In “Tax-payer money used for a research project in Argentina...,” Elizabeth makes a great point. This study that the U.S. Government is funding in Buenos Aires is ridiculous! I can’t believe the government would spend the money of hard-earned tax payers on a study that is so irrelevant to U.S. citizens.
The fact of the matter is, though, the U.S. government has a track record of wasteful spending, which can be seen in the article, “Top 10 Examples of Government Waste.”
It is time for the government to stop wasting our money and stop this wasteful spending. We are in times of economic depression. The primary focus of the government should be to fix the trials that we, Americans, are facing in America, and then, maybe they can go and worry about impractical things, like this study to find out why gay men engage in risky sexual behavior while drunk. I mean come on; it doesn’t take rocket science to figure that out. They are human, and they are men.
The government ought to be limited in size and scope, and there needs to be a reduction of taxation and spending, so that it can follow its Constitutional role.
The U.S. government needs to be more concerned with what’s going on here, that in foreign countries. Our money needs to be spent wisely.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Friday, May 8, 2009
The Climate Debate
President Obama supports a bill that aims to reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil, tackle the rise in greenhouse gases and create millions of clean-energy jobs. This bill, which includes a cap and trade system that would curb carbon emissions 20% by 2020 and a renewal energy standard that would require a certain amount of alternative energy be used every year, has created much debate in Congress, for many different groups exist, having different demands. (These demands and arguments can be found here)
Even though many who support the bill believe that it will create millions of clean-energy jobs and save families hundreds of dollars a year, there are still those who believe that the bill is a "huge mistake" that will “increase the cost of living and maybe kill jobs.” (Climate Bill ‘Huge Mistake’)
I think that even though the climate bill has flaws, it is a great start to a problem that has been ignored for too long. Yes, there are many opposing sides to the bill, and lets face it, not everybody is going to be satisfied with all parts of it, but it is a much needed bill. Since previous bills focusing exclusively on capping emissions have gone nowhere, other provisions aimed at increasing energy efficiency, encouraging cleaner energy sources, and providing subsidies for industries that produce them have been made.
So with many people and Republicans believing that the bill would bankrupt the economy, the truth is that no one knows how much this bill will cost because one like it has never been done.
As stated in The Climate Debate Heats Up, the emissions cap will not begin to bite until 2012 and that past programs to clean the air have always cost less than predicted. And, if the scientists are right, we know that the costs of doing nothing will dwarf the costs of acting now.
So the Climate Bill is definitely important, and I believe that it is a good thing that the bill is being debated in Congress so that a solution will be made and it can be passed.
Even though many who support the bill believe that it will create millions of clean-energy jobs and save families hundreds of dollars a year, there are still those who believe that the bill is a "huge mistake" that will “increase the cost of living and maybe kill jobs.” (Climate Bill ‘Huge Mistake’)
I think that even though the climate bill has flaws, it is a great start to a problem that has been ignored for too long. Yes, there are many opposing sides to the bill, and lets face it, not everybody is going to be satisfied with all parts of it, but it is a much needed bill. Since previous bills focusing exclusively on capping emissions have gone nowhere, other provisions aimed at increasing energy efficiency, encouraging cleaner energy sources, and providing subsidies for industries that produce them have been made.
So with many people and Republicans believing that the bill would bankrupt the economy, the truth is that no one knows how much this bill will cost because one like it has never been done.
As stated in The Climate Debate Heats Up, the emissions cap will not begin to bite until 2012 and that past programs to clean the air have always cost less than predicted. And, if the scientists are right, we know that the costs of doing nothing will dwarf the costs of acting now.
So the Climate Bill is definitely important, and I believe that it is a good thing that the bill is being debated in Congress so that a solution will be made and it can be passed.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Is Universal Healthcare Smart?
In "Universal Healthcare a MUST DO," Mavhu makes a great point, and I agree with her on many levels, for these past two weeks I have experienced the financial difficulites that come along with medical costs, but I believe that universal healthcare would not be a smart idea. Universal healthcare is a great ideal, but healthcare as we know it would change.
Mavhu speaks off of experience, saying that when she was here in America, she was unable to visit the doctor until she got back home where she would not have to worry about the medical costs. Man, if I did not have to worry about the medical bills I am having to pay now, I would be much less stress, but still, I do not agree with universal healthcare. In the UK, where she was able to go see a physician without worries of bills, healthcare is completely different and there are still negatives. In countries where there is universal healthcare, they promise universal coverage but ration care or have extremely long waiting lists for treatment, along with other barrieres. Also, with universal healthcare, I believe that the overall value of care would go down, along with decreased advancement in technology. This type of universal healthcare, ran by the government, is not ideal in anyway.
Another point I would like to point out is that the slogan "people always want what they don't have" stands true; for, countries that have universal healthcare are actually moving towards a system that looks more like ours, while we are moving towards one that is like theirs. So, I believe that we should not try to move to have complete universal healthcare, but to make it where we are in more control and where there could be more consumer incentives.
