As my Junior year is coming to a close, I have been thinking about my education. Always learning in chapters and processes. What crosses my mind is, what will the next step in my class be. Maybe memorizing a list of vocabulary words or trying to understand why fibonacci numbers are so important. Either way its just one more stride on the long trail to college.
In america today, our education system has or needs to change to adapt to the new ways of life, more specifically the new technology. Technology has forever changed our communication and how we receive and gain knowledge. Last week, my math teacher asked me if I would enjoy learning by staying at home and Skyping with the class. I was truly surprised by the question and had never really thought about the possibility of learning like that before. Personally, I wouldn't enjoy that because it would take away the social aspect of school. And I think it would make the already rigid school system even more so.
While the purpose of education is to nurture and to develop qualities like creativity, communication, and collaboration, school's have become more dependent on standardized tests than ever. With such an inflexible collection of teaching material it seems to almost undermine the purpose of education. Instead of developing these qualities, learning through this kind of system molds every student into one kind of student. Where a student can name every president and spit out a textbook definition in a second, but not know how current problems in America will impact the future.
The education system regurgitates the same information to every student so the result is one kind of person. What changes can be made so this doesn't continue happening? Is this a good or bad thing that this is happening to our education system?
Monday, May 26, 2014
Monday, May 19, 2014
A Surprise Preformance
This past weekend Macklemore gave a surprise performance at the EMP museum in Seattle. Macklemore played his painfully dull couple of songs that every american knows the chorus to. But Macklemore couldn't just play his songs without making some sort of statement.
For reasons unknown to me, Macklemore decided to dress up with a "fake black wig, big beard, and a hooked nose" (Demby). There is no comment by Macklemore on what he was trying to display through his costume, but most watchers described it as looking a lot like a exaggerated stereotypical jewish man.
For reasons unknown to me, Macklemore decided to dress up with a "fake black wig, big beard, and a hooked nose" (Demby). There is no comment by Macklemore on what he was trying to display through his costume, but most watchers described it as looking a lot like a exaggerated stereotypical jewish man.
Over the past year, one could have argued that Macklemore built a good or even great public image for himself. For example, after the 2013 grammies Macklemore texted Kendrick Lamar, a fellow nomination for best rap album, "You got robbed. I wanted you to win. You should have won" (Jarenwattananon). The public apology brought positive feedback from listeners everywhere. Not only this but Macklemore's song "Same Love" won over many listeners because of his stance on the issue of gay marriage in America.
That is why I am left so confused wondering how or why this turned out how it did. Yes, it is possible that Macklemore didn't see or think that his costume was racist but how could he get out on stage and preform without one person stopping him. And what message was this costume supposed to have. When you are a celebrity or music star, I think everything you do and wear is so constructed and put together that there is often a reason behind every costume. So now I am wondering what Macklemore's reason for this costume was?
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
The Climate Change Debate
President Obama told america that “isn’t something in the distant future, climate change is effecting us now.” While Obama has been in office he has been constantly trying to raise awareness of our actions and the impacts on the environment but a Gallup Politics Poll revealed that one in four U.S. citizens are “solidly skeptical” of global warming.
This was alarming to me to find this information but I honestly think it should have no effect on what we do about climate change. Climate change is a fact. There is no denying that “global temperatures are rising, heat waves are becoming more common, and glaciers are melting” (John Oliver). Even though some americans are skeptical, the government and the people need to react and try to change how we treat the environment.
This gallup politics poll was just a poll. A study was then done examining thousands of research papers by climate scientists and 97.1% of the scientists “supported the fact that humans are causing global warming.” I think the reason that 25% of americans are skeptical about climate change is because when americans hear about this debate on the reality of climate change, the media sits down two people. One for the reality of climate change and the other against climate change. This just an idea but a one on one conversation makes a debate seem much more even than it may actually be.
On John Oliver, he had a climate change debate but instead of making it one on one, he made it representative of the statistics of scientists. He brought out 97 climate scientists for the reality of climate change and 3 for the opposition. The debate was a joke on TV but made a more realistic idea on what the majority of the scientific community believes.
Monday, April 28, 2014
A Dangerous Dependence
While the US has been becoming increasing dependent on domestic supplies for energy, we still import a huge amount of oil. And this dependence on foreign oil is nothing less than a dangerous dependence.
In 2009 it was recorded by the Department of Energy that the US spends almost a billion dollars on foreign oil a day. Much of that cost comes from the transportation. A billion dollars a day is quite a large sum of money to be paying for energy, when instead it could be used for domestic improvement of energy services. While this foreign oil has a huge cost, it is relatively cheap to other options of foreign oil. With the large cost plus the environmental effects and the serious threats of security, many wonder is this foreign oil is worth it.
