Independent Opinion
I agree with you in that Politics based off of power, not the ussues. It seems that corporate voters throw money at canditates for the sole purpose of aiding their particular party in which will help them save and make more money and thus leading them to more and more power. In a different example, when political debates began being televised, such as a debate in which Nixon is known for showing his emotions on his sleeves by sweating and body language a lot of voters were turned off by this possible election. Instead of worrying about the issues that would affect them, they would worry about who looked and acted better on televison. This provides even more evidence to the fact that their are very ridiculous underlying issues that have absolutely have nothing to do with our government or well being.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Choices, Choices, Choices
In Kindergarten, when asked "What do you want to be when you grow up?", most kids answer doctor, lawyer, policeman or fire fighter. But when those kids do grow up, one of them ends up dropping out and working at McDonalds, another one has 5 kids before he/she turns 25, and only one gets a college education. When adults tell children that they "can be whatever they want to be", they're setting them up for failure. I always wanted to be the next Faith Hill, but with my current situation, I'll be lucky enough do graduate college.
Other countries have began to implement programs that establish students' futures for them. Now, point blank, this seems to conflict with our nation's foundation in that everyone should have the right to determine their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. With the structure that foreign countries' models provide their students know what job they're going to have, exactly what they're going to do to get an education/training for that particular job, and also the assurance that they'll always know what they'll be and never having to face the stresses of our teenage lives that often lead to depression or other serious medical matters.
Other countries have began to implement programs that establish students' futures for them. Now, point blank, this seems to conflict with our nation's foundation in that everyone should have the right to determine their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. With the structure that foreign countries' models provide their students know what job they're going to have, exactly what they're going to do to get an education/training for that particular job, and also the assurance that they'll always know what they'll be and never having to face the stresses of our teenage lives that often lead to depression or other serious medical matters.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
A Response to Petro
This the comment I posted in response to "Petro's" argument.
The drinking age, as it is now, is a problem, yes, but I don't think you have thought about a substantial solution. I am 17 and yes, there is quite a few high school students that do engage, in what now is a social norm, in underage drinking. When parents go out of town, the temptation to invite your friends to come over and "party it up" and get someones liberal parents or someone's older brother to supply the alcohol is just as feverish as the raging hormones. I've known many that have gotten either an MIC (Minor in Consumption) or DUI, but I don't think that lowering the drinking age to 18 or 19 will resolve these consequences.
There are plenty of adults, who to this day choose to drink and drive or receive tickets for public intoxication. Although they may be 21 or over, there isn't something that "clicks" with the allowance that enables them to be smart about drinking. There are also a lot of teens that choose not to fall into temptation because of the fear of getting caught by their parents, the law, or worse by death of themselves or others. If there is no fear, then I think more teens will choose to drink along with everyone else there age, thus creating a greater range of people that drink in the liquor stores and on the roads. Also there is the point that a lot of 18, and sometimes 19 year olds are still in high school. And while they would be allowed to drink, their younger counterparts who attend the same school as well as the same extracurricular activities, would be at greater risk of falling into temptation.
Although the tempation to "taste the forbidden fruit" will be lost in the 18/19 and older kids, it will have passed to the younger generation. You can't have the word "flaw" without the word "law". Every law is broken or has been broken before, hence the reason for the law. But I do agree with the point that if you're 18 or older, you should be allowed to drink with the supervision of a parent or guardian, whether it be in the home or at a restaurant. Parents would be able to teach their kids by a hands-on, trial basis, exactly how much alcohol is enough and what it feels like, thus making teens more aware of the substance itself and more aware of the responsibility that comes with drinking as well as the consequences that come from abusing the substance.
The drinking age, as it is now, is a problem, yes, but I don't think you have thought about a substantial solution. I am 17 and yes, there is quite a few high school students that do engage, in what now is a social norm, in underage drinking. When parents go out of town, the temptation to invite your friends to come over and "party it up" and get someones liberal parents or someone's older brother to supply the alcohol is just as feverish as the raging hormones. I've known many that have gotten either an MIC (Minor in Consumption) or DUI, but I don't think that lowering the drinking age to 18 or 19 will resolve these consequences.
There are plenty of adults, who to this day choose to drink and drive or receive tickets for public intoxication. Although they may be 21 or over, there isn't something that "clicks" with the allowance that enables them to be smart about drinking. There are also a lot of teens that choose not to fall into temptation because of the fear of getting caught by their parents, the law, or worse by death of themselves or others. If there is no fear, then I think more teens will choose to drink along with everyone else there age, thus creating a greater range of people that drink in the liquor stores and on the roads. Also there is the point that a lot of 18, and sometimes 19 year olds are still in high school. And while they would be allowed to drink, their younger counterparts who attend the same school as well as the same extracurricular activities, would be at greater risk of falling into temptation.