Mavhu speaks off of experience, saying that when she was here in America, she was unable to visit the doctor until she got back home where she would not have to worry about the medical costs. Man, if I did not have to worry about the medical bills I am having to pay now, I would be much less stress, but still, I do not agree with universal healthcare. In the UK, where she was able to go see a physician without worries of bills, healthcare is completely different and there are still negatives. In countries where there is universal healthcare, they promise universal coverage but ration care or have extremely long waiting lists for treatment, along with other barrieres. Also, with universal healthcare, I believe that the overall value of care would go down, along with decreased advancement in technology. This type of universal healthcare, ran by the government, is not ideal in anyway.
Another point I would like to point out is that the slogan "people always want what they don't have" stands true; for, countries that have universal healthcare are actually moving towards a system that looks more like ours, while we are moving towards one that is like theirs. So, I believe that we should not try to move to have complete universal healthcare, but to make it where we are in more control and where there could be more consumer incentives.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Intelligent Design and Evolution in the Classroom
An on-going issue that the American courts have been facing since 1925 in the "Monkey Trial" is whether creationism should be allowed a place in Science classrooms in America. In the "Monkey Trial," teaching Darwin's theory of evolution was disregarding state laws. In 1987, however, the Supreme Court ruled that the teaching of biblical creationism in public schools was illegal because it contradicted the First Amendment guarantee of division between church and state. After this ruling, "intelligent design, a theory that life was created by a higher force rather that evolution but not necessarily by God, came into play. The Americans against creationism in school argue that "intelligent design" is still part of religion, so it should not be taught. Americans who believe that creationism or "intelligent design" should be taught in school along with evolution, claim that they are being deinied of their civil rights when requests to teach an alternative to evolution are denied. So what should the Supreme Court rule? Should "intelligent design" be taught alongside evolution? Sixty-five percent of Americans say it should.
I believe that the Supreme Court should rule in favor of both, "intelligent design" and evolution, being taught in school. For one, they will both be taught as just theories. I firmly believe that one of the duties of public schools is to teach students so that the students can develop their own opinions about life. Teaching just evolution, a theory that contains many gaps in which there is no evidence, is denying students of their civil rights. The theory of evolution with no higher power is only believed by athiest. This being stated, I believe that atheism can be considered a religion or cult because it is an ironic system of beliefs of having no beliefs. So isn't teaching a predominantly athiest theory denying non-athiests of their rights? Evolution is not a fact, so other possibilities/ theories should be taught in the classroom. The only other dominant theory is creationism/intelligent design. Also, I find it interesting that in 1925, the government was against teaching evolution, but after many decades, it was against teaching anything else other than evolution. These facts definitely display how the interpretation of the Constitution is always changing. Is it the Constitution stating that creationism should not be taught in schools alongside with evolution, or is it the way people in this decade are interpretating it?
So, in conclusion, I give all my support to teaching both, evolution and "intelligent design" in classrooms, for only then, will Americans be given their civil right of their freedom of knowledge and opinions.
I believe that the Supreme Court should rule in favor of both, "intelligent design" and evolution, being taught in school. For one, they will both be taught as just theories. I firmly believe that one of the duties of public schools is to teach students so that the students can develop their own opinions about life. Teaching just evolution, a theory that contains many gaps in which there is no evidence, is denying students of their civil rights. The theory of evolution with no higher power is only believed by athiest. This being stated, I believe that atheism can be considered a religion or cult because it is an ironic system of beliefs of having no beliefs. So isn't teaching a predominantly athiest theory denying non-athiests of their rights? Evolution is not a fact, so other possibilities/ theories should be taught in the classroom. The only other dominant theory is creationism/intelligent design. Also, I find it interesting that in 1925, the government was against teaching evolution, but after many decades, it was against teaching anything else other than evolution. These facts definitely display how the interpretation of the Constitution is always changing. Is it the Constitution stating that creationism should not be taught in schools alongside with evolution, or is it the way people in this decade are interpretating it?
So, in conclusion, I give all my support to teaching both, evolution and "intelligent design" in classrooms, for only then, will Americans be given their civil right of their freedom of knowledge and opinions.
Friday, March 27, 2009
"What if Women Ran the World?"
By Mark Lange
March 26, 2009
The editorial, "What if Women Ran the World" by Mark Lange, states that the world may be a better place if women ran it. Lange bases his opinion on personal observations and studies. He urges the reader to think about women they admire and question whether they would have made the same bad decisions as past leaders have made. Lange also compares women to men, highlighting that men are more prideful, risk-taking, and decisive, while women exhibit more humility and collaboration. This contrast supports the greater ability for women to lead over men. Lastly, Lange states that women will teach America to lead more through positive influence than force.
Mark Lange's editorial is one I find true but unrealistic. I believe that women, like Lange stated, make decisions more thoughtfully, being more aware of the effects. The MIT study that Lange refers to is one that helps persuade the reader to agree with his statements. I find it interesting that women were able to run villages in India better than men. Seeing the increase of women's payroll and ownership of businesses is also persuasive in showing women's capablitly to lead over men.