Our dangerous dependence is in large part dangerous because of the threats to our national or global security. So many violent conflicts have occurred in part because of the oil issues throughout the world. Americans would be surprised that most of our largest suppliers of foreign oil are characterized by the State Departments Warning List as unstable or dangerous countries. Using these countries as major suppliers could have serious implications on our national security.
When the US uses these suppliers they support unfriendly or sometimes dictatorial regimes. It seems kind of backwards to me that the US is internally so against anything of the sort yet they are at the same time exploiting these other countries for America's own gains.
Do you think this is fair for the US to do? Do you find it hypocritical? Do you know of any other times the US has been hypocritical about foreign policy vs national policy?
In 2009 it was recorded by the Department of Energy that the US spends almost a billion dollars on foreign oil a day. Much of that cost comes from the transportation. A billion dollars a day is quite a large sum of money to be paying for energy, when instead it could be used for domestic improvement of energy services. While this foreign oil has a huge cost, it is relatively cheap to other options of foreign oil. With the large cost plus the environmental effects and the serious threats of security, many wonder is this foreign oil is worth it.
Our dangerous dependence is in large part dangerous because of the threats to our national or global security. So many violent conflicts have occurred in part because of the oil issues throughout the world. Americans would be surprised that most of our largest suppliers of foreign oil are characterized by the State Departments Warning List as unstable or dangerous countries. Using these countries as major suppliers could have serious implications on our national security.When the US uses these suppliers they support unfriendly or sometimes dictatorial regimes. It seems kind of backwards to me that the US is internally so against anything of the sort yet they are at the same time exploiting these other countries for America's own gains.
Do you think this is fair for the US to do? Do you find it hypocritical? Do you know of any other times the US has been hypocritical about foreign policy vs national policy?
Sunday, April 27, 2014
What do we Know About Oil?
After weeks of long research on my Junior theme I realized something: "Most Americans don't have the slightest idea where their energy comes from" (Scott Bittle). I think there is a huge misconception about where we get our oil from.
Most americans would say we get most of our oil from foreign sources, namely the Middle East. While it is true that we do import from the Middle East, they account for a small portion of our many sources of energy. They provide about 16% of our imported oil, while Canada provides for almost half of our imported oil.
Then why do some many people think the Middle East is our major supplier? I think it is in large part due to the media. As many americans know or think, a large reason we invaded the Middle East was for oil. During the 2000's Middle Eastern oil dominated the news. The constant visual and publicity casted this huge idea that America needed or depended on the Middle East for oil, when in reality we don't "depend" on the middle east.
We are actually becoming less dependent on foreign oil everyday. Since 2007, the US has been increasingly producing its own energy. While many people would be extremely happy about this, it has increased our dependency on fossil fuels, which has its pro's and con's.
Where did you think we got our oil from? Can you think of any other reasons why people might think we are dependent on the Middle East for oil?
Most americans would say we get most of our oil from foreign sources, namely the Middle East. While it is true that we do import from the Middle East, they account for a small portion of our many sources of energy. They provide about 16% of our imported oil, while Canada provides for almost half of our imported oil.
Then why do some many people think the Middle East is our major supplier? I think it is in large part due to the media. As many americans know or think, a large reason we invaded the Middle East was for oil. During the 2000's Middle Eastern oil dominated the news. The constant visual and publicity casted this huge idea that America needed or depended on the Middle East for oil, when in reality we don't "depend" on the middle east.
We are actually becoming less dependent on foreign oil everyday. Since 2007, the US has been increasingly producing its own energy. While many people would be extremely happy about this, it has increased our dependency on fossil fuels, which has its pro's and con's.
Where did you think we got our oil from? Can you think of any other reasons why people might think we are dependent on the Middle East for oil?
Sunday, April 20, 2014
Keystone Pipeline Decision Delayed Yet Again
Today the Obama administration delayed the decision on the Keystone pipeline until Nov. 4th, after elections. Recently the Keystone pipeline has been a controversial subject among america's politicians. Many republicans, and a few democrats, have opted for the building of the pipeline but because of large opposition from environmentalists and public opinion the Obama administration have put off the decision.
The Keystone pipeline is a pipeline that runs from Canada all the way to the Gulf Coast. It is already a pipeline, but now there is debate of adding over 2,000 more miles of pipeline. If completed, the pipeline could deliver up to 830,000 barrels of oil a day. This much oil could create a security of energy for america, and because it is fossil fuel energy, it would be cheap as well. Not to mention that the pipeline has the potential of creating thousands of jobs.
