. Plus, who's to say this won't happen again with some other president in the future? There may not be a high possibility, but we can't say that this may not happen again, or something similar to this. Also, if a president pardons someone who has been already pardoned once, that person will just take advantage of it. They will do anything knowing that they will be pardoned later. This would also happen to someone who hasn't done anything yet. Knowing they are already pardoned, they might just commit a crime not even worrying about serving in prison.

Despite all this, a president's power to pardon something isn't all bad. Sometimes the people who are charged with a criminal conviction were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. It would be okay to pardon someone who was innocent the whole time and was falsely charged with a crime. 

In my opinion, I think pardons should be restricted/ limited and only used for certain purposes. ( Note: These changes are just my opinions and not any criticism) A president should be able to pardon anyone who was falsely accused/ charged with crime but not just pardon anybody without some vote or consent from others. I also think that a president shouldn't be deciding who to pardon on his/her own. Maybe the president doesn't make it alone, but I haven't found anything on that. This also relates to the consent from others. The president shouldn't pardon anyone who was conspiring against the president or any leader- governor, senator, congressman, etc- unless he/she absolutely must. Also, they shouldn't pardon anyone who has been charged with a crime at least twice. It doesn't make sense. That person will clearly take advantage of this and just do anything knowing that they will be pardoned. Lastly, I believe that a president shouldn't use his power of pardoning for themselves and for their own purposes. They must use it for the good of the country. 

Once again, these were my opinions on what the president should be limited to when pardoning. I am not criticizing any pardons, but just sharing what I feel about them. I hope you have an excellent week! Bye!