In response to Save America- she needs all the help from Government: A Student's Perspective.
I am in complete agreement with this post. If we call it the 'United' States, and push the fact that we're a free country, then why do we still struggle with things such as gay/lesbian rights, cruelty by police officers, and minorities being looked down upon? People flock to America in high hopes for change, and equality, yet for years they've gotten harshness in return. I'm not saying that America isn't beautiful, and isn't doing a good job as a melting pot, but I do believe that our nation isn't all it's cracked up to be. If we're going to claim ourselves as the land where dreams come true, then we need to make sure that EVERYONES’ dreams are coming true and not just the wealthy, famous, or intelligent.
I also agree with you in that the national government doesn’t seem to understand how to fix these problems correctly. Problems such as gay/lesbian rights. How is it their say at all to make it illegal for two people of the same sex to engage in marriage? It’s just like a husband and a wife, if you’re in love, then let it be. How can we allow such glory-seeking congressmen to establish our laws without getting discouraged with a lot of their decisions? If we weren’t citizens of America, and we moved into this country, would we be treated with respect and equality, or would we be looked down upon because we weren’t born here? The United States is constantly trying to one-up itself, yet it causes a chain reaction because no one is ever 100% satisfied. It’s gone from African American rights, to non-citizen’s rights, to women’s’ rights, to 18-year-olds rights, and now to gay/lesbian rights. The list will never stop growing, yet there needs to be an end so that one day America can be the place that people can come to and feel comfortable that they made the right decision to be here.
If our national government cannot accept the fact that we live in a world full of cultural differences, then laws will never be made with complete equality in mind. You’re right, hopefully this new election will bring about changes so that EVERYONE is able to call The United States the land of the free.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Thursday, June 26, 2008
How much longer will they skyrocket for?
The climbing gas prices have been a problem in the U.S for quite some time now. Americans are still expected to pay for groceries, drive to work, and other daily necessities, yet the rising gas prices are almost high enough to make you not want to drive around anymore. If salaries were going up, or if the prices of food weren't inflating because of this, then maybe it wouldn't be such a big deal that gas prices are blowing up out of control, but because no one's annual income is being raised, and the prices of food are high (because food costs money to transport, and then transportation requires gas) , Americans are struggling to be able to keep their cars on the roads. How is it fair that the population is getting relatively the same pay as they did last year, when gas prices weren't so high, yet now, with gas being twice as much as it was, no ones salaries are getting compensated for all the fuel that they're spending to drive in to work.
To think back when people thought gas being $3.00 or $3.50 a gallon was too expensive makes me realize how lucky we were back then. Now that gas is $4.00 and over per gallon, it makes me not want to drive anywhere because I know sooner than later I'll have to spend another $55.00 to get a full gas tank in my Tribute. How unreal is it that gas can go up a whole ten cents per gallon even in a mere week. It's pathetic that we have to pick and choose the times we want to go out because 'if you take multiple trips, you're paying for your own gas every time Allison Breanne'. My mom is a huge stickler on wisely deciding plans that will take up the least amount of my gas tank. Last year nobody could care less over the summer how many times you left the house, but this summer it's just the opposite. How ridiculous is it that some trucks and SUVs are going to end up costing a person they're whole, well-earned paycheck because it's so expensive to fill they're huge tanks.
It seems like the government doesn't understand that the higher the gas prices, the more expensive the food becomes, the more expensive airline prices will become, and the greater the chance that people will no longer be able to afford to drive to work or anywhere else for that matter. It's frustrating to hear that the government is making changes, and wants to seek multiple temporary solutions, yet we have constantly been paying these unreal prices and nothing, absolutely nothing, has changed yet. It is almost as if government officials are waiting for the gas prices to get to an amount where no one will even buy it anymore. What is that going to take? $10.00 per gallon? Some of them must realize that it is a huge issue that needs to be resolved. Little plans are trying to be made, such as the Bush Administration agreeing to drill more overseas to lessen the blow a bit, but it isn't anything significant enough to make a huge difference yet.
This gas price issue should be a priority for us to get fixed. Modifying gas prices should be just as important as the Presidential elections because they both affect our country greatly. Overall, our attention must be drawn to this current major issue, and Americans need to demand and elect a new leader who ensures that these things will change and has improvement as a major goal, mostly a priority, on their list of to-dos.