But as many environmentalists are arguing, the carbon emissions and impact on the land would be devastating. As Michael McElroy, from the Harvard Journal, put it, "the global climate consequences would be simply unacceptable." If the pipeline was created, evidence shows that carbon emissions into the atmosphere would "sharply accelerate". Many say even if we are not at the tipping point of destroying the planet, we eventually will be. If we ever do reach that point and we are pumping almost millions of barrels a day, do you think oil corporations will be willing to stop drilling?
Today both america in general and the energy industry is so influenced and focused on money that I don't believe we could ever stop once we start this project. Obama says we need "a finding" or significant piece of evidence to sway the decision one way or the other. At the moment I don't know which way this is going to come out but I wonder if the pipeline guarantees some sort of major problem for America in the future? Do you think the pipeline is worth it? What option do you think is in America's best interest?
The Keystone pipeline is a pipeline that runs from Canada all the way to the Gulf Coast. It is already a pipeline, but now there is debate of adding over 2,000 more miles of pipeline. If completed, the pipeline could deliver up to 830,000 barrels of oil a day. This much oil could create a security of energy for america, and because it is fossil fuel energy, it would be cheap as well. Not to mention that the pipeline has the potential of creating thousands of jobs.
But as many environmentalists are arguing, the carbon emissions and impact on the land would be devastating. As Michael McElroy, from the Harvard Journal, put it, "the global climate consequences would be simply unacceptable." If the pipeline was created, evidence shows that carbon emissions into the atmosphere would "sharply accelerate". Many say even if we are not at the tipping point of destroying the planet, we eventually will be. If we ever do reach that point and we are pumping almost millions of barrels a day, do you think oil corporations will be willing to stop drilling?Today both america in general and the energy industry is so influenced and focused on money that I don't believe we could ever stop once we start this project. Obama says we need "a finding" or significant piece of evidence to sway the decision one way or the other. At the moment I don't know which way this is going to come out but I wonder if the pipeline guarantees some sort of major problem for America in the future? Do you think the pipeline is worth it? What option do you think is in America's best interest?
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
The Crude Truth
Repercussions of the BP oil spill in 2010 are still affecting the Gulf of Mexico. A recent study shows that many species of fish are experiencing lethal heart defects as a result of the oil spill. Economically important species of fish are dying off or have become to dangerous to eat. Fishers all over the gulf are still losing their jobs, and the damage to the ecosystem is detrimental. Such awful repercussions all for oil. What else has been expended just to gain oil?
While there are a multitude of companies and problems that have arisen because of oil, I believe a light needs to be shined on Chevron, and the damage they have caused in South America.
Recently in Ecuador, Chevron was found guilty for causing extensive damage to the Lago Agrio forest. Chevron was fined 18.2 billion.
While this was less than a month ago. The impact of oil companies in South America has been present for decades. The Lago Agrio area has been torn up and drilled since the early 90's. First by Texaco, then it was acquired by Chevron in 2000.
You may be wondering how the oil company got away with drilling there for over 20 years. Well the case against Texaco actually started in 1993. But the tribe that controlled the area received over 300,000 dollars worth of bribes. Also, with the use of strong legal teams, Chevron was able to deny the allegations made against them in court. They were finally able to reach a verdict because the case moved from american courts to an Ecuadorian court.
The plaintiffs of the case said that Texaco/Chevron "knowingly dumped... 17 million gallons of crude oil into the rain forest during its operations."
If the environmental problems weren't bad enough, thousands of villagers living in close proximity to the drill sites have been diagnosed with cancers and birth defects. Because of these oil drills, they have polluted all the water sources that the villagers depend on. Natives are forced to bath in and drink contaminated water because they can't get water from anywhere else. Also the contaminated water kills the crops that many of the natives make a living off of.
It seems to me that what some of these american corporations have done to other countries and other people is outrageous. The self intrest of the US drives them to do these economically profitable things but at the cost of destroying the environment, hurting foerign people, and bribing countries. Does this seem fair to you? What are other examples of America's self interest taking a toll on other people or countries?
While there are a multitude of companies and problems that have arisen because of oil, I believe a light needs to be shined on Chevron, and the damage they have caused in South America.
Recently in Ecuador, Chevron was found guilty for causing extensive damage to the Lago Agrio forest. Chevron was fined 18.2 billion.
While this was less than a month ago. The impact of oil companies in South America has been present for decades. The Lago Agrio area has been torn up and drilled since the early 90's. First by Texaco, then it was acquired by Chevron in 2000.
