When examining the government shutdown and debt ceiling crisis, most assume that Obamacare is the main point of concern. Obamacare is the current topic of concern, since a resolution of the policy between the two parties would temporarily alleviate the government shutdown. However the belief that Obamacare is the issue holding the U.S. back from having a prosperous economy and that when a resolution is passed we can forget about the debt crisis is rather naïve. I think something much more fundamental must change before real, long lasting improvements can occur in economy, politics, and the debt situation.
More importantly than Obamacare, the obnoxiously partisan mindset in politics, more specifically the Legislative branch needs to drastically change. United States' politics is more polarized and more partisan than ever before. Members of congress worry more about scoring points with their extremely partisan campaign donors rather than helping improve the state of the country. Since reelection is always the main concern of a congressmen, they vote in a manner that will appease their donors (very extremely to the left or right). I recommend looking up members of congress voting histories. You'll find that "Republicans" essentially vote conservatively 100% of the time and "Democrats" 100% for the left. Voting action like this ruins the two party system, and is why nothing can get done at the Legislative branch, and in the political world in general. It is all a big pissing contest. Of course Adams and Washington warned of the very situation we find ourselves in today, a fight between two political factions, constantly trying to get back at one another. The founding fathers are certainly rolling over in their graves. In fact a change in policy or issue stance is frowned upon in the current political culture. Campaign ads are filled with accusations of "not staying true to the party" or "flip flopping on stances", politicians love to brag that they "haven't changed their stances on the issues EVER". Why would close mindedness like this be a point of pride? Why is changing a stance inherently bad? I think a major reform in political thinking needs to occur in the U.S., maybe a movement away from the two party system, maybe an emergence of more parties (like Germany), maybe some alternative option. The culture of picking either "Team Conservative" or "Team Democrat" and then fighting for your chosen narrow beliefs to the death is ridiculous. In what other aspect of life is their only two restrictive, with no room for variation stances to choose from? If you watch the NBA, you do not have to choose between being either a Lakers fan or a Celtics fan, with no other possibilities, there are dozens of teams in which you can support. Once you pick your favorite team, you are not forever bound to the team til death. If your team doesn't make it to the Finals, when it is time to decide a champion, you pick whichever team you dislike the least to cheer for (I hope you understand the point I am trying to make with this vague analogy). The point being, government and politics must be more free thinking and breakaway from partisan restraints.
On the topic of Obamacare, I don't think it's the government's responsibility to meddle with an individual's health. It increases everyone's premiums and decreases quality of care. Healthcare should be privatized, which would make care more affordable and quality increase. I don't think a completely privatized healthcare system would leave the poor and disadvantaged out on the streets to suffer because they cannot afford care, I have more faith in humanity than this. More than likely doctors (who I think it is safe to say possess a general care and interest for people's health) would charitable help these disadvantaged.
I can see how one could think this post is rather hypocritical, at one moment I bash partisanship, then proceed to express what could be viewed as a very partisan stance. I suppose the difference is I don't consider myself absolutist in my position and would be open to hearing evidence for opposition stances. If evidence or statistics or a valid constitutional interpretation would present itself, I would be more than glad to alter my stance to better it. I have no blinding emotional or indoctrinated association with my beliefs and always open to change. I think leaving emotional attachment to your "Team" is probably the best way to think about things in politics and life, be a free thinker.
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
Blog 4
Unlike what seems to be the majority of the class, I have no substantial history with these "memes" or "adorable pet videos". When it comes to the writing on this subject I am quite the novice, and for this I am proud. So please excuse how greenhorn-ish this blog may be. One thing is for sure, the general public does seem to hold some interest in the cute animal culture. Whether this interest has traceable origins or simply sprouted from human nature, it captivates millions.
The task of finding something substantial in the material provided was quite the challenge. However, the thought that being a "dog person" or "cat person" could influence or predispose someone to a certain economic ideology was interesting. Or perhaps the causal claim goes the other way, does your economic policy stance predispose you to being a cat or dog person. The claim that, "Trots prefer cats, whilst Maoists, dogs, because cats embody class independence, whilst dogs rely on cross-class alliance" may be complete nonsense, nonetheless humorous to consider. It would be interesting to investigate if there is a correlation between pet preference and ideology. Are Republicans dog people? Democrats cat people? That leaves Moderates as fish people? Or maybe Republicans are more Golden Retriever-ish and Democrats more Beagle-like. If you want to get real edgy, perhaps you claim Republicans are Siamese cat people and Democrats lean more Persian. The possibilities are exciting.
