Obama Snubs NY Gov. Paterson...a Democratic Soap Opera ensues!

Yesterday, President Obama met with David Patterson, the Governor of the State of New York, for one simple reason: to ask him to step aside and allow for newcomers in the 2010 elections.

Now, President Obama’s involvement here is dually interesting and important for a few reasons. First and foremost, the President doesn’t normally involve himself in the elections of unpopular Democratic governors, and secondly, this raises the issue of whether or not it’s politically acceptable for him to do so!

In an anonymous comment on an article in the New York Times regarding the issue, one person asked, if the president was so concerned about Democratic governors who are polling poorly, why he has yet to involve himself in the elections of other governors who exhibit similar showings, such as the governor of New Jersey. (The answer is that New York is much more politically important than New Jersey…but that’s beside the point).

The true issue is whether President Obama, the highest-ranking member of the Executive Branch, a federal operative, should be involving himself in state issues! Obama already has his handsful right now, and should leave Governor Paterson's term of leadership to die a natural death, without getting involved.

-Riley G.

The Addicting Wii

Come on! Who doesn't love the Nintendo Wii?! And especially that bowling game?! I know I do. Here's something I found funny and thought I'd share (link embedded in title):

In March of this year, "Polk County undercover drug investigators stormed the home of convicted drug dealer Michael Difalco near Lakeland. While some detectives hauled out evidence such as flat screen televisions and shotguns, others threw strikes, gutter balls and worked on picking up spares."

I find that amazing. For 1 whole hour (according to the article), investigators played the Wii instead of, well, investigating.

I hope you all enjoyed my short post. Thanks for reading,
-Armaan Vachani

(sorry about the small font, I don't know why it won't change)

Climate Change Fail

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/science/earth/23climate.html

Now we've all heard about global warming at one point or another and how we keep trying to do things, but never end up doing enough. Well, here we went again today at a UN Conference to talk about global warming. And you guessed it, we aren't doing enough.

China is currently the largest air polluter in the world, closely followed by the United States.  During today's United Nations meeting on climate change, over 100 countries discussed their goals on reducing emissions by 2050.

Most industrialized nations have agreed to "a 25 percent to 40 percent reduction from 1990 levels by 2020". However, developing countries like China have said "Due to their low development level and shortage of capital and technology, developing countries have limited capability and means to deal with climate change". Despite this China said they would "cut carbon dioxide emissions by a “notable margin” by 2020 compared with 2005 levels; drastically increase the size of forests; increase the use of nuclear or non-fossil fuels to 15 percent of power by 2020; and work to develop a green economy."

A fairly arbitrary percentage for the more industrialized nations. They need to set a far stricter goal that isn't so vague. China had a slightly more focused plan, actually stating what they want done in a period of time, but the notable margin part is a bit more bleh.

President Obama wants the U.S to invest largely on renewable energy, and giving incentives for cleaner vehicles and clean energy. He also wanted developed countries to provide both financial and technological aid to developing countries to help the world reduce carbon emissions. 

While this looks very nice, none of this has really happened. Frankly, the Cash for Clunkers thing wasn't useful at all. It required you buy a vehicle with a fuel economy of over 22 MPG which is absolutely abysmal.  Older cars from 10 years ago had mileages ranging up to 45 miles per gallon, and after over a decade, all we ask for is 22 miles per gallon? Come on!

Many environmentalists still don't feel we are doing enough to cut emissions, however the target date is so far into the future that Indian environmental minister Jairam Ramesh said that "It is the height of dishonesty to have a target for 2050 because none of us will be around to be held accountable,".

The main problem I've found with climate change, is that no one now actually cares. They won't live long enough to see it, and their children may or may not see it either. Furthermore, all we've done so far is plan. We "plan" to cut emissions by 2050. We "plan" to invest into various clean energy. Not much has actually happened to do anything of the sort. With dates like 2050, as the Indian environmental minister had said, are so far into the future that President Obama can just push the problem onto the next president, and not have to do anything but lay a big speech on how we'll do something about it. We need change now, not in 50 years.

-Weilu Jia

Extension of Unemployment Benefits (plus added ranting)

A few days prior, Congressman Jim McDermott, a Democrat representing Washington, proposed a bill, which, if passed, would extend unemployment benefits for an additional 13 weeks. The states affected would include those with unemployment rates above 8.5% - this includes California and 26 other states.

