It makes me wonder why people use money in certain ways. This article should stir up some debates between environmentalists and the opposition.
Instead of using government money to create more jobs, New Jersey took a sharp left and supported a local Aquarium in Camden with that money. Noting that Camden is one of the poorest city in the nation, spending money on an aquarium will not make the citizens happy.
There is more information about how the government spent money inside Camden in the article (click the title). Read it, it's actually interesting.
I guess I shall make the first comment about this topic to stir some debate up (hopefully). I think the Camden residents would have been happier if more jobs were created. Therefore, New Jersey should have put environmental issues aside, and think about the people. This may sound selfish of me to say, but our nation was created FOR THE PEOPLE. We need to support the PEOPLE before we can support fat hippos. That's my take on it, what do you guys think?
Just Got Home – Slow News Day?
1 hour ago
13 comments:
I agree, I think if that city is one of the poorest in the nation, money shuold be spent creating and finding jobs for the unemployed. If unemployment rates are high and money is tight, no one is going to want to spend their money going to aquariums and looking at "fat hippos." Taking environmentally friendly steps is a good thing, but the well being of the citizens should come first.
Not saying that the environment isn't important (because it is), but when you're dealing with America's poorest city, I think there's more important things to worry about.
I completely agree that the money should have gone to creating more jobs, but I do think a compromise could have been struck. "Green" and environmental companies are growing businesses, so there probably is some way the city could have given people work by creating jobs that try to better the environment. This kind of compromise would benefit both the people and the environment around them. An aquarium is a luxury, not something that is necessary for a community to function, therefore giving money to it is merely frivolous.
Although I hate to say it, like everyone else, I completely agree that they should have spent the money on creating more jobs rather than helping an aquarium build its attractions because if the people do not have jobs, they do not have money, no money means no going to the aquarium. If the citizens can't go to the aquarium, the aquarium will not make any money. If the aquarium does not make any money, then the hippos will have to go.
-Yuzo Yanagitsuru
I haven't clicked on the link yet, but from what I can formulate from your post, I am also going to agree with you and the above commenters. It seems like some people need to get their priorities straightened out.
Yes, you are correct about this being partially an animal issue.
Many of you have voiced support for the preservation of wolves (and in a broader perspective, animals), and this aquarium was supported to care for hippos, yet the comments currently made here suggest the opposite.
I was right on the blog about wolves; the economy takes priority over the perservation of animals right now.
"Many of you have voiced support for the preservation of wolves (and in a broader perspective, animals), and this aquarium was supported to care for hippos, yet the comments currently made here suggest the opposite."
I sniff some flipfloppers!
There are so many people struggling out there to get money to eat. To spend money on hippos, who a lot of people might not be able to even afford to see seems ridiculous. It would be more understandable if things weren't so tight in the economy, and people weren't struggling just to support themselves.
I completely agree. I am as big an animal lover as anyone else but our nation doesn't exactly have a whole lot of extra money to be spending on unnecessary things. When dealing with an extremely poor city they should have thought twice about what they spent it on.
I'm not necessarily making a comment specifically about this town.
However, preservation of animals and their habitats can no more wait than the economy can. If you say "oh there are all these things that are more important, we need to put all our money towards them" all the time, the environment will continue to fail. We have to strike a compromise between helping the economy and the people and saving the environment. You can't just put off one for the other.
And in the case of this town, I'd like to point out that they are in fact helping create jobs. They aren't only paying for that aquarium, it is just one of the things they are paying for.
-Ilan Seid-Green
I agree. If the conditions of the economy is so bad in that city, then money should be funded to help out the people. Money should be spent creating and finding jobs for those who don't have a job. If the unemployment rate is so high, no one is going to want to leave their house and or perhaps even go to the aquarium. Why waste money on some hippos when there are more important issues that should be focused on.
To everyone who reversed their position about the animal issue taking priority over the economy:
Remember this?
http://aragonhitchhikers.blogspot.com/2009/11/killing-wolves.html
I'm beginning to think about how easily you guys can be emotionally manipulated by the original post.
Great point Kevin - just about all the comments here and on other posts lately are just agreements with the original poster, with little analysis or thought done by the commenter.
-Ilan Seid-Green
Post a Comment