An Outrage

http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/article.aspx?subjectid=213&articleid=20121230_213_G1_CUTLIN298777

Religion in schools and public spaces is a touchy topic. 

I do agree with the author of the above article though. It is baffling to believe that simply bringing religion into schools could have any affect what-so-ever on such terrible events. Believe it or not, people have different beliefs from another. 

Schools should not have a mention of religion anywhere outside of a purely academic context. Schools should be places of secular learning. Yes. Secular. Worldly and temporal. As it should be in a country founded on the tenement of religious freedom. Yet some people, more accurately  some politicians utter the word, "secular," and "atheist," as if it were some pox upon the world. 

As the author of the article says, feel free to pray over your food, in private or among like-minded peers. Just don't force it upon those with different or no association with religion. 

What I find particularly disturbing is that some people would use the school shooting as an excuse to push for more religion in schools, a place where religion is supposed to be nothing more than a day or two of study and mention in history class. I personally believe the usage of such an event to voice such an unfeasible and frankly nonsensical idea upon children to be somewhat in poor taste. 

That's all I have to say on that matter. 

Re: A Controversial Position

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/opinion/lets-give-up-on-the-constitution.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&

Now, time to hear about and opinion about an opinion. 

While I agree the current situation in DC is aggravating, I believe simply abandoning our Constitution is not the right course. Yes, there were times in the past in which the Constitution is bent or even outright ignored, and we see such cases as justified and right, affording us the life style we have today. But I believe we should simply follow this model of bending when needed. No need to eliminate or nullify the Constitution and follow its law through respect as the sole binding factor. 

When should we bend and ignore the Constitution? When the people's will demands it. If people want something, even if it flies in the face of the Constitution, they should get it. Of course, several portions of the Constitution must remain constant, such as several of the amendments. On a whole, I agree more with the author's idea that "if we are not to abandon constitutionalism entirely, then we might at least understand it as a place for discussion, a demand that we make a good-faith effort to understand the views of others, rather than as a tool to force others to give up their moral and political judgments." 

I would rather we not worship the Constitution as holy scripture, the end all in all argument, but use it as a guideline for our democracy, shaping and forming our government, rather than constraining and restricting. 

Over the Cliff We Go

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20877375

Working as intended indeed.

Well, it looks like we're going over the cliff. I can't honestly say I didn't expect this to happen. There is some good news though. The parties will compromise soon after. They must. I doubt any of the two parties are so bull-headed so that they would allow the US to fall into recession once again. Even though some may argue that going over the cliff is the best long term remedy to the ailing economy, we will be popping some pills to relieve the pain momentarily.

So what's going to happen now? Not much. Not really. Technically we will be experiencing higher taxes and major cuts. In reality, those won't be hitting us until Wednesday, and won't adversely affect the majority of the public until people get their January pay-checks.

Seeing as how I'm typing this up right at the moment of negotiations among the parties in DC (as a side note, procrastination isn't a good thing kids, for both students and congress), a deal could be struck up right now for all I know. Point is, we'll fall off the cliff but we won't feel the impact.

Obama probably won't be getting his single, comprehensive plan for reducing the deficit and reforming what needs to be reformed, but we'll avert the worst for now as we chug into this new year.

Happy new years everyone.

Some Considerations

On to a more touchy topic now.

So apparently most Americans would believe any drone attacks by a foreign power on American soil to be a terrorist attack. As most of you know, the US military regularly conducts strikes of their own on foreign soil, and Americans may wring their hands or cheer on depending on their viewpoint. They may be outraged at the fact the strikes are killing civilians or may be cheering on the death's of the nation's perceived foes. Personally, I have yet to hear a person call such strikes an act of terrorism on our part. Perhaps it has been said before, but it definitely isn't said enough for it to be a mainstream opinion. They are the terrorists if they do it to us, we aren't if we do it to them.

I'm fairly sure a person can pick out the hypocrisy using the above information. So is it an act of terrorism in both cases then? Or is something else entirely?

Some believe such a strike on American soil would be considered an act of war. We would then, once again, hear the tramp of boots and the roll-out of vehicles. If it were an act of war, there are some considerations to be had here.