To think back when people thought gas being $3.00 or $3.50 a gallon was too expensive makes me realize how lucky we were back then. Now that gas is $4.00 and over per gallon, it makes me not want to drive anywhere because I know sooner than later I'll have to spend another $55.00 to get a full gas tank in my Tribute. How unreal is it that gas can go up a whole ten cents per gallon even in a mere week. It's pathetic that we have to pick and choose the times we want to go out because 'if you take multiple trips, you're paying for your own gas every time Allison Breanne'. My mom is a huge stickler on wisely deciding plans that will take up the least amount of my gas tank. Last year nobody could care less over the summer how many times you left the house, but this summer it's just the opposite. How ridiculous is it that some trucks and SUVs are going to end up costing a person they're whole, well-earned paycheck because it's so expensive to fill they're huge tanks.
It seems like the government doesn't understand that the higher the gas prices, the more expensive the food becomes, the more expensive airline prices will become, and the greater the chance that people will no longer be able to afford to drive to work or anywhere else for that matter. It's frustrating to hear that the government is making changes, and wants to seek multiple temporary solutions, yet we have constantly been paying these unreal prices and nothing, absolutely nothing, has changed yet. It is almost as if government officials are waiting for the gas prices to get to an amount where no one will even buy it anymore. What is that going to take? $10.00 per gallon? Some of them must realize that it is a huge issue that needs to be resolved. Little plans are trying to be made, such as the Bush Administration agreeing to drill more overseas to lessen the blow a bit, but it isn't anything significant enough to make a huge difference yet.
This gas price issue should be a priority for us to get fixed. Modifying gas prices should be just as important as the Presidential elections because they both affect our country greatly. Overall, our attention must be drawn to this current major issue, and Americans need to demand and elect a new leader who ensures that these things will change and has improvement as a major goal, mostly a priority, on their list of to-dos.
Monday, June 23, 2008
there is a point...
Commenting on 'Seriously What's the Point?'
Though you haven't completely given up on the idea of voting, your arguments are drawing you further and further away from actually getting up and going through the process in the fall! Voting is definitely worth both your time and energy because ultimately your vote does count in choosing the next leader of our nation. If everyone feels like they don't need to be going out to vote because it's senseless, then the elections might turn into a process where the minority wins, instead of the well-liked majority winning.
I do understand your argument that the society is turning into one that is machine-driven, and it makes it seem like the people are the lazy, but could you imagine trying to find enough individuals to go through millions of ballots by hand? This would take such a large amount of time that the voting process would have to start even sooner. It takes roughly a day to tally votes, and that is through the process of speedy machines, if we used people, there is no telling what type of problems might arise! Even careless mistakes such as misreading a bubble, or skipping over a ballot could cause such a huge, dramatic issue. You say that it's harder to depend on a machine rather than a human, but machines are simply programmed to do what the human tells it to do and ONLY what the human tells it to do, so if they make a mistake, the human should be the one to blame. Also, though voting machines are expensive, if we used human labor, this would also cost a large sum of money because there would have to be a large amount of people helping count votes, demanding a reasonable salary. Overall, I believe that the machines susceptibility to flaws is just as great as humans'. In fact, I think that the machines are less susceptible simply because they've been reliable in the past, and if we switched over, chaos is very likely to be a result.
I completely agree with your arguments about the electoral college. Is an electoral college even necessary in the first place if the voting is already such a lengthy process that involves the nation's majority vote, instead of the ultimate decision of a different group of people? America tries hard to get everyone involved in voting because 'your vote counts', yet they give a committee the right to ultimately decide whom the winner should be. We might as well turn over all the major decisions to the electoral college if they have the power to choose the leader of our nation. The government should really listen to peoples' opinions of the electoral college because I think there are a lot of unhappy Americans.
Ultimately, the voting process is important, and you should take the time and energy to embark in it. I know that counting machines and the electoral college are putting a damper on your spirits, but it's worth it to be a part of the population who helped decide who the next leader of our nation will be.
Though you haven't completely given up on the idea of voting, your arguments are drawing you further and further away from actually getting up and going through the process in the fall! Voting is definitely worth both your time and energy because ultimately your vote does count in choosing the next leader of our nation. If everyone feels like they don't need to be going out to vote because it's senseless, then the elections might turn into a process where the minority wins, instead of the well-liked majority winning.