Although the tempation to "taste the forbidden fruit" will be lost in the 18/19 and older kids, it will have passed to the younger generation. You can't have the word "flaw" without the word "law". Every law is broken or has been broken before, hence the reason for the law. But I do agree with the point that if you're 18 or older, you should be allowed to drink with the supervision of a parent or guardian, whether it be in the home or at a restaurant. Parents would be able to teach their kids by a hands-on, trial basis, exactly how much alcohol is enough and what it feels like, thus making teens more aware of the substance itself and more aware of the responsibility that comes with drinking as well as the consequences that come from abusing the substance.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
U.S. Gov. Should Step Up
Just about every American knows that our environment including the air we breathe, the trees we see, the resources we consume, and the ozone that we're oblvious to are suffering because of our our "needyness". There's been controversial talk of global warming in which evidence is beginning to emerge all across the globe, yet many are still not being "rubbed the wrong way". I believe this is the effect of many factors: the instability of the economy, the increased laziness of Americans, and the lack of knowledge to many.
Our roller coaster ride of an economy has caused many to be out of a job,which in turn has caused more people at home and using the computer as well as constant kilowatt usage to search for jobs online. Others are on the roads, driving to and from interviews; using a precious commodity that not only fuels cars but wars as well. According to the World Development Indicators Database, in 2007 Americans used a total of 3,892,000,000,000 killowatt hours of electricity in just one year; the highest amount compared to 210 other countries. On March 29, 2008, in an effort to conserve energy, Lights Out America invited the nation to participate in turning off all non-essential lighting for just one hour. In just this one hour, 15 percent of the average Saturday night electricity usage was saved. This savings not only helped in our pocket books but in the city's pocketbook as well, and managed to allow our environment some rest, by reducing the carbon emissions into our broadly shared air.
According to the Proceeding of the World Geothermic Congress, our nation is leading in the consumption of natural gas with 652,900,000,000 cubic meters used in one year and 8.35 Tonnes per person. And although it is well known that eventually, no matter if it be in 10 years, 100 years, or a thousand, this resource WILL run out. This doesn't necessarily mean that this particular generation will have to reap the consequences, but our grandchildren or perhaps children will. And most likely, the expiration date on the world's oil is sooner rather than later. Many of our leaders' naivety allows them to believe that somehow, by somesort of miracle, we will have come up with a solution just in time, whether it be life on Mars or life in sealed suits that protect us from the dangers of an exposed Ozone.
If the government focussed less on protecting the nation from illegal immigrants or on "Pork projects" and more on finding a way to prolong our stay here, so we can find that solution, we would be in good hands. I think that the government should completely take control, no matter how much money it takes. If one day of every month, the world just stopped, we would prolong the time we have to come up with a legitimate solution. On this day, every business shut down; no one had to be at work. Cutting of traffic lights, shutting down highways, making it impossible to commute anywhere. Could we survive? Think of it as a vacation. Watching reruns on TV, eating the groceries we bought before hand, spending time with our families? Would'n't it be benefial in many aspects of life? I think the only thing that's stopping us is the corporate world that is so greedy for every penny. They would think, if no one shopped, if no one drove, if no one ate out on this one day every month, for 12 months, every year, they would lose a lot of money. And that is more important to them, then their earth, their very existence, or the existence of their future offspring. It all comes down to the literally ALMIGHTY DOLLAR. Unless the government finds some way to integrate the happiness of the corporate world with the necessity of protecting their planet, we all will face a certain self-inflicted doom.
Our roller coaster ride of an economy has caused many to be out of a job,which in turn has caused more people at home and using the computer as well as constant kilowatt usage to search for jobs online. Others are on the roads, driving to and from interviews; using a precious commodity that not only fuels cars but wars as well. According to the World Development Indicators Database, in 2007 Americans used a total of 3,892,000,000,000 killowatt hours of electricity in just one year; the highest amount compared to 210 other countries. On March 29, 2008, in an effort to conserve energy, Lights Out America invited the nation to participate in turning off all non-essential lighting for just one hour. In just this one hour, 15 percent of the average Saturday night electricity usage was saved. This savings not only helped in our pocket books but in the city's pocketbook as well, and managed to allow our environment some rest, by reducing the carbon emissions into our broadly shared air.