If as a method of war-waging, the drone is simply a new weapon. It kills people as any weapon does. It kills combatants, and civilians. All weapons are capable of doing so. War in general is reprehensible and I am not defending the act of killing or war, but one must take into consideration the fact that the drone is a weapon and a tool. Weapons have been killing for a long time, all of them.

This post was made to address those who view drone strikes as an act of war. As an act of terrorism, well, I don't have much of an opinion on that.

The Financial Cliff: Some Notes

Well now. I may be a little in covering this story, but I believe there are somethings to be said about this topic.

A rundown of situation.

Shortly after election season ended, all talk shifted to this looming disaster. The financial cliff, a term coined by Ben Bernanke, chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve, is a series of deadlines and end dates all coming together in one massive economic blow. Tax cuts will end. Taxes will rise. Spending will be slashed. The deficit will be cut down tremendously in a short amount of time, but at the cost of causing a depression within the country. In other words, a deal must be made in congress, a compromise on how to deal with such an fiscal cliff. 

Now congress must decide whether or not to raise taxes for and end tax cuts for the rich, a plan favored by the Democrats, or to lower taxes and prop up tax cuts for the rich and middle class, a plan favored by the Republicans. Whatever happens next, the following I believe will occur in some shape or form. 

1. If congress misses the deadline for solving the problem, the financial cliff will not set in immediately. 

It will take some time for the measures found in the financial cliff to manifest themselves. Congress has until then to bicker among themselves and find compromise, so that they may appease a fearful citizenry and outraged economy. With those two groups preemptively knocking on the door, congress will be much more likely to pass a compromise then, a month or so after the deadline set, as some project. 

2. If the US goes off the financial cliff, people will blame the GOP more. 

53% of people counted on the poll would view the GOP unfavorably while 45% say all the blame would go on the GOP. There is more to the story than I can cover at this time, go here to read more. 

When Good Things Go Bad

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/17/business/yourmoney/17costco.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

The anti-Walmart huh?

So, let us delve into the murky and mysterious of retail news. The Thanksgiving season Walmart strikes have been popping up into the headlines. Fighting for fairer pay and more benefits, scattered strikes occurred across the nation on Black Friday. While it didn't dent the mega-chain's bottom line, it definitely scored a symbolic victory and I personally believe it highlights an issue that should be addressed eventually.

American retail recently, at least within the larger chains, have been building up a mentality within their employees that they are simply put, disposable and worthless. The idea that workers are an investment and not a disposable entity is no longer prevalent in today's business mentality, with it being replaced by a mentality of greed and a tireless drive to increase the bottom line. Once implicitly held among all of American companies, the idea that treating your workers with basic respect and at the very least listening to them has been eliminated. Instead, they decide to arrest and gag those who attempt to protest against the mega-chain. 

Walmart used to be so much better. When Sam Walton, the original founder of the chain, ran the company, he had a reputation for kindness and a drive to sell American-made items. With his death, his sons too over, and everything went for the worse. It then became about the bottomline, not the worker.

This isn't a good mentality to establish. It shouldn't be all about the money. It shouldn't be all about pleasing the investors. Don't get me wrong, if you want to be a successful business, you need to pay attention to these things. People should always come first though.

Today is a good day.

The Majority Becomes the Minority

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20187325

The United States of America from the very beginning has always been a country of immigrants. Throughout its relatively short history it's seen some pretty heavy immigration from around the world. Something I would like to speculate about is when and if the white, non-Hispanic portion of the US will become a minority within the country.

As it currently is, the number of non-Hispanic white births are the minority. How will this change the face of America? As alluded to within my title and assuming you watched the BBC video I linked, I believe that within our life-times, America shall become a country of many faces old and new, made mostly of the sons and daughters of immigrants from other lands, and where non-Hispanic whites are no longer the majority.

Now, one may ask, is this a good, or bad thing?

That is for you to decide. I will say though, that without the immigration America's population would surely be declining or at the very least staying stable. Let's look at another country for a moment. Japan's population is currently declining at a rate that may prove to be problematic in the future. Their population is composed entirely of ethnic Japanese. This is the fate of all developed countries. After the massive boom experienced in the development phases of a country (Africa's high birthrate for example), the population becomes stable or begins to decline. However you view immigrants, all I will say is that we will always have a population of people ready to work.

