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.
Monday, July 27, 2009
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)