You may be wondering how the oil company got away with drilling there for over 20 years. Well the case against Texaco actually started in 1993. But the tribe that controlled the area received over 300,000 dollars worth of bribes. Also, with the use of strong legal teams, Chevron was able to deny the allegations made against them in court. They were finally able to reach a verdict because the case moved from american courts to an Ecuadorian court.
The plaintiffs of the case said that Texaco/Chevron "knowingly dumped... 17 million gallons of crude oil into the rain forest during its operations."
If the environmental problems weren't bad enough, thousands of villagers living in close proximity to the drill sites have been diagnosed with cancers and birth defects. Because of these oil drills, they have polluted all the water sources that the villagers depend on. Natives are forced to bath in and drink contaminated water because they can't get water from anywhere else. Also the contaminated water kills the crops that many of the natives make a living off of.
It seems to me that what some of these american corporations have done to other countries and other people is outrageous. The self intrest of the US drives them to do these economically profitable things but at the cost of destroying the environment, hurting foerign people, and bribing countries. Does this seem fair to you? What are other examples of America's self interest taking a toll on other people or countries?
Thursday, March 13, 2014
American Logging Monopolizing the Industry
The Australian government has been accused of misleading the UN in its bid to strip the World Heritage Protection from the Tasmanian Forest. The UN wanted the area for logging so when Australia was asked about the land, they said that it was unsuitable to be logged because to much had already been taken and because it would disturb the ecosystem. In reality, the forrest was in extremely good shape and considered "ecologically pristine".
The way the Guardian spook about the issue seemed very negative towards Australia. The guardian specifically showed the hypocrisy of Australia by "releasing pictures of ecologically pristine areas" in Australia. The Guardian seemed to be shaming Australia for trying to maintain their forrest by calling out their lies. I think that Australia has a right to keep the land, and not let the UN, who is deeply enforced by the US, deforest it.
Today, our world is dealing with major issues of the environment. While there are many problems to name, deforestation is a major concern. Deforestation is raising carbon monoxide levels which in turn are destroying our atmosphere. Also deforestation is ruining ecosystems and causing animal species to become extinct. This problem doesn't seem to be ending, but only growing.
According to a blog by National Geographic, Forests currently take up 30% of the land on earth. But every year forests the size of Panama are being torn down and destroyed. At the current rate, there will not be a single rainforest on the planet in one hundred years. Forests have been deforested for many reasons, and there are many people or companies behind the reasons.
In countries all over south america, american companies have exploited cheap labor or corrupted governments to get at the logging, or oil underneath the land. While oil is a whole other issue, much of the forests in South America have been torn down for the purpose of oil. According to the World Bank, 80% of Peru's logging is illegal. And most of the wood that is logged there ends up in american products, giving the US about $72 million in profit from timber smugglers.
In 1994, an agreement was reached between a logging company from Asia, with ties to american corporations, and Suriname that granted the company 25% of Suriname's land, 7.5 million acres, and valued each acre at less than $35. The unfair deal was created because Suriname was in need of financial aid but this deal ultimately gave them $2 million while the US received $28 million annually.
Coming back to Australia, I believe that they have a right to keep their forest. While under developed countries can't hold the US off of their materials, I think countries like Australia should keep their own products for themselves. Do you agree? What else has america monopolized like the logging industry? Does Australia keeping their forest really affect the US and their industry?
The way the Guardian spook about the issue seemed very negative towards Australia. The guardian specifically showed the hypocrisy of Australia by "releasing pictures of ecologically pristine areas" in Australia. The Guardian seemed to be shaming Australia for trying to maintain their forrest by calling out their lies. I think that Australia has a right to keep the land, and not let the UN, who is deeply enforced by the US, deforest it.
Today, our world is dealing with major issues of the environment. While there are many problems to name, deforestation is a major concern. Deforestation is raising carbon monoxide levels which in turn are destroying our atmosphere. Also deforestation is ruining ecosystems and causing animal species to become extinct. This problem doesn't seem to be ending, but only growing.
According to a blog by National Geographic, Forests currently take up 30% of the land on earth. But every year forests the size of Panama are being torn down and destroyed. At the current rate, there will not be a single rainforest on the planet in one hundred years. Forests have been deforested for many reasons, and there are many people or companies behind the reasons.
In countries all over south america, american companies have exploited cheap labor or corrupted governments to get at the logging, or oil underneath the land. While oil is a whole other issue, much of the forests in South America have been torn down for the purpose of oil. According to the World Bank, 80% of Peru's logging is illegal. And most of the wood that is logged there ends up in american products, giving the US about $72 million in profit from timber smugglers.
In 1994, an agreement was reached between a logging company from Asia, with ties to american corporations, and Suriname that granted the company 25% of Suriname's land, 7.5 million acres, and valued each acre at less than $35. The unfair deal was created because Suriname was in need of financial aid but this deal ultimately gave them $2 million while the US received $28 million annually.
