So I’ve decided to change Thursdays to “do something nice for someone else”, which is pretty much what I’m doing anyways. It’s just easier to fit things into a category like that, and it makes this project just slightly less selfish and narcissistic. And before I start this post, I just want to suggest that everyone go out and buy the “Nothing Personal” album from All Time Low. It’s amazing. Continue reading “[Day 16] You Can’t Take It With You”
Tag: Politics
Ten things I never thought I’d enjoy
There comes a point in my life that I have to admit some things about myself. I’m bossy, I’m mean, I’m a dork, and most of all, I am very stubborn. This stubbornness makes it hard for me to change my mind sometimes, but when I do, it’s often quite drastic. These are the top ten things in my life that I never expected to enjoy, but do. Continue reading “Ten things I never thought I’d enjoy”
Let’s get in a groove, in a groove!
(Sing today’s blog title to the tune of “let’s get physical!”)
National Heathcare
We Americans live in a country where people say we have the best medical attention, how come it costs millions of dollars to get any treatment in a hospital. why do americans have to go to canada for cheeper medication. its because we do not have National Healthcare. the one thing that could change all of our problems, from the economy, to the social security. Continue reading “National Heathcare”
PWA: Is President’s Promise Too Good To Be True?
(Note: PWA = “Politics with Aardvarki”!)
Today’s topic: Obama vows to halve federal deficit
Today’s article: William Branigin, Obama Vows to Cut Federal Deficit in Half.
Hey there y’all! (Ugh… I can’t believe I just used that expression…) Looks like it’s that time again: politics time on Bri’s Own World!!! (Don’t all cheer at once, jeez.) Anyhoo… the topic of discussion today is the fact that President Obama just today vowed to halve our nation’s deficit by the end of his first term of office (that’s by 2013). And the current deficit is… lemme see [type type type…click…*gasp*]: $10,850,171,797,932.02. and half of that is $5,425,085,898,966.01. So this is what Obama plans to reduce our deficit to by 2013. And that’s a lot of money. (In case nobody noticed that). He plans to reduce this by cutting and trimming costly activities such as the War on Terror, tax cuts for the rich, restructuring health care policies, and taking a second look at a brand new fleet of presidential helicopters costing $400 million apiece.
To me, this seems like a lot of big talk. I’m skeptical to say the least. But I guess I’ll have to reserve my judgment until 2013 before I can decide whether or not this is “all talk and no action.” It seems like if we pull out of Iraq in the near future (which seems like an empty hope), that will contribute a lot to the deficit (it’s cost us about 600 billion so far). And I’m always for retracting those stupid tax cuts. But is this really enough to halve the massive federal deficit by 2013? For now, I am reserving judgment, but am extremely skeptical. And how about you? Is this prospect possible, or is this merely big talk?
Politics with Aardvarki: Our Flagging Education Standards
So, it’s the second blog and I’m already off on the wrong foot. In case anyone noticed, it’s a Tuesday, and this blog is supposed to be on Monday. I could make up a lame excuse about it being president’s day yesterday, but that would be a crock of s**t. I forgot, okay? Sorry. I’ll try to be more punctual, but it’s more like “Monday (give or take a day)–Politics with Aardvarki.” Anyhoo…
Today’s topic: Nationalizing Standards for Education
Today’s article: Randi Weingarten, The Case for National Standards.
This article is actually an editorial, so I’m not going to summarize it, because there is no use summarizing opinion when I’m going to be giving an opinion that is similar to the opinion given in the article. There are, however, one or two statistics I’ll pepper in.
With all the hum-drum about the new president, the economy, the failing war, and all the other crap that’s floating around in the big ‘ole toilet bowl we dub “America,” the little soiled piece of toilet tissue settling at the bottom named “education” sometimes get lost in the quagmire. (I took that metaphor way too far, didn’t I? Anyhoo…) And because of this, it is depressing, but not really surprising to realize that we have some of the lowest nationalized test scores in the developed world, especially when compared to certain European countries and Japan. And this really is pathetic, when you think about it: the “land of opportunity” isn’t even giving the average child the opportunity of receiving a decent education. Now, there may be parts of the US that are doing OK. Take, for example, Massachusetts. Children in the state recently scored fifth in the world in an international mathematics assessment – but only after adopting rigorous standards in mathematics and science. And this shows that it’s not “kids these days” that are at fault, but state standards when it comes to learning. And when individual states fail to rise to the occasion, there is a call for a national standard: and NCLB doesn’t cut it. Now, I wouldn’t go as far as to propose a locked curriculum—or even standards for every subject (creating standards for electives, such as physical education and computers, or advanced classes that only a small percentage of a school takes, or classes not common in most schools, would be time-consuming, costly, and not significantly beneficial). Teachers would be still able to tailor lessons to their particular styles, but there still should be concepts that are taught across the board. And hopefully, if we have rigorous nationalized educational standards, we will be able to compete on a global scale, give our children the education they deserve, and keep states from slacking on standards.