The task of finding something substantial in the material provided was quite the challenge. However, the thought that being a "dog person" or "cat person" could influence or predispose someone to a certain economic ideology was interesting. Or perhaps the causal claim goes the other way, does your economic policy stance predispose you to being a cat or dog person. The claim that, "Trots prefer cats, whilst Maoists, dogs, because cats embody class independence, whilst dogs rely on cross-class alliance" may be complete nonsense, nonetheless humorous to consider. It would be interesting to investigate if there is a correlation between pet preference and ideology. Are Republicans dog people? Democrats cat people? That leaves Moderates as fish people? Or maybe Republicans are more Golden Retriever-ish and Democrats more Beagle-like. If you want to get real edgy, perhaps you claim Republicans are Siamese cat people and Democrats lean more Persian. The possibilities are exciting.
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Blog 3
The Aurora shooting, the Newtown massacre, and the naval yard tragedy, among several other recent public attacks, raise serious concerns among U.S. citizens. Such acts of violence baffle essentially everyone, which makes the task of understanding the cause of them very confusing. Because of the difficulty of identifying the reason for such acts, deciding how to prevent them also raises much debate. Commonly, people rush to brash opinions on preventing such acts. For many, a seemingly easy route of prevention is to simply take away guns from citizens. The popular stance seems to be that if the government took away guns from the people, either by directly doing so or by increasing the difficultly of acquiring them, these acts would stop happening. I disagree with such a claim. Increasing gun control would have no impact on the frequency or severity of these acts.
I think that it is rather naïve to believe that if the government tried to increased gun control, difficulty of acquiring guns, and so on, that these acts would stop happening. United States citizens have owned guns since the founding of the country. We all know the 2nd amendment gives us this right. Yet such attacks did not occur with the frequency and severity as they do today.
What seems to have changed in recent years is an increase in mental health issues. I am no psychologist nor expert on mental health, but from a laymen's prospective, this seems evident. Taking for example the naval yard shooting, it seems that Alexis' extreme mental health concerns and the inability of those around him to recognize and act on his issues more directly led the attack, than his ability to acquire a gun. I would argue he would have found a way to act violently regardless of how strict gun laws were. Whether he would have illegally acquired a gun or simply used one of the many other possible modes of conflicting harm on people. I do not believe there is a streamline way for the government to take away the ability of a citizen to harm other citizens, much more than what policies are already in place (background checks for guns, building security, etc.). What needs to improve is the ability of citizens to recognize when an individual has mental health issues, and what measures need to be taken to address them.
I think that it is rather naïve to believe that if the government tried to increased gun control, difficulty of acquiring guns, and so on, that these acts would stop happening. United States citizens have owned guns since the founding of the country. We all know the 2nd amendment gives us this right. Yet such attacks did not occur with the frequency and severity as they do today.
What seems to have changed in recent years is an increase in mental health issues. I am no psychologist nor expert on mental health, but from a laymen's prospective, this seems evident. Taking for example the naval yard shooting, it seems that Alexis' extreme mental health concerns and the inability of those around him to recognize and act on his issues more directly led the attack, than his ability to acquire a gun. I would argue he would have found a way to act violently regardless of how strict gun laws were. Whether he would have illegally acquired a gun or simply used one of the many other possible modes of conflicting harm on people. I do not believe there is a streamline way for the government to take away the ability of a citizen to harm other citizens, much more than what policies are already in place (background checks for guns, building security, etc.). What needs to improve is the ability of citizens to recognize when an individual has mental health issues, and what measures need to be taken to address them.
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Blog 2
If you don't already know, the conflict in Syria poses quite a dilemma to the United States, and the world. A civil war rages on, fueled by attempts of majority sects to over throw a minority sect who govern the country, lead by president Bashar al-Assad. It also appears that Assad has used chemical weapons on thousands of rebels, including innocent children, a direct violation of global laws, to fend off the attempts to overthrow him. For years their have been public demands for Assad's resignation from office and the resulting civil war has lead to around 100,000 lost lives and millions of fleeing refugees. The Syrian economy has been crippled and many of their cities are destroyed war zones.