Coming back to Australia, I believe that they have a right to keep their forest. While under developed countries can't hold the US off of their materials, I think countries like Australia should keep their own products for themselves. Do you agree? What else has america monopolized like the logging industry? Does Australia keeping their forest really affect the US and their industry?
Sunday, March 9, 2014
The Blank Pages of Flight 655
In our American Studies class we have been discussing the whitewashed history of our country. Talking about what information or events that will or wont be discussed in the future. While searching online for certain examples I came across an unbelievable case.
In 1988, the US air force shot down Iran Air Flight 655. This was a commercial plane with traveling passengers. All 290 people, including 66 children, were killed. The jet flew its usual path from Tehran to Dubai and was mistaken as a military jet. The plane was in Iranian airspace when it was shot down. I couldn't believe that something like this happened. The fact that 290 people died because of a mistake is outrageous. And that the plane was in Iranian territory when it was shot down is extremely awful.
I had never heard of this. So I asked my parents if they had heard of this. Both said they don't remember that ever happening. That seems like a very significant event so I think it has been whitewashed from history. I wonder what the average Iranian knows about this. Hypothetically if the roles had been reversed I feel that almost every person in the US would know about what happened. I would think that it would be similar to how we remember 9/11.
Every year we remember all those people who unfortunately lost their lives on September 11th. But what recognition do these passengers on flight 655 get? If you consider recognition $300,000 for the families of the passengers on the plane, than thats what they got. And eventually the government of Iran was paid off, $131 million, to not pursue a case against the US in the international court of justice. And to top it off the US "denied having any responsibility or liability for what happened." That doesn't seem like justice to me.
In 1988, the US air force shot down Iran Air Flight 655. This was a commercial plane with traveling passengers. All 290 people, including 66 children, were killed. The jet flew its usual path from Tehran to Dubai and was mistaken as a military jet. The plane was in Iranian airspace when it was shot down. I couldn't believe that something like this happened. The fact that 290 people died because of a mistake is outrageous. And that the plane was in Iranian territory when it was shot down is extremely awful.
I had never heard of this. So I asked my parents if they had heard of this. Both said they don't remember that ever happening. That seems like a very significant event so I think it has been whitewashed from history. I wonder what the average Iranian knows about this. Hypothetically if the roles had been reversed I feel that almost every person in the US would know about what happened. I would think that it would be similar to how we remember 9/11.
Every year we remember all those people who unfortunately lost their lives on September 11th. But what recognition do these passengers on flight 655 get? If you consider recognition $300,000 for the families of the passengers on the plane, than thats what they got. And eventually the government of Iran was paid off, $131 million, to not pursue a case against the US in the international court of justice. And to top it off the US "denied having any responsibility or liability for what happened." That doesn't seem like justice to me.
Monday, February 24, 2014
The Fifth Ring
Yesterday marked the end of the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics. While I didn't pay very close attention to the games and standings, I heard all about the opening ceremonies. The opening ceremonies were marked by the fifth ring of the classic olympic symbol. Instead of having five normal rings like it should have, the last ring didn't form a circle. Instead this what was displayed.
Since the opening ceremonies I have heard story after story about why it didn't open. The last ring of the Olympic symbol represents North America, so of course, some people took this as a blow against the USA. I have heard a range of answers: some say it was just a malfunction while others say it was Russia getting back at us for the Cold War. Personally, I think it was just a malfunction and don't think that a country would disrespect another country like that.
But some people do believe that Russia purposefully did this. While I don't believe it, I can understand why they think this. People assume the worst. That is part of human nature, but that characteristic to assume the worst can cause unnecessary divide and conflict. The US and Russia/the Soviet Union have had their past and while it isn't totally behind us, I believe mentalities like assuming the worst continues these divides between our countries.
Another interesting point about the opening ceremonies at the Olympics was that when Russia presented its history to the world, it seemed like they were very picky about what they presented. They showed only positive historical points. I understand that they didn't want to display all of the faults of their past but I believe this is similar to how history is taught in America.
Often, American History textbooks decide what information to put in and what information to avoid. They often glorify parts of history that make America look good, while skimming or not even touching on the demoralizing parts. Not to be cliché but America needs to learn from its mistakes and when the mistakes aren't taught to students, they aren't able to correct past mistakes.
Since the opening ceremonies I have heard story after story about why it didn't open. The last ring of the Olympic symbol represents North America, so of course, some people took this as a blow against the USA. I have heard a range of answers: some say it was just a malfunction while others say it was Russia getting back at us for the Cold War. Personally, I think it was just a malfunction and don't think that a country would disrespect another country like that.