I do understand your argument that the society is turning into one that is machine-driven, and it makes it seem like the people are the lazy, but could you imagine trying to find enough individuals to go through millions of ballots by hand? This would take such a large amount of time that the voting process would have to start even sooner. It takes roughly a day to tally votes, and that is through the process of speedy machines, if we used people, there is no telling what type of problems might arise! Even careless mistakes such as misreading a bubble, or skipping over a ballot could cause such a huge, dramatic issue. You say that it's harder to depend on a machine rather than a human, but machines are simply programmed to do what the human tells it to do and ONLY what the human tells it to do, so if they make a mistake, the human should be the one to blame. Also, though voting machines are expensive, if we used human labor, this would also cost a large sum of money because there would have to be a large amount of people helping count votes, demanding a reasonable salary. Overall, I believe that the machines susceptibility to flaws is just as great as humans'. In fact, I think that the machines are less susceptible simply because they've been reliable in the past, and if we switched over, chaos is very likely to be a result.
I completely agree with your arguments about the electoral college. Is an electoral college even necessary in the first place if the voting is already such a lengthy process that involves the nation's majority vote, instead of the ultimate decision of a different group of people? America tries hard to get everyone involved in voting because 'your vote counts', yet they give a committee the right to ultimately decide whom the winner should be. We might as well turn over all the major decisions to the electoral college if they have the power to choose the leader of our nation. The government should really listen to peoples' opinions of the electoral college because I think there are a lot of unhappy Americans.
Ultimately, the voting process is important, and you should take the time and energy to embark in it. I know that counting machines and the electoral college are putting a damper on your spirits, but it's worth it to be a part of the population who helped decide who the next leader of our nation will be.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Stop in the name of LOVE!
Though gay marriage doesn't guarantee social acceptance or approval by all government, it shouldn't discourage same-sex couples from being happy and in love for the rest of their lives. I honestly believe that the government should not even have a say at all in same-sex marriages, much less completely ban them in any one state because love is not a feeling we can control, much less something that we wish to end in a forced manner or heartbreak.
Massachusetts was the first state to legalize homosexual marriages, and just recently(2006) California also approved of them. After these states legalized gay marriages, couples have flocked to them to simply have the unforgettable ceremony that everyone else is allowed to have in their residing states. Since the time that Massachusetts and California have accepted homosexual marriages, eight states have allowed gays to enter civil unions or apply for domestic partnerships, yet twenty three states put out even more bans against them. Some may say that domestic partnerships and civil unions are enough because the couple is given most marriage rights and at the same time not upsetting the general public, but I think gays need to stand up for themselves. Looking back into history, Rosa Parks could've easily been okay with just being able to ride the bus period, but instead she took it a step farther to demand that she sits in the exact seat that she wishes. Homosexuals need to have the same kind of demanding mindset and make sure that instead of receiving most marriage rights they receive ALL of them.
If government is only willing to put forth domestic partnerships for gays then fine, but if the 'separate but equal' policy is still being applied to the United States, then we need to abolish marriages all together. Both heterosexual and homosexual. I'm sure that the country would think this is completely unfair and complain about it, but we need to consider the fact that we're putting certain relationships through this everyday. The huge stepping stone and sacredness of marriage is the ultimate bond for couples who want to spend the rest of their lives together. Eventually, the nation might be ready to extend the right of marriage to same-sex couples, but as of right now our government is overly demeaning and criticizing of them. Someone needs to take the initiative just as MLK and Rosa Parks have to stand up for same-sex marriages before gays are discriminated against in the same degree as the blacks were with the Jim Crow laws.
Massachusetts was the first state to legalize homosexual marriages, and just recently(2006) California also approved of them. After these states legalized gay marriages, couples have flocked to them to simply have the unforgettable ceremony that everyone else is allowed to have in their residing states. Since the time that Massachusetts and California have accepted homosexual marriages, eight states have allowed gays to enter civil unions or apply for domestic partnerships, yet twenty three states put out even more bans against them. Some may say that domestic partnerships and civil unions are enough because the couple is given most marriage rights and at the same time not upsetting the general public, but I think gays need to stand up for themselves. Looking back into history, Rosa Parks could've easily been okay with just being able to ride the bus period, but instead she took it a step farther to demand that she sits in the exact seat that she wishes. Homosexuals need to have the same kind of demanding mindset and make sure that instead of receiving most marriage rights they receive ALL of them.