This situation leads to many questions, "What must done?", " Can anything be done?", and "Should anything be done at all?". All valid questions and several valid answers exist for each. Many would argue, including Barack Obama, that the U.S. must militarily strike down Assad's rule to bring about order and peace in the nation, save innocent lives, and to enforce U.N. laws. The strike would destroy chemical weapons, remove the tyrannical, unpopular leader, and allow the rebels to set up a government that is in the interest of the public. Others would say, that a military strike would be ineffective, create more violence, and enrage the Syrian and various other governments, such as Russia. Then there's the isolationist view that the conflict in Syria is not U.S. business, cannot be helped or mended by our actions, therefore the U.S. should leave it alone, the last thing the country needs is another military conflict or enrage a dangerous government. Clearly, the answers to the above questions depend on one's views of morality.
Recent developments have resulted in what appears to be a diplomatic solution to the conflict. The Syrian government has recently agreed to a plan that would require them to destroy their chemical weapons by 2014. While this sounds like a solution, many remain skeptical. The agreement does not address the tyrannical Assad, who many would say is the root of all the issues, he remains in power and seemingly without punishment. Will removing the chemical weapons really solve what the actual problem, will it stop the refugee crisis, will stop the civil war, will it save the economy. Or must more blunt action be taken. I don't mean to suggest any answers, as I don't think I have one, but I think it is important for people to ask themselves these sorts of questions and to consider the moral dilemmas that result in the various options.
This situation leads to many questions, "What must done?", " Can anything be done?", and "Should anything be done at all?". All valid questions and several valid answers exist for each. Many would argue, including Barack Obama, that the U.S. must militarily strike down Assad's rule to bring about order and peace in the nation, save innocent lives, and to enforce U.N. laws. The strike would destroy chemical weapons, remove the tyrannical, unpopular leader, and allow the rebels to set up a government that is in the interest of the public. Others would say, that a military strike would be ineffective, create more violence, and enrage the Syrian and various other governments, such as Russia. Then there's the isolationist view that the conflict in Syria is not U.S. business, cannot be helped or mended by our actions, therefore the U.S. should leave it alone, the last thing the country needs is another military conflict or enrage a dangerous government. Clearly, the answers to the above questions depend on one's views of morality.
Recent developments have resulted in what appears to be a diplomatic solution to the conflict. The Syrian government has recently agreed to a plan that would require them to destroy their chemical weapons by 2014. While this sounds like a solution, many remain skeptical. The agreement does not address the tyrannical Assad, who many would say is the root of all the issues, he remains in power and seemingly without punishment. Will removing the chemical weapons really solve what the actual problem, will it stop the refugee crisis, will stop the civil war, will it save the economy. Or must more blunt action be taken. I don't mean to suggest any answers, as I don't think I have one, but I think it is important for people to ask themselves these sorts of questions and to consider the moral dilemmas that result in the various options.
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Blog 1
This blog
post will consist of my interpretations and thoughts on “Section V: Concerning our Reasoning…” by Francis Hutcheson. This
essay took me quite some time to drudge through, as the 18th century
writing style was often cryptic. However, after some time and several re-readings
of paragraphs, I was able to gather what seemed to me to be Hutcheson’s main notion.
This notion being that humans’ share a sense of beauty, an appreciation for
regularity, uniformity, and consistency, of which can never come to existence
by randomness but by a designer. One sentence that somewhat summarizes this
notion sits in the third paragraph when Hutcheson proclaims,” that wherever
there is any Regularity in the disposition of a System capable of many other ,
there must have been Design in the Cause; and the Force of this Evidence
increases, according to the Multiplicity of Parts imploy’d”(Hutcheson, Concerning).