Unfortunately, women's capability of leading is not the only factor, but the acceptance of women having a different role in socitey, other than being the caregiver to the children, plays a huge part too. I belive that the alleged inferiority of women will be, for quite a while, the reason why female leaders will not surpass the number of male leaders. Other nations still see women as very inferior to men. I believe that great leaders are not only ones that are very capable to lead, but ones that have the respect of most of who they lead. For this reason, I think that America could not have a female president.
So in conclusion, Mark Lange's editorial is one that I agree with. Women would make great leaders and men should learn from the sucesses of women. The likelihood of women becoming great political leaders right now, though, is very unlikely.
By Mark Lange
March 26, 2009
The editorial, "What if Women Ran the World" by Mark Lange, states that the world may be a better place if women ran it. Lange bases his opinion on personal observations and studies. He urges the reader to think about women they admire and question whether they would have made the same bad decisions as past leaders have made. Lange also compares women to men, highlighting that men are more prideful, risk-taking, and decisive, while women exhibit more humility and collaboration. This contrast supports the greater ability for women to lead over men. Lastly, Lange states that women will teach America to lead more through positive influence than force.
Mark Lange's editorial is one I find true but unrealistic. I believe that women, like Lange stated, make decisions more thoughtfully, being more aware of the effects. The MIT study that Lange refers to is one that helps persuade the reader to agree with his statements. I find it interesting that women were able to run villages in India better than men. Seeing the increase of women's payroll and ownership of businesses is also persuasive in showing women's capablitly to lead over men.
Unfortunately, women's capability of leading is not the only factor, but the acceptance of women having a different role in socitey, other than being the caregiver to the children, plays a huge part too. I belive that the alleged inferiority of women will be, for quite a while, the reason why female leaders will not surpass the number of male leaders. Other nations still see women as very inferior to men. I believe that great leaders are not only ones that are very capable to lead, but ones that have the respect of most of who they lead. For this reason, I think that America could not have a female president.
So in conclusion, Mark Lange's editorial is one that I agree with. Women would make great leaders and men should learn from the sucesses of women. The likelihood of women becoming great political leaders right now, though, is very unlikely.
Friday, February 27, 2009
The editorial, "President Obama’s Budget: Progress on Health Care," is one written in favor of the progrees of President Obama's future plans for Medicare.
The editor makes an argument using facts about the reserved funds and spending of the government that is planned to be set: where the money will be saved in certain areas to be spent in other needed areas. The editor points out where the budget plans expect to receive half the money, that being from new taxes set on the wealthy, and where the budget plans plan to save money to spend elsewhere.
I find this argument one that is very covincing because it is logical. The editor brings up a valid arguement using facts that is stated in the budget plans. Are these plans rumored, or have they been set in motion? That I do not know, but I believe the editor uses these perceived facts resourcefully.
I agree with this argument because I beleive it is the best thing to do financially. To see where money is being spent too excessively so that it can be saved to spend in a more needed area (this area being medicare for those who can not afford it) is important. This argument is one that is significant because it is one that will effect many for their benefit. I believe that in America, where we are advanced in technology, no one should be denied healthcare because of the inability to pay for it. I believe that it is imperative for the government to step in and help support families that need the help. This should be one of the priorities and if there is a way to cut some expenses in areas to put in medicare, it should be done.
The Editorial, "President Obama’s Budget: Progress on Health Care"
The editor makes an argument using facts about the reserved funds and spending of the government that is planned to be set: where the money will be saved in certain areas to be spent in other needed areas. The editor points out where the budget plans expect to receive half the money, that being from new taxes set on the wealthy, and where the budget plans plan to save money to spend elsewhere.
I find this argument one that is very covincing because it is logical. The editor brings up a valid arguement using facts that is stated in the budget plans. Are these plans rumored, or have they been set in motion? That I do not know, but I believe the editor uses these perceived facts resourcefully.
I agree with this argument because I beleive it is the best thing to do financially. To see where money is being spent too excessively so that it can be saved to spend in a more needed area (this area being medicare for those who can not afford it) is important. This argument is one that is significant because it is one that will effect many for their benefit. I believe that in America, where we are advanced in technology, no one should be denied healthcare because of the inability to pay for it. I believe that it is imperative for the government to step in and help support families that need the help. This should be one of the priorities and if there is a way to cut some expenses in areas to put in medicare, it should be done.
The Editorial, "President Obama’s Budget: Progress on Health Care"
Friday, February 13, 2009
The Stimulus
Today, February 13th, 2009, Congress approved a $787 billion economic stimulus measure. This bill is one that is highly debated, for not one House Republican voted for it. One might argue that the Republicans did not vote for the stimulus bill in rebuke of the new Democratic president, but as John A. Boehner accused, the bill is not about jobs but about spending. The stimulus package is one that is going to put America only in more debt, but at the same time, it is something that Americans need because of the economic crisis. Are we suppose to worry about the present, or plan for the future? The stimulus bill is one that will definitely make improvements for now, but as the Republicans worry, the future generations will feel its effects.
Stimulus Article
Stimulus Benefits
This article and ones that relate to it are important to read because it is important to have knowledge of what bills are being signed that are effecting that Americans income. It is also important to read the benefits you will have once the stimulus bill is passed, which I have provided a link for.
Stimulus Article
Stimulus Benefits
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)