Politics with Aardvarki
So, Bri (aka Esteemed Webmistress, as Der Hersteller likes to call her) has given me the task of writing a weekly politics blog… on Mondays. And, as I look at my clock and gasp in amazement, it seems that today is, in fact, a Monday and is a perfect time to write my first weekly politics blog. But before I get down to the actual topic, let me first tell you what’s going to be happening (if you don’t really give a crap, skip down to where it says “*start of actual blog*”):
Each week I will write a blog concerning a current political issue. I will take a current article, summarize it, give my view on it, maybe do a little extra research, and ask you (yes, you) to give your views, concerns, and experiences as well. I will try to be current, relevant, and thoughtful, and if you think that I fail in any of these categories, please point that out so that I may rectify these mistakes so as to present a more interesting blog. Well, that about covers it, so here we go:
*start of actual blog*
Today’s topic: Economic Stimulus Package
Article: Paul Kane, “Senate to Vote Today on Stimulus Bill” (url: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/09/AR2009020901020.html)
We sure have been hearing a whole lot about the failing economy lately, but for most of us it hasn’t really hit home, as the area in which we live is pretty much wrapped up in an economic safe-bubble due to the oil industry (which will probably pop with devastating results when the fossil fuels dry up). But for the rest of the country, it is very much a reality. The recently elected President Obama realizes this, and this is why he and the senate have been working laboriously over the last couple weeks on an economic stimulus package that will, if not stop the economic recession from happening (a very unlikely prospect), then at the very least slow its course or make it merely a recession, rather than another great depression.
Today, the senate cleared the path for the final vote in a 61 to 36 vote (barely passing the 60 required votes for the bill to pass due to the only three republicans for the bill). The bill will, if passed in the final vote, provide $838 billion to a wide variety of purposes, including a 15,000 dollar tax credit to home buyers and 3.4 billion dollars in repairs to public parks. These spendings will be tacked on to the $700 billion rescue plan for banks that was passed last fall as well as “$400 billion that must be approved to keep most federal agencies running for the latter half of fiscal 2009 and an undetermined amount from the Federal Reserve to continue shoring up the financial system.” This is the major concern for senate republicans, causing the senate to be nearly divided down the aisle on this issue.
Personally, I think that we really need this, and I think President Obama is right in saying that doing nothing now will just make the situation worse. But some parts of it seem really odd. Like 3.4 billion for public parks? Do we really need to put that much money into parks when our economy is in the dumps? I can see school repairs and construction (which the senate has cut back on compared to the house), but not parks. It’s not that I’m not for beautifulness and whatever, but it just doesn’t seem like it should be on top of the list. Speaking of the list, I really would like to see a list of all the stuff that money is going to an how much, so if someone could find it, that’d be great. So I guess the last question to ask is this: what do you think about the bill? Is it worthwhile or just a waste of dough? Will it slow down our problem or just have as much of an effect as a gnat hitting a windshield? Is the money well placed or would our fiscal resources be better allocated elsewhere? Well, for now at least, this is Aardvarki, signing out.
One last note:
So what does this mean for us? Well, more tax breaks for sure, especially if the senate version passes as apposed to the house, as it includes 110 billion dollars more in tax cuts. And everyone loves tax cuts… I guess. But really the purpose of these tax cuts go to waste if people don’t do what they’re actually supposed to do with them: which is be wasteful. Yep, that’s right. You’ve always heard “save, save, save,” but the fact is, that is what generally causes a recession to get worse. As the economy goes down, people start cutting back on spending, and as that happens, the economy goes down even more because this money isn’t being fed into the free market and is rather being pooled – saved for a rainy day as the days keep getting rainier. So what can you do? I know it’s hard (and I’m not sure if I can even bring myself to do it), but be wasteful. Buy a computer. Buy an iPod. Buy really fancy clothes. Be, in short wasteful. It really doesn’t make a lot of sense – which is why people aren’t doing it. Common sense dictates that when things in general get more expensive, you should start buying less expensive things – in short cutting back on your spending. This may seem good and smart, but you’re just worsening the economy. So when you get your big tax break, go out and spend it on something you don’t need. For reals this time: this is Aardvarki, signing out.
A change in pace (capital punishment)
Well, although I don’t think we can ever thoroughly exhaust the topics of gay rights, it really is time for a chance of pace in the social issues department. This week’s topic of discussion: Capital Punishment (aka, the death penalty).
This is an extremely controversial topic, but it seems to get a bit drowned-out in all the noise from other social issues, such as gay rights and abortion. This is a very delicate subject, and there are many facets to it. Many argue such things as “eye for an eye” and justice, as well as what a civilized community should do, the right to life, the chance to repent before death, the mortal sin of murder, and many other things. It may take hours to explain them all, so I won’t even try.
Personally, I find the idea of capital punishment primitive. It doesn’t matter how “painless” and efficient the process becomes, it is, in it’s raw form, the most primitive legal act of our society. It goes by the “moral” that humans have upheld for centuries: “an eye for an eye.” It is one of those morals (like gay rights) that needs to be rethought. We may have rethought it on the lower levels: we constantly teach our children to never respond to violence with violence: always talk it out; always forgive. But when it comes to our harshest sentence, we are blatantly hypocritical.
