Hi everyone,
I'm starting a new job and hopefully moving into a new house in the coming days. Thus, I won't have time left over to devote to this blog. I fully intend, once I am settled and back to a normal schedule, to continue this blog and the goals for which it stands.
So, expect me back in a couple weeks. Thank you so much reading and contributing.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Update
Sorry guys, no post this week. had a really packed weekend and am starting at a new, busier office tomorrow. I'll have one for next Sunday.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Man-Made Climate Change
Man-Made Climate Change, or as it was more widely-known, Global Warming, is a top-ranking political topic. The phenomenon is now called Climate Change because certain areas of the Earth are getting cooler instead of warmer. In this post I will analyze the arguments for and against Climate Change as well as its effect on the political sphere. I am not a meteorologist, but I will do my best to synthesize the scientific data. For all those scientists who are reading, please lend your thoughts.
In brief, Man-Made Climate Change is a warming or cooling of certain areas on Earth due to the proliferation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, nitrous oxide, chlorofluorocarbons, and ozone) serve to absorb and expose infrared radiation onto the Earth after collecting it from both the Sun and thermal radiation that emits from the Earth itself. Naturally occurring gases warm the Earth, but the rise of man-made chemicals and gases have increased the amount of absorption and exposure, thus warming the Earth past what is normal.
Another argument from the pro-Climate Change camp is that soot particulates (both natural and unnatural) can have an unnatural cooling effect on the Earth. Whether it be from volcanic eruptions or aerosol particulates, certain particles block the suns radiation and cool the area the stratosphere they inhabit covers. Artificial pollutants have contributed slightly to this effect, while Greenhouse gases are the more prominent proponent of Man-Made Climate Change.
Those who do not agree with the prediction that irreversible damage will be done to our ozone layer rely mostly on the information gathered by those who made the study in the first place. They say that the evidence is not clear, accurate, or able to fully predict the effect of greenhouse gases on the atmosphere. They also say that current mitigation strategies (techniques to lower CO2 emissions) would only harm the economy more than it would lower Greenhouse Gases. To be more specific, limiting industry for a projected anticipation based on imperfect data would do neither the climate or the job market any good. In general, unless there is more compelling evidence, they aren't going to accept the theory.
Next, I will address both public and scientific opinion on Man-Made Climate Change. In 2008, there was an overwhelming acceptance of Climate Change, with Scientists being in near unanimous agreement that humans were affecting the Earth in this negative way. Many opposed it then, and a good few were unsure. In 2012, four years later, much has changed. The Scientific Community is still mostly in agreement, but those who oppose the theory are now being funded by like-minded non-scientists, and new studies are coming out rejecting the previously projected predictions. Political rhetoric, mostly from the conservative side, has become more vocal in their disagreement and warning of the dangers of limiting industry. All this has had an effect on public opinion, with more and more people becoming unsure of the likelihood of Man-Made Climate Change, as well as more of the public disagreeing with it completely.
It is here that I will give my personal belief on Man-Made Climate Change. As usual, the truth is in the middle of all the mud-slinging. Humans have a negative effect on the Earth, this is no secret. Deforestation limits the benefits trees and plants have on regulating CO2 and O2 in our atmosphere. Pollutants have a visible effect on the air and ocean. Anyone who travels from Los Angeles to Big Bear can easily see how industry can brown the sky and create for less pure air quality. The BP and Exon Valdez oil spills harm and pollute wildlife, and toxic dumps make water undrinkable. These are obvious issues. Climate Change is less obvious, but only slightly so. I have no doubt that the artificial and extra gases we release into the air have a negative effect on the Earth. Substances that don't occur in nature aren't handled well by it either; for instance, styrofoam can take anywhere from 1 million to an eternity to decompose. While the evidence purported by the Scientific Community is compelling to me, there is a chance it may be exaggerated. The opposition has a point in that the studies are not conclusive and are difficult to prove. However, this does not mean they should be cast aside. The studies should be refined and improved, while measures that lower emissions but do not place harmful limits on the economy should be implemented. Measures such as better fuel economy and cleaner energy, as well as renewable energy, should have greater funding and focus.
