http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,375164,00.html
We have heard about Supreme Court hearings over children who get kicked out of school for refusing to say the pledge of allegiance in school. I am actually glad that we ruled that our children should not be "forced" to say anything they don't want, as that would make our country socialist. But here we have a different case; a woman who sings a completely different song when she should be singing the U.S. National Anthem. Yes, she did sing a song referred to as the "Black national anthem" but I dont think race has the primary part here.
It almost seems that there are days of radical African American attitudes due to the response to our nation's democratic candidate, Barak Obama. It reminds me of Malcom X. I don't have a problem with African Americans getting the same freedoms as everybody else; we are all humans with the same DNA and should be treated equally. However, I feel our nation should have overcome the anger that still resides in many people - especially those who did not live in the times where there was a large separation. It seems that blacks are trying to separate themselves from the rest of society, and unite together as a large "people" similar to an interest group. Again, I donnot have a problem with this. But the fact of the matter here, is you have somebody disrespecting our nation with an intent to do so. She was not "not participating," she was actively trying to create a separation of blacks and whites that we have worked a centry to dissipate.
Although I think this was an extreme lack of responsibility for Rene Marie, I donnot think she should be legally punished. I think it is okay for people to express their feelings - it is called an interest group. But to purposly replace a large part of our history to single out your race is a large disrespect to the other inhabitants of this nation.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4613744512420419288&postID=7027899764188904310&page=1
I understand what you mean by questioning the sources for financing in today's politics. In the past, there has been extreme accounts of people lobbying to get tax benefits, to get a bill passed, to get a governemnt contract to work in Iraq (Halliburton) and much more. I think it is absurd that we allow so much money to be tossed around just for financing a campaign. In the long run, is it more important to vote for soomebody because they could raise more money? I think the answer to this is no, because the people who often raise the most money, are most supported by the wealthy lobbyists who can afford to make a campaign donation. They don't represent the normal population.
I think the government should set new standards to our campaigns. I think we should use tax payers' money to split evenly between the candidates, and instead of having massive advertising campaigns, have the candidates speak through tv shows, debates against each other, and other personal agenda's, instead off leaving a TV message or sending you a letter in the mail. That way people would vote for who they saw as the better of the two candidates; not who they knew most about due to large campaign funding.
Good use of criticism, although it is a little choppy and lacks direction. You make it obvious that you feel similar to me in that raising money for campaigns isn't necessarily a positive attribute, but it is hard to accuse somebody of potentially "getting his hands dirty" because there is no proof of this yet.
I understand what you mean by questioning the sources for financing in today's politics. In the past, there has been extreme accounts of people lobbying to get tax benefits, to get a bill passed, to get a governemnt contract to work in Iraq (Halliburton) and much more. I think it is absurd that we allow so much money to be tossed around just for financing a campaign. In the long run, is it more important to vote for soomebody because they could raise more money? I think the answer to this is no, because the people who often raise the most money, are most supported by the wealthy lobbyists who can afford to make a campaign donation. They don't represent the normal population.
I think the government should set new standards to our campaigns. I think we should use tax payers' money to split evenly between the candidates, and instead of having massive advertising campaigns, have the candidates speak through tv shows, debates against each other, and other personal agenda's, instead off leaving a TV message or sending you a letter in the mail. That way people would vote for who they saw as the better of the two candidates; not who they knew most about due to large campaign funding.
Good use of criticism, although it is a little choppy and lacks direction. You make it obvious that you feel similar to me in that raising money for campaigns isn't necessarily a positive attribute, but it is hard to accuse somebody of potentially "getting his hands dirty" because there is no proof of this yet.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Education
http://rjlieffortusg.blogspot.com/2008/06/root-of-all-evil.html
There are many good thoughts and ideas in this post. I think the statistics prove that our primary education is extremely sub-par compared to historically 1st world countries. I think one of the points left out here is the education level after primary school.If we take a look at our universities, there is a dominance of foreign students, especially in the more recent years. Our universities are still regarded as the top standard across the globe, and people come from all over to gain from our great education. The problem is that these people are given easier admittance to our colleges, rather than giving preference to people who will take their education and use it in our country to help us progress. Instead, foreigners are benefiting from our teachings and strengthing America's competition, thus reducing our dominance as the global leader.The public school system, however, is indeed very sub-par. Our students are rarely encouraged to focus on education, as they see people on TV that are very successful without needing to be educated. The No Child Left Behind act is basically forcing people to learn who likely donnot want to learn. If our country could regain the image that education is a positive thing, and we could motivate students to want to be educated, then our children would try to learn instead of being forced.This act both gives students a negative vibe about learning, and limits the education potential of those who actually want to push themselves in school, without being forced to spend a fortune in private schools. While I agree that our system is flawed, it is not near the "root of all evil." I would love for every person in our society to be extremely educated, but the truth is we cannot function as a country this way. We would be forced to increase the level of illegal immigrants to run our restaurants, grocery stores, car washes etc... It is true that the act may put a limit on a students potential, but the truth is, once they get to college they can get a great education (if they can manage tuition.) We are by no means and uneducated society, and we have the most dominant economy in the world. Our education system obviously isnt acting like terrorism for our society.