Another thing worth mentioning is that this is one of the few social issues (if not the only social issue) where I concur with the Roman Catholic Church. Murder is a mortal sin, and that not only goes, of course, for the murderer himself, but for the executioner, who really is forced to murder by the job description. I do not doubt that most executioners kill more people than any murderers they have put to death. The emotional toll must be rather horrific, as well.
Also on the matter of mortal sin: those who are subjected to the death penalty never really get the chance to repent (even though I am agnostic, I still think that you really ought to have the chance to reconcile with yourself and the people whom you have hurt before the inevitable end: it gives a sense of finality to the whole matter). Sure, criminals end up on death row for years and years, but I don’t know if I would be able to come to any conclusion whilst berating my horrible demise day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, and, in some cases, decade after decade.
Now this brings up the point of the sense of justice that the family of the victim often desires. I can understand their anguish, but what they really desire is nothing more than petty revenge (this is assuming that they really believe that the person who killed their relative truly deserves death). I cannot begin to think what it would be like to loose a family member at the hands of a murderer, but I would certainly hope that I would retain my current outlook if I do: which is that I need to be the better person and allow that person to reconcile with himself, the victim’s family, and their god (if they believe in one). I don’t think I could ever truly forgive that person for what they did, but I would hope that I would not stoop to their level by thinking that capital punishment would be a just compromise for the loss of my own family member.
Well, I think that’s about the sum of my beliefs (and it truly is a summary – if you want to argue on the subject then you may hear more), so let’s hear your beliefs. What do you think of capital punishment? Good or bad? Necessary or primitive? Just or unjust? Whatever you’ve got to say, let’s hear it.
For now, this is Aardvarki, signing out.
The Importance of being Ernest
Here’s a little question that you can use in everyday life: Should Honesty and forthrightness still be used if they may be somewhat detrimental?
True, one can tell the truth without being honest, and one can be honest without having to point things out, but I wonder about earnestness, being sincere and forthcoming (Which is why I used the Oscar Wilde play for the title)
One, it’s nice and, well, earnest to be honest all the time.
But people mostly don’t want to know and don’t really care anyways.
And additionally, people don’t NEED to know every insolent item in existence
But being forthcoming shows one’s willingness to be honest and such.
But ignorance is bliss and people don’t need to know all the inconvenient truths laying around.
Furthermore, many times the truth hurts and sometimes one might want to tell a soothing lie.
But I would like to know what the internet population believes. This little topic applies to everyday life as well as things like politics. Should people be honest and sometimes mean all the time? Should politicians always tell the truth? Hmmmnm,
We could leave this town
About time I posted a politics blog, eh?
“When the political columnists say ‘Every thinking man’ they mean themselves, and when candidates appeal to ‘Every intelligent voter’ they mean everybody who is going to vote for them.” -Franklin P. Adams.
We need to revise campaign funding laws, because money has become too important in elections and special interest groups have an advantage to skew results over the American people.
Under the current campaign finance laws, there is an unfair advantage given to Republicans and Democrats. Current election spending doesn’t give third parties a chance. Only 10% of industry donations went to third party or nonpartisan candidates. Without money, you can’t advertise. Without advertising, no one knows who you are. When no one knows who you are, you can’t get your voice heard. In January 2007, Federal Election Commission Chairman Michael E. Toner estimated the 2008 race will be a $1 billion election, and that to be taken seriously, a candidate needed to raise at least $100 million by the end of 2007. According to OpenSecrets.org, Bob Barr, Libertarian, raised $1 million dollars, getting .4% of the votes. Barak Obama, Democrat, raised $640 million, and won 52.7% of votes.
Second, corporate influence is bad, because they don’t reflect the interests of the people. A month before the 2004 election, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, if you combine all finance sector donors, the combined total contributions to Democratic and Republican parties and federal candidates so far in this election season is $218 million. Finance sector donors include real estate, accounting corporations, insurance and stock brokers. Again using Bob Barr, 98% of his funds came from individual citizens donating, 1% from Political Action Committees (PAC), and 0% from federal funds, but he only accounted for .4% of votes. John McCain, Republican, had only 54% of his funding coming from individual citizens and 23% coming from federal funds. He raised $320 million total and got 47% of the votes.
Finally, there are better things to spend the money on that directly effect teens. $1,456,396,985 was donated overall, by industries, to political campaigns in 2008 (FollowTheMoney.org) If they instead invested in students, just based on this number:
*Every student who took the SAT in 2007 could receive $974 dollars towards college tuition
*We could build 27 new high schools, or 113 8/9 schools.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is getting ridiculous. I apologize for the infodump, but it was necessary. Doesn’t it make you sick? I think we should impose a law that constrains the amount of money allowed to be donated by industries and special interest groups to political campaigns. Maybe, just maybe, that could cause people to start actually paying attention to issues, not flashy TV ads. But this is only the tip of the iceburg of potential campaign reforms. Next week, please remind me, I will be writing about voter turnout. Stay tooned!