According to the Proceeding of the World Geothermic Congress, our nation is leading in the consumption of natural gas with 652,900,000,000 cubic meters used in one year and 8.35 Tonnes per person. And although it is well known that eventually, no matter if it be in 10 years, 100 years, or a thousand, this resource WILL run out. This doesn't necessarily mean that this particular generation will have to reap the consequences, but our grandchildren or perhaps children will. And most likely, the expiration date on the world's oil is sooner rather than later. Many of our leaders' naivety allows them to believe that somehow, by somesort of miracle, we will have come up with a solution just in time, whether it be life on Mars or life in sealed suits that protect us from the dangers of an exposed Ozone.
If the government focussed less on protecting the nation from illegal immigrants or on "Pork projects" and more on finding a way to prolong our stay here, so we can find that solution, we would be in good hands. I think that the government should completely take control, no matter how much money it takes. If one day of every month, the world just stopped, we would prolong the time we have to come up with a legitimate solution. On this day, every business shut down; no one had to be at work. Cutting of traffic lights, shutting down highways, making it impossible to commute anywhere. Could we survive? Think of it as a vacation. Watching reruns on TV, eating the groceries we bought before hand, spending time with our families? Would'n't it be benefial in many aspects of life? I think the only thing that's stopping us is the corporate world that is so greedy for every penny. They would think, if no one shopped, if no one drove, if no one ate out on this one day every month, for 12 months, every year, they would lose a lot of money. And that is more important to them, then their earth, their very existence, or the existence of their future offspring. It all comes down to the literally ALMIGHTY DOLLAR. Unless the government finds some way to integrate the happiness of the corporate world with the necessity of protecting their planet, we all will face a certain self-inflicted doom.
Monday, July 27, 2009
"Oil and Gas don't pollute"? What are they teaching these guys?
You know the economy is bad when companies start telling senators to say "Oil and Gas don't pollute" in order to get people to buy more instead of less. Oil companies are officially desperate and running out of ideas.
I was just explaining to someone that the root of all problems in today's world is the "almighty" dollar. In this world, that expression is quite an understatement. These companies are still out to continue sales and revenue, although the evidence of global warming and destruction by its own inhabitants is right under their brown noses. They continue to claim that this global warming "thing" is just a big hoax, when the evidence even hits home. Cancer is one of the leading causes of deaths these days, caused by a broad amount of things, but as the author proves in this blog, gas emissions cause a variety amount of illnesses because of the plethra of harmful emmitants. This is just a theory, but I think that the growing amount of cancer and its causes are causing the greater amount of those with cancer and those that have died from cancer. Think about it: the exponentially growing population combined with our increased addiction to driving and gas leads to more people on the road, thus more emissions and more deadly toxins we constantly and unknowingly breathe in.
I think that instead of pushing for people to drill and buy, drill and buy, we need to start putting our efforts into creating resource conservation days endorced and enforced by the government and its entities.
I was just explaining to someone that the root of all problems in today's world is the "almighty" dollar. In this world, that expression is quite an understatement. These companies are still out to continue sales and revenue, although the evidence of global warming and destruction by its own inhabitants is right under their brown noses. They continue to claim that this global warming "thing" is just a big hoax, when the evidence even hits home. Cancer is one of the leading causes of deaths these days, caused by a broad amount of things, but as the author proves in this blog, gas emissions cause a variety amount of illnesses because of the plethra of harmful emmitants. This is just a theory, but I think that the growing amount of cancer and its causes are causing the greater amount of those with cancer and those that have died from cancer. Think about it: the exponentially growing population combined with our increased addiction to driving and gas leads to more people on the road, thus more emissions and more deadly toxins we constantly and unknowingly breathe in.
I think that instead of pushing for people to drill and buy, drill and buy, we need to start putting our efforts into creating resource conservation days endorced and enforced by the government and its entities.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
California Budget Crisis
California's Budget Crisis and The Parks
The editorialist in this article explains the current California budget crisis that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger intends to correct by creating multibillion dollar budget cuts that will affect the citizens of California in multiple aspects of daily life. The author explains much about the particular budget cuts that affect the state's national parks. He uses this issue as his example that "some (cuts) do less for the budgetary bottom line than others" which reflects his opinion that it is unnecessarily harmful to the environment and recreation to only save $213 million out of a $26 billion deficit. And if the parks are to be reopened after a two year period, the state will end up paying even more money in order to fix what time has only harmed. So the money that the state saved in two years will be the money that is used to correct the problem that they themselves initially created by not preserving the parks, thus making the cut pointless. This idea looks environmentalists dead in the face; their parks will not be preserved in order to bring what seems like a penny in. Without more opposition from these citizens, the bill will be passed.