Once again, I turn the discussion over to you, the readers. Which side, if any, do you support? What should be done?
Thanks for reading.
In brief, Man-Made Climate Change is a warming or cooling of certain areas on Earth due to the proliferation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, nitrous oxide, chlorofluorocarbons, and ozone) serve to absorb and expose infrared radiation onto the Earth after collecting it from both the Sun and thermal radiation that emits from the Earth itself. Naturally occurring gases warm the Earth, but the rise of man-made chemicals and gases have increased the amount of absorption and exposure, thus warming the Earth past what is normal.
Another argument from the pro-Climate Change camp is that soot particulates (both natural and unnatural) can have an unnatural cooling effect on the Earth. Whether it be from volcanic eruptions or aerosol particulates, certain particles block the suns radiation and cool the area the stratosphere they inhabit covers. Artificial pollutants have contributed slightly to this effect, while Greenhouse gases are the more prominent proponent of Man-Made Climate Change.
Those who do not agree with the prediction that irreversible damage will be done to our ozone layer rely mostly on the information gathered by those who made the study in the first place. They say that the evidence is not clear, accurate, or able to fully predict the effect of greenhouse gases on the atmosphere. They also say that current mitigation strategies (techniques to lower CO2 emissions) would only harm the economy more than it would lower Greenhouse Gases. To be more specific, limiting industry for a projected anticipation based on imperfect data would do neither the climate or the job market any good. In general, unless there is more compelling evidence, they aren't going to accept the theory.
Next, I will address both public and scientific opinion on Man-Made Climate Change. In 2008, there was an overwhelming acceptance of Climate Change, with Scientists being in near unanimous agreement that humans were affecting the Earth in this negative way. Many opposed it then, and a good few were unsure. In 2012, four years later, much has changed. The Scientific Community is still mostly in agreement, but those who oppose the theory are now being funded by like-minded non-scientists, and new studies are coming out rejecting the previously projected predictions. Political rhetoric, mostly from the conservative side, has become more vocal in their disagreement and warning of the dangers of limiting industry. All this has had an effect on public opinion, with more and more people becoming unsure of the likelihood of Man-Made Climate Change, as well as more of the public disagreeing with it completely.
It is here that I will give my personal belief on Man-Made Climate Change. As usual, the truth is in the middle of all the mud-slinging. Humans have a negative effect on the Earth, this is no secret. Deforestation limits the benefits trees and plants have on regulating CO2 and O2 in our atmosphere. Pollutants have a visible effect on the air and ocean. Anyone who travels from Los Angeles to Big Bear can easily see how industry can brown the sky and create for less pure air quality. The BP and Exon Valdez oil spills harm and pollute wildlife, and toxic dumps make water undrinkable. These are obvious issues. Climate Change is less obvious, but only slightly so. I have no doubt that the artificial and extra gases we release into the air have a negative effect on the Earth. Substances that don't occur in nature aren't handled well by it either; for instance, styrofoam can take anywhere from 1 million to an eternity to decompose. While the evidence purported by the Scientific Community is compelling to me, there is a chance it may be exaggerated. The opposition has a point in that the studies are not conclusive and are difficult to prove. However, this does not mean they should be cast aside. The studies should be refined and improved, while measures that lower emissions but do not place harmful limits on the economy should be implemented. Measures such as better fuel economy and cleaner energy, as well as renewable energy, should have greater funding and focus.
Once again, I turn the discussion over to you, the readers. Which side, if any, do you support? What should be done?
Thanks for reading.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Health Care
This is a topic in which I have a very difficult time gathering unbiased and straight-forward information. The supporters of each side can be incredibly inflammatory and zealous, making the truth or even the pros and cons of each very murky. Therefore, I invite anyone with expertise or general knowledge in the area to lend their voice and correct me where I am wrong.
It is my understanding that Universal Health Care is a government-run system in which every citizen possesses health care insurance. This is achieved through a higher tax rate paid by the citizens than what we in America are used to. Such a system is embraced by the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Russia, most of continental Europe, certain parts of South America, Mexico, many areas of Asia including India, and other countries are attempting to obtain it.