Hutcheson’s thesis presents a very interesting but dated argument. He uses the majority of the writing to defend his thesis through legitimate mathematical reasoning, however his conclusion many would debate. To summarize, Hutcheson claims that the regularity or “beauty” we see in the natural world is extremely mathematically improbable, therefore, this regularity could not come to existence by chance, but by design. Today, most scientific thinkers would of course agree that the natural world’s regularity and beauty was not brought about by chance at all, but through a selective process called evolution. In fairness to Hutcheson, he presented a very logical argument at the time he made it, as the theory of evolution did not come to presence until after Hutcheson’s death.
I think Hutcheson makes a very respectable claim, given the knowledge of the world he had at the time, as there seemed to be little alternatives. In terms of his work refuting or clashing with Mandeville’s, Fable of the Bees, I think some disagreements occur. To summarize, I think Mandeville gives mankind little credit and faith, whereas Hutcheson would argue that man naturally possesses an innate ability to see beauty and reason. One could then assume that Hutcheson would argue that this natural sense lead humanity to organizing itself into a civil society as it would be the reasonable action to take.
Hutcheson’s thesis presents a very interesting but dated argument. He uses the majority of the writing to defend his thesis through legitimate mathematical reasoning, however his conclusion many would debate. To summarize, Hutcheson claims that the regularity or “beauty” we see in the natural world is extremely mathematically improbable, therefore, this regularity could not come to existence by chance, but by design. Today, most scientific thinkers would of course agree that the natural world’s regularity and beauty was not brought about by chance at all, but through a selective process called evolution. In fairness to Hutcheson, he presented a very logical argument at the time he made it, as the theory of evolution did not come to presence until after Hutcheson’s death.
I think Hutcheson makes a very respectable claim, given the knowledge of the world he had at the time, as there seemed to be little alternatives. In terms of his work refuting or clashing with Mandeville’s, Fable of the Bees, I think some disagreements occur. To summarize, I think Mandeville gives mankind little credit and faith, whereas Hutcheson would argue that man naturally possesses an innate ability to see beauty and reason. One could then assume that Hutcheson would argue that this natural sense lead humanity to organizing itself into a civil society as it would be the reasonable action to take.
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Plagiarism Exercise
The city of Detroit has seen better days. Once the home of economic fortune and prosperity in the U.S., now at an all time low and filed for bankruptcy. Reasons for the severe economic downfall are even more depressing. It turns out, shady investments of pension funds, 1. such as the funds' $30 million loan to a cargo airline that filed for bankruptcy months later, according to court records, take a large part of the blame for the economic crisis in the Motor City. Obviously, transactions like these make many citizens question the integrity of those in charge of their pension
However, shady investments were not the only contributor. The theft and laundering was not always so subtle. 2.In some cases, outright fraud was at play. FBI investigations led to the conviction this year of former Mayor Kwame Kilpartick on a variety of charges, including some related to the pensions. In addition, $84 million of the funds' losses have been tied to a corruption scheme. (Hicken 1).Without question, many of the pension fund managers took part in flat out money laundering. 3.These managers have been found guilty of accepting cash, casino chips, and even vacations in exchange for steering pension funds to certain companies.
Clearly, the monitoring of movement and care of such large amounts of money needs to ramp up in Detroit if people expect the economy to change anytime soon. Citizens and politicians have to place people of character and integrity, who keep the best interests of the people in charge of these funds. 4.The pension funds should be managed to benefit retirees, not to line the pockets of public officials.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/28/news/economy/detroit-pensions/index.html?iid=Lead
However, shady investments were not the only contributor. The theft and laundering was not always so subtle. 2.In some cases, outright fraud was at play. FBI investigations led to the conviction this year of former Mayor Kwame Kilpartick on a variety of charges, including some related to the pensions. In addition, $84 million of the funds' losses have been tied to a corruption scheme. (Hicken 1).Without question, many of the pension fund managers took part in flat out money laundering. 3.These managers have been found guilty of accepting cash, casino chips, and even vacations in exchange for steering pension funds to certain companies.
Clearly, the monitoring of movement and care of such large amounts of money needs to ramp up in Detroit if people expect the economy to change anytime soon. Citizens and politicians have to place people of character and integrity, who keep the best interests of the people in charge of these funds. 4.The pension funds should be managed to benefit retirees, not to line the pockets of public officials.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/28/news/economy/detroit-pensions/index.html?iid=Lead
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)