But some people do believe that Russia purposefully did this. While I don't believe it, I can understand why they think this. People assume the worst. That is part of human nature, but that characteristic to assume the worst can cause unnecessary divide and conflict. The US and Russia/the Soviet Union have had their past and while it isn't totally behind us, I believe mentalities like assuming the worst continues these divides between our countries.
Another interesting point about the opening ceremonies at the Olympics was that when Russia presented its history to the world, it seemed like they were very picky about what they presented. They showed only positive historical points. I understand that they didn't want to display all of the faults of their past but I believe this is similar to how history is taught in America.
Often, American History textbooks decide what information to put in and what information to avoid. They often glorify parts of history that make America look good, while skimming or not even touching on the demoralizing parts. Not to be cliché but America needs to learn from its mistakes and when the mistakes aren't taught to students, they aren't able to correct past mistakes.
Tuesday, February 4, 2014
Taxing Junk Food - Making America Healthier?
I have recently heard about many ideas about taxing unhealthy food, while keeping healthy food tax free. Every reason is to help America with the continuing problem of obesity and unhealthy habits but I can't help but wonder what underlying motives might be at play.
A Navajo Nation just recently hiked the tax prices on unhealthy food. The hope was to get people to think second about buying unhealthy food and maybe converting to that healthier and, in some cases, cheaper option. The council members of the Navajo Nation were reported as saying the goal was to "promote more healthy eating habits on the Navajo Nation in order to combat the growing problems of obesity and diabetes." This goal is a good one, no doubt. I would love to combat junk food that leads to diabetes and obesity. I think everyone else would too. It is proven that junk food can have detremental effects on your life, but what they say is the goal seems to me as a cover maybe.
I belive so many places today campaign these tactics to try and influence people on buying their products. First of all, most people are willing to continue and buy these unhealthy options because they think "what difference is a couple bucks." Then for those people that do switch to healthier products, how much cheaper is it because of the tax breaks. Often with this healthier food it costs way more than one would think. The prices start off higher than junk food because healtheir food needs more preparation and more care. Then healthier food goes bad quicker than most unhealthy foods, causing people to buy healthier products more often, then making a bigger dent in your wallet.
This reminds me of the famous breast cancer ribbon. This is now on hundreds of companies saying they support breast cancer aid. And while I'm sure they support breast cancer aid, many may use it as a marketing ploy to lure customers. And I wonder if the companies stop thinking about aiding people with breast cancer, and think about it only as a ploy for more money. I feel that some morals can easily get lost in this process.
Relating the food to the breast cancer ribbon, I think they are similar because companies or towns may use that ploy of buying healthy foods, but I'm afraid that the true ideal of making America healthier may get lost along the way with many companies. Can you think of any symbols or ideas similar to this that are sometimes lost because of a need for more money? How important do you think this issue is?
A Navajo Nation just recently hiked the tax prices on unhealthy food. The hope was to get people to think second about buying unhealthy food and maybe converting to that healthier and, in some cases, cheaper option. The council members of the Navajo Nation were reported as saying the goal was to "promote more healthy eating habits on the Navajo Nation in order to combat the growing problems of obesity and diabetes." This goal is a good one, no doubt. I would love to combat junk food that leads to diabetes and obesity. I think everyone else would too. It is proven that junk food can have detremental effects on your life, but what they say is the goal seems to me as a cover maybe.
I belive so many places today campaign these tactics to try and influence people on buying their products. First of all, most people are willing to continue and buy these unhealthy options because they think "what difference is a couple bucks." Then for those people that do switch to healthier products, how much cheaper is it because of the tax breaks. Often with this healthier food it costs way more than one would think. The prices start off higher than junk food because healtheir food needs more preparation and more care. Then healthier food goes bad quicker than most unhealthy foods, causing people to buy healthier products more often, then making a bigger dent in your wallet.
This reminds me of the famous breast cancer ribbon. This is now on hundreds of companies saying they support breast cancer aid. And while I'm sure they support breast cancer aid, many may use it as a marketing ploy to lure customers. And I wonder if the companies stop thinking about aiding people with breast cancer, and think about it only as a ploy for more money. I feel that some morals can easily get lost in this process.
Relating the food to the breast cancer ribbon, I think they are similar because companies or towns may use that ploy of buying healthy foods, but I'm afraid that the true ideal of making America healthier may get lost along the way with many companies. Can you think of any symbols or ideas similar to this that are sometimes lost because of a need for more money? How important do you think this issue is?