The current system in America is a sort of hybrid. Government-run programs such as Medicare and Medicaid provide health insurance for the elderly and impoverished, while there is a wealth of private health insurance companies that provide services to those who can afford them.
The current political issue, which has been mounting for years, is that around 50 million Americans are without health insurance because they can not afford it or are illegal aliens. While many have cried out for health care reform, everyone has decried either one or all of the proposed reforms. Some propose a shift to the Universal Health Care system, while opponents claim that will require an unacceptable raise in taxes that Americans neither want nor can afford especially in this economic client. The recent passing of Obamacare (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) was meant to extend affordable and updated coverage to 30 million Americans (a good third of which are illegal immigrants). This has been met with extreme opposition by the conservative right as a drain on the economy and American people. Supporters claim the opponents would rather let those who can't afford health care to do without. Both are not entirely true in their assertions, and the truth of the matter is no clearer than it was when I began this post.
For my opinion, I'm afraid I don't know exactly where we can go from here. I agree that raising our taxes isn't going to necessarily going to help our economic state, but it is abhorrent that 50 million Americans are without basic health insurance. We are a first world country, this and other items such as discrimination, bigotry, corruption, and other malefactors should not be an issue. Unfortunately, that is not the reality. Our infrastructure is quite sizeable compared to many countries of Europe who place confidence in their Universal Health Care. The US has almost 6 times the population of the UK, and twice the population of Russia. Our issues of illegal immigration, debt, conflict in congress, and other problems wouldn't be able to handle the immediate or even gradual shift to a non-competitive system. To make such a drastic change would be risky at the least and destructive at the most, and the inefficiency of our government is not something I would put my trust into when it came to my health. While countries with Universal Health Care tend to have longer life expectancies, they also don't have our same problems, so one system does not always translate well in a different situation.
That being said, I'm also not pleased with many of our private institutions, I've been through interviews with companies that are clearly scams and should be kept in check with smart and efficient regulations. However, regulations are currently contributing to the lack of competition between insurance companies, and when there is a lack of competition, the costumers suffer. Less and less is being covered, and costs are going up. Doctor's are being forced to run larger practices just to stay afloat, but still can't attend to all their patients.
I suppose I don't object to our current hybrid system. Those that want a higher and faster quality of health care, and that can afford it, should have it. Meanwhile, the government should provide a lower cost alternative that competes with its privately funded kin. The current system, however, is not working. The issue of illegal immigration hurts everyone involved. A pregnant woman can cross the border illegally, and the border patrol is required by law to give them a map to the nearest hospital. The child is born, and they are an American citizen. This is a very delicate situation; by no means should the woman be turned away, but when she doesn't pay for the service, the hospital suffers. Multiply this by millions times a year, and the issue becomes apparent.
I now turn it over to you, the readers. What do you think should be done? Should we repeal Obamacare in its entirety? Should we keep it and move to a universal system? Should be we elaborate on the hybrid system we currently possess? I invite discussion, correction, and (hopefully) progress. I think everyone can agree, this is a very crucial issue that needs to be fixed as soon as possible.
It is my understanding that Universal Health Care is a government-run system in which every citizen possesses health care insurance. This is achieved through a higher tax rate paid by the citizens than what we in America are used to. Such a system is embraced by the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Russia, most of continental Europe, certain parts of South America, Mexico, many areas of Asia including India, and other countries are attempting to obtain it.
The current system in America is a sort of hybrid. Government-run programs such as Medicare and Medicaid provide health insurance for the elderly and impoverished, while there is a wealth of private health insurance companies that provide services to those who can afford them.
The current political issue, which has been mounting for years, is that around 50 million Americans are without health insurance because they can not afford it or are illegal aliens. While many have cried out for health care reform, everyone has decried either one or all of the proposed reforms. Some propose a shift to the Universal Health Care system, while opponents claim that will require an unacceptable raise in taxes that Americans neither want nor can afford especially in this economic client. The recent passing of Obamacare (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) was meant to extend affordable and updated coverage to 30 million Americans (a good third of which are illegal immigrants). This has been met with extreme opposition by the conservative right as a drain on the economy and American people. Supporters claim the opponents would rather let those who can't afford health care to do without. Both are not entirely true in their assertions, and the truth of the matter is no clearer than it was when I began this post.