But this poses a problem. Although the savings is minimal, if it isn't brought in from closing the state's parks, then the money will still be taken from somewhere. What if it's taken from somewhere which creates more of an uprising among more people? Education perhaps? The author does nothing to refute that point. Yes, the cut may seem unnecessary, but a small amount of money is taken from the park aspect, it's better that then education. But, it would benefit the author's argument if he were to pose the possibility of the money be taken from a more important resource.
The editorialist in this article explains the current California budget crisis that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger intends to correct by creating multibillion dollar budget cuts that will affect the citizens of California in multiple aspects of daily life. The author explains much about the particular budget cuts that affect the state's national parks. He uses this issue as his example that "some (cuts) do less for the budgetary bottom line than others" which reflects his opinion that it is unnecessarily harmful to the environment and recreation to only save $213 million out of a $26 billion deficit. And if the parks are to be reopened after a two year period, the state will end up paying even more money in order to fix what time has only harmed. So the money that the state saved in two years will be the money that is used to correct the problem that they themselves initially created by not preserving the parks, thus making the cut pointless. This idea looks environmentalists dead in the face; their parks will not be preserved in order to bring what seems like a penny in. Without more opposition from these citizens, the bill will be passed.
But this poses a problem. Although the savings is minimal, if it isn't brought in from closing the state's parks, then the money will still be taken from somewhere. What if it's taken from somewhere which creates more of an uprising among more people? Education perhaps? The author does nothing to refute that point. Yes, the cut may seem unnecessary, but a small amount of money is taken from the park aspect, it's better that then education. But, it would benefit the author's argument if he were to pose the possibility of the money be taken from a more important resource.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Children's Healthcare is looking up
This article, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/us/19chip.html?_r=1&hp titled "Defying Slump, 13 States Insure More Children, gives us a glimpse into President Obama's process of cleaning up some of the mess that George W. Bush left behind. Healthcare is quite an issue in America; sometimes the deciding factor in the people's election of a president. The issue is broad in that it involves many different groups: the poor, the elderly, among others, but in this case the young and dependent.
The Children of America do not choose the families that they are born into, nor the ecomomic status that their family possesses. They also don't choose the costly and tramatic illnesses that they endure. It is the responsibility of the government to provide for these innocent and dependent children because they cannot provide for themselves. Although it is wonderful that 13 states have increased their range of care, but it is still not enough until all children in need have the proper healthcare.
It is known that the amount of Elderly people is growing and soon, if not now, we will have an Elder Boom in which causes crucial problems that need to be prevented until we have yet another economic crisis on our hands. It is thought that with the Elder boom, there will be less able and working bodies to produce the social security capital that our elders rely on. I think that if America provides the necessary healthcare and resources to our nation's children as well as pregnant women, then the ratio of able-bodied people to the elderly will be in balance, and therefore social security in balance as well.
"On the day Mr. Obama signed the bill, calling it a “down payment” on universal coverage, he also rescinded a Bush administration directive that effectively made it impossible for states to raise their eligibility limits above 250 percent of the poverty level. " I think this quote shows the importance of a SHARED national and state role in the issue, rather than the control by the national government like that in the Bush administration. It is important that that the national government allows for improvement within the states, and therefore within the country.
The Children of America do not choose the families that they are born into, nor the ecomomic status that their family possesses. They also don't choose the costly and tramatic illnesses that they endure. It is the responsibility of the government to provide for these innocent and dependent children because they cannot provide for themselves. Although it is wonderful that 13 states have increased their range of care, but it is still not enough until all children in need have the proper healthcare.
It is known that the amount of Elderly people is growing and soon, if not now, we will have an Elder Boom in which causes crucial problems that need to be prevented until we have yet another economic crisis on our hands. It is thought that with the Elder boom, there will be less able and working bodies to produce the social security capital that our elders rely on. I think that if America provides the necessary healthcare and resources to our nation's children as well as pregnant women, then the ratio of able-bodied people to the elderly will be in balance, and therefore social security in balance as well.
"On the day Mr. Obama signed the bill, calling it a “down payment” on universal coverage, he also rescinded a Bush administration directive that effectively made it impossible for states to raise their eligibility limits above 250 percent of the poverty level. " I think this quote shows the importance of a SHARED national and state role in the issue, rather than the control by the national government like that in the Bush administration. It is important that that the national government allows for improvement within the states, and therefore within the country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)