There are many good thoughts and ideas in this post. I think the statistics prove that our primary education is extremely sub-par compared to historically 1st world countries. I think one of the points left out here is the education level after primary school.If we take a look at our universities, there is a dominance of foreign students, especially in the more recent years. Our universities are still regarded as the top standard across the globe, and people come from all over to gain from our great education. The problem is that these people are given easier admittance to our colleges, rather than giving preference to people who will take their education and use it in our country to help us progress. Instead, foreigners are benefiting from our teachings and strengthing America's competition, thus reducing our dominance as the global leader.The public school system, however, is indeed very sub-par. Our students are rarely encouraged to focus on education, as they see people on TV that are very successful without needing to be educated. The No Child Left Behind act is basically forcing people to learn who likely donnot want to learn. If our country could regain the image that education is a positive thing, and we could motivate students to want to be educated, then our children would try to learn instead of being forced.This act both gives students a negative vibe about learning, and limits the education potential of those who actually want to push themselves in school, without being forced to spend a fortune in private schools. While I agree that our system is flawed, it is not near the "root of all evil." I would love for every person in our society to be extremely educated, but the truth is we cannot function as a country this way. We would be forced to increase the level of illegal immigrants to run our restaurants, grocery stores, car washes etc... It is true that the act may put a limit on a students potential, but the truth is, once they get to college they can get a great education (if they can manage tuition.) We are by no means and uneducated society, and we have the most dominant economy in the world. Our education system obviously isnt acting like terrorism for our society.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Gun Rights
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotus.html?_r=1&ref=washington&oref=slogin
I agree that we should have the right to bear arms, but sometimes I think that we uphold the laws of the original Constitution to too much standard.
Just because our founding fathers wrote it in the Constitution, we need to realize that we have evolved and need to adapt to new times. I do think that we should be able to have weapons, and like the current strict regulations we have in place. However, I think our government should put stricter regulations on the companies who make the weapons. I am amazed in how easily people get access to semi-automatic weapons, and how many various types there are. If government enforced that a very small standard type of gun be created for protection purposes only, then I think people would have less opportunity to have mass murders like in Columbine and Virginia Tech. There is no reason for automatic weapons to even be made unless for the military.
I think instead of trying to determine whether the Second Amendment made hundreds of years ago actually meant that we should be allowed weapons for personal use or only militia, we should determine what we, in today's era, think is right. Do "we the people" of today feel that citizens should be allowed the right to own a handgun for protection? I understand that we need a set rule-book to fall back on, but I think we should spend more time on deciding what makes sense, rather than trying to interpret what our founding fathers meant.
I agree that we should have the right to bear arms, but sometimes I think that we uphold the laws of the original Constitution to too much standard.
Just because our founding fathers wrote it in the Constitution, we need to realize that we have evolved and need to adapt to new times. I do think that we should be able to have weapons, and like the current strict regulations we have in place. However, I think our government should put stricter regulations on the companies who make the weapons. I am amazed in how easily people get access to semi-automatic weapons, and how many various types there are. If government enforced that a very small standard type of gun be created for protection purposes only, then I think people would have less opportunity to have mass murders like in Columbine and Virginia Tech. There is no reason for automatic weapons to even be made unless for the military.
I think instead of trying to determine whether the Second Amendment made hundreds of years ago actually meant that we should be allowed weapons for personal use or only militia, we should determine what we, in today's era, think is right. Do "we the people" of today feel that citizens should be allowed the right to own a handgun for protection? I understand that we need a set rule-book to fall back on, but I think we should spend more time on deciding what makes sense, rather than trying to interpret what our founding fathers meant.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Fed Should Not Change Rates
Oil is nearing $140 per barrel, and has very little signs of going lower. Today, Saudi Arabia announced its plans to increase production, which should lower the price of oil because of an increase in supply. However, oil still was high today. Many bearish reporters continually say the solution to the "oil crisis" is to raise the fed funds rate, which should lower inflation. The problem with this, is that oil is not the only crisis at the moment.
Our country is still sliding into a recession, and if the Fed raises the rates too early for our country to sustain, we could risk a very deep recession. The financial industries of our nation are performing terribly at the moment with the fallout of the credit crunch and subprime mortgage crisis. We need our financial markets to stabilize before we make a push that could potentially push our finances even lower.
In the end, what is more important? The price of oil, or our financial institutions? Oil can wait for the moment, we need to fix our finances before we can start to slow recession and recover the price of oil.
People are pointing too many fingers at the Fed. Yes, they are related to our government, and yes our economy is struggling at the moment. The problem is not that the Fed did something wrong, it is more that the government didnt place enough regulations on the mortgage lenders, which allowed banks to get caught at a bad time. It is the Fed's job to regulate monetary policy, and the government should be responsible for regulations.