For my opinion, I'm afraid I don't know exactly where we can go from here. I agree that raising our taxes isn't going to necessarily going to help our economic state, but it is abhorrent that 50 million Americans are without basic health insurance. We are a first world country, this and other items such as discrimination, bigotry, corruption, and other malefactors should not be an issue. Unfortunately, that is not the reality. Our infrastructure is quite sizeable compared to many countries of Europe who place confidence in their Universal Health Care. The US has almost 6 times the population of the UK, and twice the population of Russia. Our issues of illegal immigration, debt, conflict in congress, and other problems wouldn't be able to handle the immediate or even gradual shift to a non-competitive system. To make such a drastic change would be risky at the least and destructive at the most, and the inefficiency of our government is not something I would put my trust into when it came to my health. While countries with Universal Health Care tend to have longer life expectancies, they also don't have our same problems, so one system does not always translate well in a different situation.
That being said, I'm also not pleased with many of our private institutions, I've been through interviews with companies that are clearly scams and should be kept in check with smart and efficient regulations. However, regulations are currently contributing to the lack of competition between insurance companies, and when there is a lack of competition, the costumers suffer. Less and less is being covered, and costs are going up. Doctor's are being forced to run larger practices just to stay afloat, but still can't attend to all their patients.
I suppose I don't object to our current hybrid system. Those that want a higher and faster quality of health care, and that can afford it, should have it. Meanwhile, the government should provide a lower cost alternative that competes with its privately funded kin. The current system, however, is not working. The issue of illegal immigration hurts everyone involved. A pregnant woman can cross the border illegally, and the border patrol is required by law to give them a map to the nearest hospital. The child is born, and they are an American citizen. This is a very delicate situation; by no means should the woman be turned away, but when she doesn't pay for the service, the hospital suffers. Multiply this by millions times a year, and the issue becomes apparent.
I now turn it over to you, the readers. What do you think should be done? Should we repeal Obamacare in its entirety? Should we keep it and move to a universal system? Should be we elaborate on the hybrid system we currently possess? I invite discussion, correction, and (hopefully) progress. I think everyone can agree, this is a very crucial issue that needs to be fixed as soon as possible.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Religion
Religion is one of those topics that is both incredibly sensitive and ubiquitously discussed. That being the case, it will also be the most difficult for me to stay unbiased towards. So more than ever, I ask for help and suggestions on how to better approach the topic of religion, faith, spirituality, morality, etc.
Firstly, I will give my world-view, albeit in a very small nutshell. I am, of this moment, agnostic. I have been studying religion ever since junior high (14 years of age). I was baptized an Episcopalian, confirmed as a Methodist, and attended a Catholic High School. I was a staunch defender of the faith until I was 16, when I took a philosophy class. My mind opened to new views, techniques, and facts, I dove deeply into the world of theological, philosophical, and moral debate. I emerged from High School an undecided seeker of the truth, and to this day I continue my study of the world's religions.
Secondly, my view on religion and its place in sphere of politics. The First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the freedom of religious expression, and that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This applies to public schools, employers, and other such organizations. To me this is a wonderful and logical law. Everyone should be free to follow their own version of the truth as long as it doesn't conflict with society in harmful ways (and that is where the conflicts start). If it were up to me, I would extend the law to say that no parent may impose or require their children to follow a faith or prohibit them from one either, but that is a different discussion. The word "God" is in our pledge of allegiance, our money, or State of the Union speeches, everywhere. Our heritage is primarily Judeo-Christian yes, but that carries a history of witch-hunts, gay-bashing, slavery, child molestation, and a host of other horrors with it. If you are going to be proud of your history, make sure you know the baggage that comes with it. It is for this reason that I believe "God" should be off the money, out of the pledge, and any other government or public institution. The president can say it, that is their right, but anything more I feel is unconstitutional.