Freedom of Internet

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20106293

The internet nowadays, I doubt anyone can call frivolous or trivial in importance to the world today. Everyday, money, ideas, and countless hours of work flow from it. Revolutions are started on it and our endless appetite for videos involving cats doing hilarious things are sated by its never ending stream of information. The internet has grown up and become a power player in this world.

And yet, no one talks about it. I guess it's due to how it has become such an integral part of our lives now, we simply do not give it much thought anymore. Well, for all of you reading this, that is probably the case. Think of all those without this wondrous tool you are wielding right now. Not just children in some far off under-developed country, in your country, in your neighborhood. We are quickly reaching the point where everyone can assume one has internet access of some sort. Yet, not everyone has access. Interior America is a good example of this. There, among the endless fields of corn and wheat, school computer labs are the closest one can get to the internet. In comparison to the children in urban areas, the sons and daughters of farmers are at a severe disadvantage.

What do our politicians think of the internet? They do one of two things. They either don't talk about it, thinking the issue insignificant, or try to regulate it, crushing the free nature that made the internet what is is today. This is unacceptable in totality. Politicians should be at the very least acknowledging the important nature of the internet. They should not bury their heads in the sand, and they should not be trying to crush internet usage through regulation. The future lies on the internet and thus, our politicians should be having some form of positive discourse about it. And yet, not a single question was proposed in the presidential debates

Some food for thought.

A Little Side-Tracked

I'm going to be talking about trains for a bit. See what I did there? With the title? 

More accurately, I'm going to be talking about the California High Speed Rail. 

Proposed in 2008 and approved in 2012, this rail is to begin operating to some degree in 8 to 11 years. It runs all the way from Sacramento in NorCal to San Diego in SoCal. It is to cost approximately 55 billion dollars to build, create 100,000 jobs, and bring in 2.23 billion in net revenue by 2023. 

Needless to say, this is an ambitious project. America is currently lagging behind most other developed countries in terms of these mechanisms, and this rail will likely become America's first dedicated high-speed rail system (The Acela Express on the East Coast doesn't count as it is not a dedicated system). 

I am quite excited for these developments as a person living in SoCal. Infrastructure projects of this type are sorely overdue in America, and are needed if we wish to keep up with our friends overseas in Asia and Europe. While it may take a while, I'm hopeful that this project will bring great good to my state and community. 

Of course, there are some critics of this rail. For one, conservative farmers who must sell off their lands so that the rail may be built and for whom the rail will not directly benefit. Anti-spending organizations have also voiced their concerns over the validity of the numbers proposed by the CHSRA, the organization from which the numbers I am using originate. All are valid concerns, but as of now, the rail is continuing its progress, and we'll all see if it was worth it in the future. 

How I View Politics

I think I should make a post that outlines my political views. A disclaimer of sorts for the people who read my blog. We all have bias, but as a mostly opinion based blog, I believe readers deserve to know what kind of bias they'll be seeing here. So here it is.

I am a left-leaning commentator. I am solidly liberal. I will be picking up on issues that I believe to be issues, and will be taking a left-leaning stance on them. I will not take anything to a logical extreme however. I do not believe in polarizing politics. I believe those who take the extremes of either end of the political spectrum are, simply put, insane. I will support their right to believe what they want and for them to speak of it, but so help me, I will believe them to be insane. Thus, I attempt to take a fairly moderate tone on all of my posts. You will not see rousing speeches or moving calls to action here. You will simply see a high school student looking at an issue, and commenting on it with a slight slant.

This excludes my stance on polarizing politics, as I call them, as previously seen in my other blog posts.

And that is my disclaimer for the time being. I do hope any readers I may have don't mind the bias, and simply enjoy the ride.

Wow, I am not good at this, ummm...

Yeah, I really should keep up with my blog posts.

Next month.

Analysis on President Debate Coming Soon.

Probably during the weekend. Please standby.

This was just too perfect to pass up posting up. Thanks to my friend Y for linking me to this. 