Our finances are becoming extremely complex, and thus very vulnerable. Our government needs to evolve with our finacial markets to ensure we don't put ourselves in a position where we are overextending ourselves to try to be innovative
http://www.cnbc.com/id/25331527
Our country is still sliding into a recession, and if the Fed raises the rates too early for our country to sustain, we could risk a very deep recession. The financial industries of our nation are performing terribly at the moment with the fallout of the credit crunch and subprime mortgage crisis. We need our financial markets to stabilize before we make a push that could potentially push our finances even lower.
In the end, what is more important? The price of oil, or our financial institutions? Oil can wait for the moment, we need to fix our finances before we can start to slow recession and recover the price of oil.
People are pointing too many fingers at the Fed. Yes, they are related to our government, and yes our economy is struggling at the moment. The problem is not that the Fed did something wrong, it is more that the government didnt place enough regulations on the mortgage lenders, which allowed banks to get caught at a bad time. It is the Fed's job to regulate monetary policy, and the government should be responsible for regulations.
Our finances are becoming extremely complex, and thus very vulnerable. Our government needs to evolve with our finacial markets to ensure we don't put ourselves in a position where we are overextending ourselves to try to be innovative
http://www.cnbc.com/id/25331527
Monday, June 9, 2008
Pointing fingers already?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/10/us/politics/10obama.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
While just a week into his term as the democratic delegate, Obama is already pointing fingers to try to win the Presidency.
In this article, he completely disrespects the Bush administration, and says they are fully to blame for our current economic recession. He goes on to say that McCain will be nothing but a continuation of this recession.
If you look in history, we are in an extremely minor recession compared to what our ancestors experienced many times. It may not even be considered a recession. Everybody is just making things seem dreadful because the price of gas is much higher. In reality, he has no proof that it was the Bush Administration that caused this event to happen. The problem originated from the financial institutions becoming overleveraged, and overconfident. This was the catalyst, and now oil, which in my opinion we are lucky it is priced where it is currently. I think Bush has done a good job to maintain relations with Saudi and other foreign countries; even Iraq with Halliburton.
Obama is just trying to turn the American public against McCain by using our hard times at the gas pump to his advantage. These days everything gets blown out of proportion. In the RTC era, just two decades ago, over 1300 banks closed - we are way below the 100 limit currently. He needs to start talking about how he will be different, and how we can trust him to run our country.
While just a week into his term as the democratic delegate, Obama is already pointing fingers to try to win the Presidency.
In this article, he completely disrespects the Bush administration, and says they are fully to blame for our current economic recession. He goes on to say that McCain will be nothing but a continuation of this recession.
If you look in history, we are in an extremely minor recession compared to what our ancestors experienced many times. It may not even be considered a recession. Everybody is just making things seem dreadful because the price of gas is much higher. In reality, he has no proof that it was the Bush Administration that caused this event to happen. The problem originated from the financial institutions becoming overleveraged, and overconfident. This was the catalyst, and now oil, which in my opinion we are lucky it is priced where it is currently. I think Bush has done a good job to maintain relations with Saudi and other foreign countries; even Iraq with Halliburton.
Obama is just trying to turn the American public against McCain by using our hard times at the gas pump to his advantage. These days everything gets blown out of proportion. In the RTC era, just two decades ago, over 1300 banks closed - we are way below the 100 limit currently. He needs to start talking about how he will be different, and how we can trust him to run our country.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Inflation
http://www.cnbc.com/id/24971551
While I did not live during the 1970's to experience the extremely high inflation, this year is the first time in my life I actually see prices going up every quarter. My grocery shopping is the most notable - besides gas of course. Prices for very common food items have risen greatly this year, rising the cost of my trip to the grocery store from about $100 per trip, to over $120. The most notable items include eggs, orange juice, cheese, milk, bread, and meat.
Recently I saw news reports about how the price of Salmon will rise from around $9 to near $22. I know this isn't technically "inflation" because it is a matter of supply and demand, but I think things like this should be considered regardless.
It is good that our reports show that inflation is much more moderate than our previous generation experienced, and hopefully as the credit crisis straightens up the value of the dollar will go back up, calming down the high oil and gas prices.
While I did not live during the 1970's to experience the extremely high inflation, this year is the first time in my life I actually see prices going up every quarter. My grocery shopping is the most notable - besides gas of course. Prices for very common food items have risen greatly this year, rising the cost of my trip to the grocery store from about $100 per trip, to over $120. The most notable items include eggs, orange juice, cheese, milk, bread, and meat.
Recently I saw news reports about how the price of Salmon will rise from around $9 to near $22. I know this isn't technically "inflation" because it is a matter of supply and demand, but I think things like this should be considered regardless.
It is good that our reports show that inflation is much more moderate than our previous generation experienced, and hopefully as the credit crisis straightens up the value of the dollar will go back up, calming down the high oil and gas prices.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)