Sunday, February 2, 2014
Super Bowl Sunday
Today is the day. The day that all sports lovers and commercial enthusiasts have been waiting for. This is the one football game that America has been waiting for all year. The holy Super Bowl Sunday. Now, more than ever, Super bowl Sunday has engrossed the people of America to sit down and watch football. Stores close up early, people spend all day making food, and not a soul is seen outside of a room with a television turned on to the game.
I have to wonder though, why a game is getting so much attention. A single football game could be regarded as an American Holiday because of how it is treated. People prepare days or weeks in advance. They plan parties, get togethers, or small family rendezvous to watch this sports spectacle. The atmosphere in every house and at the game is ecstatic for either the commercials or the game, while on the streets there is barely a whisper of noise.
A game dominates a huge part of our society. The super bowl is predicted to receive 108.4 million viewers tonight. To put that into context, the State of the Union Address by the president only received 38 million viewers. The difference seems insane to me. That also speaks, what do people really care about?
The magnitude of 108.4 million viewers is almost incomparable to any other televised event. A speech given by our president at the beginning of the year that explains his motives and goals for our country in the coming year should have a huge significance. In my mind that would seem to be one of the most watched events in our country. But people seem to care about different things.
Im not trying to denounce the super bowl, I love it nearly as much as everyone else, but I wonder why the super bowl is so prized, especially above other things like the State of the Union Address. Why do you think more people watch the super bowl? Do you think people should really care this much about watching a game?
I have to wonder though, why a game is getting so much attention. A single football game could be regarded as an American Holiday because of how it is treated. People prepare days or weeks in advance. They plan parties, get togethers, or small family rendezvous to watch this sports spectacle. The atmosphere in every house and at the game is ecstatic for either the commercials or the game, while on the streets there is barely a whisper of noise.
A game dominates a huge part of our society. The super bowl is predicted to receive 108.4 million viewers tonight. To put that into context, the State of the Union Address by the president only received 38 million viewers. The difference seems insane to me. That also speaks, what do people really care about?
The magnitude of 108.4 million viewers is almost incomparable to any other televised event. A speech given by our president at the beginning of the year that explains his motives and goals for our country in the coming year should have a huge significance. In my mind that would seem to be one of the most watched events in our country. But people seem to care about different things.
Im not trying to denounce the super bowl, I love it nearly as much as everyone else, but I wonder why the super bowl is so prized, especially above other things like the State of the Union Address. Why do you think more people watch the super bowl? Do you think people should really care this much about watching a game?
Monday, January 27, 2014
Susanne Atanus-"God created Autism as a punishment for gay rights"
A couple days ago Republican Candidate, Susanne Atanus, told the press this disturbing line: "God controls the weather and has put tornadoes and diseases such as autism and dementia on earth as punishment for gay rights and legalized abortions.”
I find it incredible that someone would genuinely believe something like that. To me personally, I find that to be an awful logic about why so many people suffer today. People like this find something considered "bad" and group every thing that is also "bad" with it. Some people don't believe in gay marriage and thats their opinion and I understand that. But when they decided to say that because of gay marriage we have disease and devastating weather, that is to much. These people try and simplify the problems by grouping everything "bad" into one problem.
During the 80's when AIDS broke out, it was condemned as "the gay plague". Because the first man recorded with HIV/AIDS was gay, the gay people of America became the most hated minority. The epidemic was largely ignored by the government and gays were labeled as "high risk". Gay people were grouped with AIDS and they were scrutinized by america.
People still group things today. People work to identify problems and fix them. Thats human nature, and if they can identify multiple problems and fix it with one solution, its even better. But some problems are controversial and people try and group these controversial problems with clear and obvious problems to make the controversial problems seem like an obvious problem. While the example of Atanus relating devastating weather issues to gay marriage is quite blatant, I believe people do it more often than one might think. Do you know of any groupings that are deemed 'bad'?
I find it incredible that someone would genuinely believe something like that. To me personally, I find that to be an awful logic about why so many people suffer today. People like this find something considered "bad" and group every thing that is also "bad" with it. Some people don't believe in gay marriage and thats their opinion and I understand that. But when they decided to say that because of gay marriage we have disease and devastating weather, that is to much. These people try and simplify the problems by grouping everything "bad" into one problem.
During the 80's when AIDS broke out, it was condemned as "the gay plague". Because the first man recorded with HIV/AIDS was gay, the gay people of America became the most hated minority. The epidemic was largely ignored by the government and gays were labeled as "high risk". Gay people were grouped with AIDS and they were scrutinized by america.