Entitlement.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/i-am-a-job-creator-a-manifesto-for-the-entitled/2012/09/28/756f2e90-07ee-11e2-858a-5311df86ab04_story.html



So, let's talk entitlement. First off, let's see who uses that word more. I've been following national politics for a while now, and I would venture far enough to say that the conservatives have been saying it quite a bit more than anyone else. So how do they view entitlement? Well, according to Mitt Romney, he believes the 47% of the American population who will vote for Obama this coming election feel entitled to food, healthcare and housing. Entitlement to them, is effectively the idea that the government owes anybody anything.

To that, I balk. What about education? What about our firemen? What about the military and protection we derive from from it? Are we not supposed to feel entitled to these services as well? Our nation runs off entitlement. People pay their taxes, obey the laws and participate in society. In return, the federal government provides essential services. It has been this way since the founding of our nation. 

I believe it really boils down to what you believe as an essential service though. Some view access to adequate amounts of food, decent shelter and respectable healthcare to be a service the government should provide as a safety net for those in need. Others view the act of helping those in need or those who made poor choices in life to be a waste of taxpayer dollars. However you view it, it is entitlement. Entitlement though, is not a bad thing. 

Just wanted to share.

Article from which quotes are being pulled from: http://www.progressive.org/meet-romney-extremist-in-virginia


"Look, there's always something you can do. You telling me people can't make a choice for a better life? We have to help all of them? No. I'll tell you what really need to do with these illegitimate families on welfare—give all the kids up for adoption and execute the parents."


This. This is why I hate extremists. And this wasn't coming from a fringe-lunatic Conservative. This was coming from a person found in "a local Romney headquarters in swing-state Virginia, not some far-right Tea Party fringe group."


Here are some more choice quotes.


“Everyone in Iraq under Hussein was a terrorist,” he says. “If there were there under Hussein, they agreed with him, and they needed to be taken out. They’re all terrorists.”


“It’s not an invasion if we are protecting our interests.”


“Mountaintop removal—you mean where you take the top off and get the coal? Sure, why not? I don’t see a problem with it, it’s fine. You’ve got to get the energy somehow.”


I'm sorry. I know this is supposed to be a more academic blog, but I couldn't help but share this little piece of pure insanity with you all.

My Short Rant About the Polarization of America.

I spend a great deal of time on the internet. In this day and age, who in my age group doesn't? What I believe sets me apart from a great deal of my peers, is that I am a frequent visitor of the political scene. Politics interest me, as it should for any citizen in any given country. I particularly enjoy reading articles from more moderate sites, with a more diverse commenter base. 

The clash of ideas, the competitive spirit, and great discussion enthrall me. I follow the word of those who can make a valid point and defend it well using their mastery of language. I come there for the sound and logical debate, where several people can read a story or article, and passionately argue their point of view. 

What I don't come there for, are the caustic, vitriolic comments spewed out from those who have no real point, and are frankly, brainwashed by their respective political wing to simply believe. Call them the vocal minority or stupid internet trolls, but these brainwashed commenters ruin any real political debate there may have been. Being quite frank here, I hate them with a passion. Their incessant use of buzzwords make me sick. Their ill-informed arguments boil down to several core untruths. They have a blind loyalty to their political party, refusing to compromise on anything whatsoever. A little like the politicians we have in D.C. now, eh? 

As much as I loathe these people, I do think they highlight an important issue in America today. Politics are getting more and more polarized. People simply refuse to see policies and propositions coming from the other end of the political spectrum in a calm, logical manner. They  choose not to debate with the other side, let alone compromise. They can only stand by their position, throw up strawmen and redirect. They never debate. 

Let's look at Fox News. I think we can all safely say that they are unapologetically pro-Conservative. They spin the news in such a way that stories about the Conservatives are seen in a golden light cast from the heavens, and stories about the Liberals and current administration are seen in a negative light. This isn't beneficial for anybody. It only further polarizes the nation. Conservatives take what they get, and Liberals, after a little fact checking, become disgusted at falsehoods weaved in with the story. Lies of omission are still lies. 

A polarized nation is a nation in deadlock. A nation at odds with itself. Simply put, it isn't good. I actually fear for the future, as the politicians we put up in D.C. can't make any real change, change we dearly need. 

How can we solve this issue? We can't. Not by any conventional means in any case. And this is why I fear. 

Just my rant, and my worries, for the day. 

Please bear with me as I find a topic. Probably politics/science. Or political science.

Haaaaa.

Why.