If government is only willing to put forth domestic partnerships for gays then fine, but if the 'separate but equal' policy is still being applied to the United States, then we need to abolish marriages all together. Both heterosexual and homosexual. I'm sure that the country would think this is completely unfair and complain about it, but we need to consider the fact that we're putting certain relationships through this everyday. The huge stepping stone and sacredness of marriage is the ultimate bond for couples who want to spend the rest of their lives together. Eventually, the nation might be ready to extend the right of marriage to same-sex couples, but as of right now our government is overly demeaning and criticizing of them. Someone needs to take the initiative just as MLK and Rosa Parks have to stand up for same-sex marriages before gays are discriminated against in the same degree as the blacks were with the Jim Crow laws.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Gargantuan Differences between Obama and McCain's Tax Plans
Barack Obama and John McCain differ in many areas in their campaigns, one big issue being taxes. McCain ironically ridiculed President Bush's trickle-down, class-warfare-style tax plan he talked of last election, but now McCain is anxious to do exactly what he didn't want to years before. In 2001 McCain said that he 'could not in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief', yet now, Bush's old tax plan is one that McCain is supporting and wanting to administer himself should he win the election. On the opposite end, Barack Obama is prepared to deliver for the middle and lower class families.
Even though each candidate offers a completely different outlook on taxes, both are similar in that they promise to cut taxes for the majority of Americans. Like I stated above, Obama is looking towards distributed the income to the middle and lower class households, while McCain is planning on giving the bulk of benefits to the wealthiest families in our country. Right now, it's mapped out on John McCain's side, as having families making an income between $66,354 and $111,645 would see their post-tax income increase by 0.7%. As we know, McCain is for the wealthy, so if you make more than $2.8 million a year, you'll see your post-tax income increase by a whopping 4.4%! Barack Obama on the other hand plans on decreasing the post-tax income of the $2.8 million a year incomes down 11.5%, and for those middle and lower class families, he will increase their post-tax incomes by 2.4%, or $1042. The Carpetbagger Report sarcastically says, “If you’re really rich and think that George Bush’s tax cuts for the rich didn’t go nearly far enough, John McCain is your man.” Though this statement is scornful towards John McCain it is completely true. McCain talks so much about making the middle and lower classes happy, yet when it comes to these taxes, Obama's plan is the one devised towards helping them out. Not only does it favor the middle and lower classes by a little, it favors them football fields over McCain's current plan.
I think that overall, though I favor him, John McCain must either admit to Americans that he was wrong in 2001 for criticizing Bush's tax plan, seeing that now it's the same way he'll be conducting taxes, or he needs to modify his tax plan to make it more about the middle and lower classes like the rest of his campaign is mainly centered around. If McCain doesn't do one of these two things, then I believe Americans will start to realize that Barack Obama's goals and views match up with their own. Besides, there are more middle and lower class families in the United States than wealthy households, so why would we even be voting for someone whose tax plan is not benefiting us in any way?
Even though each candidate offers a completely different outlook on taxes, both are similar in that they promise to cut taxes for the majority of Americans. Like I stated above, Obama is looking towards distributed the income to the middle and lower class households, while McCain is planning on giving the bulk of benefits to the wealthiest families in our country. Right now, it's mapped out on John McCain's side, as having families making an income between $66,354 and $111,645 would see their post-tax income increase by 0.7%. As we know, McCain is for the wealthy, so if you make more than $2.8 million a year, you'll see your post-tax income increase by a whopping 4.4%! Barack Obama on the other hand plans on decreasing the post-tax income of the $2.8 million a year incomes down 11.5%, and for those middle and lower class families, he will increase their post-tax incomes by 2.4%, or $1042. The Carpetbagger Report sarcastically says, “If you’re really rich and think that George Bush’s tax cuts for the rich didn’t go nearly far enough, John McCain is your man.” Though this statement is scornful towards John McCain it is completely true. McCain talks so much about making the middle and lower classes happy, yet when it comes to these taxes, Obama's plan is the one devised towards helping them out. Not only does it favor the middle and lower classes by a little, it favors them football fields over McCain's current plan.