People still group things today. People work to identify problems and fix them. Thats human nature, and if they can identify multiple problems and fix it with one solution, its even better. But some problems are controversial and people try and group these controversial problems with clear and obvious problems to make the controversial problems seem like an obvious problem. While the example of Atanus relating devastating weather issues to gay marriage is quite blatant, I believe people do it more often than one might think. Do you know of any groupings that are deemed 'bad'?
Monday, January 6, 2014
Recent Cold Snap Descends on the Homeless
These past few days America and Canada have received some of the coldest temperatures in decades. Closing schools, roads, and businesses across the country. Personally, I was enthusiastic about the cold snap because it extended my winter break from school. I was looking through my Facebook feed at all the posts about the day off of school when I saw a link to a Forbes article called 'How To Help The Homeless When It Gets This Cold'
In this frigid weather many people (especially the homeless) are susceptible to health risks like hypothermia. When the homeless people have no shelter they are forced to live in the extreme weather. With wind chill well below 0 degrees I find it hard to imagine homeless men and women tucking themselves into corners with very little clothing or food.
From reading this article I was slightly reassured by the fact that many cities, including Chicago, have a hotline that brings in homeless people and gives them warm drinks, shelter and food for a little while. While this is a great project and probably saves lives, I feel that it is more for survival and I wonder if there are projects that are more long term or maybe help homeless people get a job or help them get a home.
I researched a little and found that many organizations strive to help homeless people. I found the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless. A reliable and strong organization that has many projects and goals for the city of Chicago. They had many videos and pages on how to help communities with long or short term projects. They also have a blog page talking about very current issues or pointers for homeless people. They talked about the cold and what to do if you were stuck without shelter.
My family and I have volunteered at homeless shelters and donated money but I wonder if what I can do to help more with long term projects for the homeless. Or what others have done to help homeless people.
In this frigid weather many people (especially the homeless) are susceptible to health risks like hypothermia. When the homeless people have no shelter they are forced to live in the extreme weather. With wind chill well below 0 degrees I find it hard to imagine homeless men and women tucking themselves into corners with very little clothing or food.
From reading this article I was slightly reassured by the fact that many cities, including Chicago, have a hotline that brings in homeless people and gives them warm drinks, shelter and food for a little while. While this is a great project and probably saves lives, I feel that it is more for survival and I wonder if there are projects that are more long term or maybe help homeless people get a job or help them get a home.
I researched a little and found that many organizations strive to help homeless people. I found the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless. A reliable and strong organization that has many projects and goals for the city of Chicago. They had many videos and pages on how to help communities with long or short term projects. They also have a blog page talking about very current issues or pointers for homeless people. They talked about the cold and what to do if you were stuck without shelter.
My family and I have volunteered at homeless shelters and donated money but I wonder if what I can do to help more with long term projects for the homeless. Or what others have done to help homeless people.
Sunday, January 5, 2014
Marijuana's Legal Debut in Colorado: Good or Bad?
As of January 1st 2014, recreational marijuana became legally available to sell. Only five days into the new year and pot shops are already falling behind. With such high demand these shops are finding it impossible to keep up.
It appears that it is a huge success. Pot is being sold for double the price it was before legalization plus a 20% tax. Even with such high prices, the shops are still selling out. In Colorado, two pot shops that opened in the same town made collectively over $87,000 the first day of legalization. Only 37 stores across colorado opened and many thought that the few number of stores would halt the sales of marijuana, but so far that has been quite the opposite.
While the effects seem to be great from an economic stand point, many people think it will lead to similar problems of alcohol and tobacco: causing addictions in adults and children. Now that marijuana is legal, the access to it will be extremely easy. I think it will lead to same problems that we have with alcohol. Driving under the influence, addiction, public intoxication.
To me it seems that the cons of legal pot outweigh the pros and I wonder what everyone else thinks. Colorado is the only state with legal marijuana, but I wonder if other states will join and maybe create a domino effect.
It appears that it is a huge success. Pot is being sold for double the price it was before legalization plus a 20% tax. Even with such high prices, the shops are still selling out. In Colorado, two pot shops that opened in the same town made collectively over $87,000 the first day of legalization. Only 37 stores across colorado opened and many thought that the few number of stores would halt the sales of marijuana, but so far that has been quite the opposite.
While the effects seem to be great from an economic stand point, many people think it will lead to similar problems of alcohol and tobacco: causing addictions in adults and children. Now that marijuana is legal, the access to it will be extremely easy. I think it will lead to same problems that we have with alcohol. Driving under the influence, addiction, public intoxication.
To me it seems that the cons of legal pot outweigh the pros and I wonder what everyone else thinks. Colorado is the only state with legal marijuana, but I wonder if other states will join and maybe create a domino effect.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)