It is no small secret that religion plays an immense and almost leviathan-esque part in politics. The current race for the Republican Candidacy is rife with accusations of Mitt Romney (a Mormon) not being a true Christian, of Gingrich's past three divorces bringing his morality into question, and Rick Perry's ad condemning gays in the military and the prohibition of children celebrating Christmas in schools.
To me, all of this is ridiculous. Rick Perry needs to read the actual law on public schools and religion (they can't prohibit you from praying, but they aren't going to sponsor one faith over another, very simple). In my eyes Romney's faith is as vulnerable to suspicion and criticism as any other Christian denomination or religion. Last, if any one wants to disqualify a person running for office on divorce, then fewer and fewer of us are going to be able to run at all. It is my belief that as long as one's religious values don't stand in the way of upholding the law, then it shouldn't matter.
The other side of this is how religion plays into the voter's minds and choices. I was told recently that no matter your view on religion, it is going to influence how you vote. While this may be true for most, it doesn't offer Agnostics, Atheists, Hindus, Muslims, and other faiths much of an option when it comes to candidates. I feel that if any public officer holder consults an unproven deity for their choices that affect all our lives, then they shouldn't be holding office. This is, of course, an oversimplification, but an Agnostic can dream. Would I immediately vote for the Agnostic candidate? Only if I liked the rest of their views, so at some point everyone has to do away with their religious preferences and vote for the lesser of two evils (a common motif of politics these days). You can't force a voter to take religion out of the equation, nor should you. It is just unfortunate that extreme religious views dictate how the final candidates come out. Why can't we get an Atheist on the ballot? Or a Buddhist? Muslims have been immigrating here since the late 1800's, it is about time American realizes that Islam is not just one war for the establishment of Sharia law any more, and that Muslims are fair-minded citizens too.
There are voters who only want to see a Baptist get elected, and scream hell-fire when a president doesn't end their speech with "God Bless America". There are Atheists who would tear down every memorial cross that decorates a highway. None of these extreme views are correct, and mandatory moderation would be a good thing, in my opinion, for this country.
I am, probably, extreme in my own views. My perceptions are born of intense debate, and (until recently) a one-sided upbringing. It is of little wonder that I would have left Christianity and adopted a more open view. What do all of you think? Where do we, as a country and international society go from here?
As always, feel free to share your experiences, thoughts, questions, comments, and the like. Thanks for reading.
Firstly, I will give my world-view, albeit in a very small nutshell. I am, of this moment, agnostic. I have been studying religion ever since junior high (14 years of age). I was baptized an Episcopalian, confirmed as a Methodist, and attended a Catholic High School. I was a staunch defender of the faith until I was 16, when I took a philosophy class. My mind opened to new views, techniques, and facts, I dove deeply into the world of theological, philosophical, and moral debate. I emerged from High School an undecided seeker of the truth, and to this day I continue my study of the world's religions.
Secondly, my view on religion and its place in sphere of politics. The First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the freedom of religious expression, and that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This applies to public schools, employers, and other such organizations. To me this is a wonderful and logical law. Everyone should be free to follow their own version of the truth as long as it doesn't conflict with society in harmful ways (and that is where the conflicts start). If it were up to me, I would extend the law to say that no parent may impose or require their children to follow a faith or prohibit them from one either, but that is a different discussion. The word "God" is in our pledge of allegiance, our money, or State of the Union speeches, everywhere. Our heritage is primarily Judeo-Christian yes, but that carries a history of witch-hunts, gay-bashing, slavery, child molestation, and a host of other horrors with it. If you are going to be proud of your history, make sure you know the baggage that comes with it. It is for this reason that I believe "God" should be off the money, out of the pledge, and any other government or public institution. The president can say it, that is their right, but anything more I feel is unconstitutional.
It is no small secret that religion plays an immense and almost leviathan-esque part in politics. The current race for the Republican Candidacy is rife with accusations of Mitt Romney (a Mormon) not being a true Christian, of Gingrich's past three divorces bringing his morality into question, and Rick Perry's ad condemning gays in the military and the prohibition of children celebrating Christmas in schools.