I think that overall, though I favor him, John McCain must either admit to Americans that he was wrong in 2001 for criticizing Bush's tax plan, seeing that now it's the same way he'll be conducting taxes, or he needs to modify his tax plan to make it more about the middle and lower classes like the rest of his campaign is mainly centered around. If McCain doesn't do one of these two things, then I believe Americans will start to realize that Barack Obama's goals and views match up with their own. Besides, there are more middle and lower class families in the United States than wealthy households, so why would we even be voting for someone whose tax plan is not benefiting us in any way?
Monday, June 9, 2008
McCain and Obama's Battle over Evangelical Voters
Over the past few elections, the religious vote is still up for grabs between Obama and McCain. McCain is not close enough with the Evangelical voters, whereas Obama is almost too tied into the subject. Both of these issues with the candidates may result in a loss of voters from religious fields. McCain has been bumping up his outreach to Christian conservatives and Evangelical voters over the past few months. It's said that many of these religious persons have admitted to not looking forward to run out and vote in the fall because of the way this is going. McCain has to be careful and balance the way he's turning on and off the religion switch because if he amps it up too much, the Democrats and those in the political middle might be warded off. On the opposite end, Obama isn't worrying about creating a balancing act, and is instead moving in with full force to the evangelical voters. Obama has even hired a full-time staff to organize groups with a curriculum all about faith and politics in hopes to try and sway the voters. McCain still has the advantage that he hasn't openly slandered a member of the Senate when talking about religion. It is said that Obama confronted Lieberman about the personal attacks he made about Obama lying about being a Muslim. This wasn't a smart move to make on Barack's part because Lieberman is able to reach out to the Jewish community to encourage a candidate to vote for, and now that he's feuded with Obama, that might not be the candidate he wishes to support, creating a portion of the Jewish community to not support Obama.
I think that religion does play a huge role in the election, and the religious voters could sway either way because the candidates both have a polar opposite view on the topic. Though Obama is going full force trying hard to convince the evangelical and religious voters that he's the better candidate, he might be coming on too strong, making them lose interest. I believe that McCain has the better chance of winning the Evangelical votes. John McCain is doing a great job balancing out the subject. He's smart in realizing that if he comes on too strong like Obama, he might lose out on some voters who aren't big advocates on religion, yet if he is too soft on the subject, the conservatives and Evangelical voters won't take the time of day to go out and vote for him. Overall, it's simply a matter of who does better convincing the religious population that they care more about religious topics and would make necessary changes for him. I'm sure that this catfight over the Evangelical voters will be duked out until the very end.
I think that religion does play a huge role in the election, and the religious voters could sway either way because the candidates both have a polar opposite view on the topic. Though Obama is going full force trying hard to convince the evangelical and religious voters that he's the better candidate, he might be coming on too strong, making them lose interest. I believe that McCain has the better chance of winning the Evangelical votes. John McCain is doing a great job balancing out the subject. He's smart in realizing that if he comes on too strong like Obama, he might lose out on some voters who aren't big advocates on religion, yet if he is too soft on the subject, the conservatives and Evangelical voters won't take the time of day to go out and vote for him. Overall, it's simply a matter of who does better convincing the religious population that they care more about religious topics and would make necessary changes for him. I'm sure that this catfight over the Evangelical voters will be duked out until the very end.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
What has gotten into Hillary?
The closer and closer it gets to cementing the Democratic candidate for the Presidency, people are beginning to come out and say that HillaryClinton just isn't putting her all into things. She made a comment telling her 'fans' to log onto her website to give her suggestions and ways that she may help people, but is this just mainly a way to seek donations towards her campaign? The website isn't even showing the fan suggestions she's saying that she wants. It appears that the ones who give a money contribution are the only suggestions actually showing up on her website. Hillary's supporters have started expressing disappointment at their candidate’s incapability to come to terms with the situation at hand. It seems to be too late for Hillary to change peoples' minds about herself, which is unfortunate because she had a perfectly good chance to win the Democratic vote. No one is looking for barters and trades, they want to have someone who can lead this country successfully, and to do that, they must trust in someone who trusts in themselves. Bargaining isn't the way that anyone could win this candidacy, and sadly, Hillary Clinton has fallen down this incorrect path.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