To me, all of this is ridiculous. Rick Perry needs to read the actual law on public schools and religion (they can't prohibit you from praying, but they aren't going to sponsor one faith over another, very simple). In my eyes Romney's faith is as vulnerable to suspicion and criticism as any other Christian denomination or religion. Last, if any one wants to disqualify a person running for office on divorce, then fewer and fewer of us are going to be able to run at all. It is my belief that as long as one's religious values don't stand in the way of upholding the law, then it shouldn't matter.
The other side of this is how religion plays into the voter's minds and choices. I was told recently that no matter your view on religion, it is going to influence how you vote. While this may be true for most, it doesn't offer Agnostics, Atheists, Hindus, Muslims, and other faiths much of an option when it comes to candidates. I feel that if any public officer holder consults an unproven deity for their choices that affect all our lives, then they shouldn't be holding office. This is, of course, an oversimplification, but an Agnostic can dream. Would I immediately vote for the Agnostic candidate? Only if I liked the rest of their views, so at some point everyone has to do away with their religious preferences and vote for the lesser of two evils (a common motif of politics these days). You can't force a voter to take religion out of the equation, nor should you. It is just unfortunate that extreme religious views dictate how the final candidates come out. Why can't we get an Atheist on the ballot? Or a Buddhist? Muslims have been immigrating here since the late 1800's, it is about time American realizes that Islam is not just one war for the establishment of Sharia law any more, and that Muslims are fair-minded citizens too.
There are voters who only want to see a Baptist get elected, and scream hell-fire when a president doesn't end their speech with "God Bless America". There are Atheists who would tear down every memorial cross that decorates a highway. None of these extreme views are correct, and mandatory moderation would be a good thing, in my opinion, for this country.
I am, probably, extreme in my own views. My perceptions are born of intense debate, and (until recently) a one-sided upbringing. It is of little wonder that I would have left Christianity and adopted a more open view. What do all of you think? Where do we, as a country and international society go from here?
As always, feel free to share your experiences, thoughts, questions, comments, and the like. Thanks for reading.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Education and Our Parents
Our earliest exposures to politics and government are school and our parents. While they may not decide our political leanings, they are certainly a great influence.
I am not satisfied with the way our schools teach political topics. I realize that the subject is complex, sensitive, and not usually appropriate for young children, but there needs to be change. I will begin with how my schooling bred a disdain and disinterest in politics:
Firstly, the Pledge of Allegiance. I can't think of many other nations who require their students to each day recite anything comparable to it. People in the UK have told me how it sounds slightly scary and borders on indoctrination. Frankly, I can't argue with them. After having to recite it each weekday for years and years, it became a chore and a labor. It isn't required by law, only encouraged, and there is no legal consequence for refusing to recite it. So why then did I stop saying the words starting in High School?
I've never intended to defect to some other country outside the U.S., and I consider myself an American who wishes to uphold the values and laws of America. Yet I am tired of reciting the pledge of allegiance. Does one stop loving America if they stop reciting the pledge? Isn't once enough? How about 500 times? I can recall a substitute teacher, a retired military instructor, who was appalled and disappointed at my geometry class' lack of enthusiasm during the pledge in sophomore year. He came from a background that is incredibly devoted to all things ritual concerning America. However, I had not lost any allegiance to my flag or country, I was just tired of having to say it, and the repetition had made pledging allegiance undesirable.
As of now, there is no requirement to say the pledge, or even say "under God". But there have been lengthy Supreme Court Cases surrounding the wording of the pledge and if it is right to compel someone to say it. What should we do about this? A child should not have to verbally prove they are pledged to their country every school day. Is this country so paranoid that the youth don't adhere to the laws and values of the Constitution that they have to have the indoctrination drilled into their skulls thousands of times? My suggestions to make it available on special occasions. For instance: Assemblies, Fourth of July (even though not all schools are in session), military gatherings, government celebrations, and other less daily events. Our children should know the pledge, understand the history behind it ("under God" wasn't included until 1953 by president Truman), and know the laws surrounding it. No American should be thought un-American if they don't recite it every time someone suggests it.
My next point regards how the voting system is taught in schools. Unless I was just not paying attention, I was led to believe we elected the President by voting for him, along with our laws and major decisions of the country. It wasn't until High School, right before I could legally vote, that I was informed that I could only participate in the popular vote for the Presidency. The elected representatives voted and actually mattered, technically my voice was only an indicator of what the populace wanted. I understand the populace isn't completely in the know about who is the best candidate for the job, but surely our votes should count for more. I never voted for us to go to war with Afghanistan and other areas of the Middle East, yet there we are. No one ever told me until I was 15 that those with the deepest pockets get the most publicity on the campaign trail and end up as the main ballot features, yet this remains true today. I was deeply disappointed when I figured that out.
There needs to be more honesty in the education department when it comes to teaching our youth about American politics. We don't not have to give up our history, achievements and progress; but we should be forthcoming with the drawbacks of our system early on, and to more than just those in AP Government.
Lastly, our parents. My parents have had changing views about their political stance and leanings. Thankfully, I never felt pressured into believing one parent or the other concerning which political party was right. I was encouraged to educate and inform myself, and that my views were important and worth something.
I have seen other families who do not ascribe to this philosophy. Differences of opinion create strife, distrust, and disunity. For all the talk of getting back to family values, I see much hate and warmongering going on towards opposing view points. Look at the extreme conservative and liberal media pundits, talk show hosts, and news channels. Rarely is there a call for tolerance, calm debate, and cooperation. One side says the other doesn't know what they are talking about. The other retorts with how the first side is evil and un-American. Politics should be a discussion, not a war; and the change of mindset we should take towards these issues should start at home.
What are your thoughts and suggestions? I will respond via video as much as I can. Thanks for reading.
I am not satisfied with the way our schools teach political topics. I realize that the subject is complex, sensitive, and not usually appropriate for young children, but there needs to be change. I will begin with how my schooling bred a disdain and disinterest in politics:
Firstly, the Pledge of Allegiance. I can't think of many other nations who require their students to each day recite anything comparable to it. People in the UK have told me how it sounds slightly scary and borders on indoctrination. Frankly, I can't argue with them. After having to recite it each weekday for years and years, it became a chore and a labor. It isn't required by law, only encouraged, and there is no legal consequence for refusing to recite it. So why then did I stop saying the words starting in High School?
I've never intended to defect to some other country outside the U.S., and I consider myself an American who wishes to uphold the values and laws of America. Yet I am tired of reciting the pledge of allegiance. Does one stop loving America if they stop reciting the pledge? Isn't once enough? How about 500 times? I can recall a substitute teacher, a retired military instructor, who was appalled and disappointed at my geometry class' lack of enthusiasm during the pledge in sophomore year. He came from a background that is incredibly devoted to all things ritual concerning America. However, I had not lost any allegiance to my flag or country, I was just tired of having to say it, and the repetition had made pledging allegiance undesirable.
As of now, there is no requirement to say the pledge, or even say "under God". But there have been lengthy Supreme Court Cases surrounding the wording of the pledge and if it is right to compel someone to say it. What should we do about this? A child should not have to verbally prove they are pledged to their country every school day. Is this country so paranoid that the youth don't adhere to the laws and values of the Constitution that they have to have the indoctrination drilled into their skulls thousands of times? My suggestions to make it available on special occasions. For instance: Assemblies, Fourth of July (even though not all schools are in session), military gatherings, government celebrations, and other less daily events. Our children should know the pledge, understand the history behind it ("under God" wasn't included until 1953 by president Truman), and know the laws surrounding it. No American should be thought un-American if they don't recite it every time someone suggests it.
My next point regards how the voting system is taught in schools. Unless I was just not paying attention, I was led to believe we elected the President by voting for him, along with our laws and major decisions of the country. It wasn't until High School, right before I could legally vote, that I was informed that I could only participate in the popular vote for the Presidency. The elected representatives voted and actually mattered, technically my voice was only an indicator of what the populace wanted. I understand the populace isn't completely in the know about who is the best candidate for the job, but surely our votes should count for more. I never voted for us to go to war with Afghanistan and other areas of the Middle East, yet there we are. No one ever told me until I was 15 that those with the deepest pockets get the most publicity on the campaign trail and end up as the main ballot features, yet this remains true today. I was deeply disappointed when I figured that out.
There needs to be more honesty in the education department when it comes to teaching our youth about American politics. We don't not have to give up our history, achievements and progress; but we should be forthcoming with the drawbacks of our system early on, and to more than just those in AP Government.
Lastly, our parents. My parents have had changing views about their political stance and leanings. Thankfully, I never felt pressured into believing one parent or the other concerning which political party was right. I was encouraged to educate and inform myself, and that my views were important and worth something.
I have seen other families who do not ascribe to this philosophy. Differences of opinion create strife, distrust, and disunity. For all the talk of getting back to family values, I see much hate and warmongering going on towards opposing view points. Look at the extreme conservative and liberal media pundits, talk show hosts, and news channels. Rarely is there a call for tolerance, calm debate, and cooperation. One side says the other doesn't know what they are talking about. The other retorts with how the first side is evil and un-American. Politics should be a discussion, not a war; and the change of mindset we should take towards these issues should start at home.
What are your thoughts and suggestions? I will respond via video as much as I can. Thanks for reading.
This blog's raison d'etre.
Hello and welcome to my blog.
This opening post will operate primarily as an introduction and mission statement, while operating second as an invitation, and finally as a little about me.
Firstly, this blog is born of my recent foray into politics. It is only with the recent presidential election of President Obama that I started to take an active interest in American politics. Having lived in the isolated bubble that is Saint Andrews, Scotland for four years of Medieval History education, it was both easy and preferable to ignore the issues and concerns of my home country. Now back in the states and entering the "real world", I realize that I can not remain ignorant.
I am not happy with how politics is handled in America. I'm not happy with how it is taught to us as children, how it is represented to us by the media, or always how it is executed in government. I would like to see change in not only the operations of politics, but primarily in how we as citizens see and approach the topic. As a firm believer in the Socratic Method, I think the greatest way to refine ideas and see them implemented is through discussion and potentially influence how America governs itself. Thus, I will use this blog to discuss weekly topics of interest, both from my independent research and through suggestions of anyone who is interested.
So, as the second component to this opening post, I invite all of you. Is there something on your mind, something that interests you, something that you want discussed or simply to be heard about? Then leave me a message or comment, and I will try to give everyone a chance.
Lastly, a little about where I am coming from. I am an agnostic, a registered independent, white male, San Diegan. I have a Masters in Medieval History from the University of St. Andrews as well as a paralegal certificate from the University of San Diego. These events and experiences shape how I view the world thus far, and through discussion I hope to be as unbiased as possible through exposure to other perceptions.
Let's begin, first topic will be up soon.
This opening post will operate primarily as an introduction and mission statement, while operating second as an invitation, and finally as a little about me.
Firstly, this blog is born of my recent foray into politics. It is only with the recent presidential election of President Obama that I started to take an active interest in American politics. Having lived in the isolated bubble that is Saint Andrews, Scotland for four years of Medieval History education, it was both easy and preferable to ignore the issues and concerns of my home country. Now back in the states and entering the "real world", I realize that I can not remain ignorant.
I am not happy with how politics is handled in America. I'm not happy with how it is taught to us as children, how it is represented to us by the media, or always how it is executed in government. I would like to see change in not only the operations of politics, but primarily in how we as citizens see and approach the topic. As a firm believer in the Socratic Method, I think the greatest way to refine ideas and see them implemented is through discussion and potentially influence how America governs itself. Thus, I will use this blog to discuss weekly topics of interest, both from my independent research and through suggestions of anyone who is interested.
So, as the second component to this opening post, I invite all of you. Is there something on your mind, something that interests you, something that you want discussed or simply to be heard about? Then leave me a message or comment, and I will try to give everyone a chance.
Lastly, a little about where I am coming from. I am an agnostic, a registered independent, white male, San Diegan. I have a Masters in Medieval History from the University of St. Andrews as well as a paralegal certificate from the University of San Diego. These events and experiences shape how I view the world thus far, and through discussion I hope to be as unbiased as possible through exposure to other perceptions.
Let's begin, first topic will be up soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)