So far, Congress has passed 53 weeks of unemployment benefits and is being exhausted of federal funds. The current national unemployment rate is about 9.7% and is expected to soar over 10% as early as 2010; all federal funds for unemployment benefits are expected to be exhausted by 2011.

When one is not affected by unemployment, he or she criticizes unemployment insurance, but the unemployed (many who have been unable to find jobs for over a year), and their families, have faced drastic changes in their lives.

Last year, a mother was laid off from her job and started receiving unemployment benefits, which lasted for a few months to help the family during this harsh period, in which she was to find a new job. The family relied on her unemployment and Social Security checks and her husband's job to run the family. Several months later, the family received news that the husband was being laid off and would have a few months of unemployment benefits from the company in order to have time to find a new job. That was in January of 2009. It is now September of 2009 and he is still unable to find a job; in all the interviews he's been to, he's received one of two responses: "You are over qualified for this position" or "We cannot offer you the same salary as you used to receive." Both responses in a way say he is getting older and the company is looking for younger, more energetic employees, or they are scared he will receive a higher position and the interviewer him/herself will lose their job. Before the economic recession, the family moved to a new house so their son could receive an education at a school such as Aragon High School. Also, they bought 2 new cars; a van and a hybrid. The family has started to tap into their son's college savings in order to run the house and pay their taxes. Their Social Security checks has run out and their unemployment benefits end at the end of September.

300,000 people are in the same position of this family; on the verge of losing their home. If the new bill is passed, they will receive an extra 13 weeks of grace period to find a new job.

The economy needs people to spend money in order to flow. Personally, I believe the problem today is people are scared; they don't want to spend money in risk of losing all their savings, and eventually, their homes. It's like a positive feedback loop: people don't spend; companies lose money; people make less money; people save money and don't spend; companies lose money and have to let go of workers; those workers save their money and don't spend. And the whole economy spirals down until we return to the Great Depression and hope the war boosts our economy. Knock on wood.

Armaan Vachani

[Edit: link to the original article is embedded in the title.]

Political Cartoon

LINK to the cartoon

To start this off I am think I am legally allowed to do this but I am not sure. It says it costs 3 dollars to use this cartoon on a school site, but I am not reproducing or placing the cartoon on this site just linking to it on their page. If anyone has any definite proof that this is illegal please say so and I will delete asap.

The cartoon is one of a man with an elephant face for a head and another man with a donkey face for a head and the caption reads (paraphrasing for legal reasons even though I am not sure if I have to) something like:

So all of America is going to be denied health care because of THEIR pre-existing conditions

In case someone does not get it: the two people are representative of the republican and democratic parties. The author makes a joke at the fact that many Americans are turned away from health care because of pre-existing medical conditions and they may be further turned away by health care because of the pre-existing political conditions between the two parties.

I find the cartoon funny and agree that the politics between the democratic and republican party sometimes get in the way of many bills being passed.

This has nothing to do with the current post but my session of blogging is finished so I decided to have some fun:
SUPER AWESOME INTERESTING LINK THAT YOU CANNOT RESIST CLICKING

Calif. panel set to recommend major tax overhaul

Calif. panel set to recommend major tax overhaul

As Mr. Silton has been pointing out in class, California has a very fluctuating economy. In her article Judy Lin argues that the fluctuating economy has to do with "The top 1 percent of income earners. . . pay[ing] roughly half the state's personal income taxes".

She states that because such a significant part of the budget is from very wealthy citizens that when the stock market fluctuates and that top 1 percent (who generally have a significant amount of their money in the market) lose money, the entire state suffers.

A commission put together by the governator and the state assembly are drafting a plausible new tax structure. This new tax structure would cut the taxes on the wealthy and enact a tax on all businesses in California.

Many are complaining that this tax structure would be outrageous. Jean Ross, "executive director of the California Budget Project, a Sacramento-based nonprofit that advocates for lower- and middle-income families" (Judy Lin) states that "This is taxing groceries to finance tax cuts for millionaires and taxing child care so oil companies don't have to pay a corporate income tax".

The idea of lowering taxes on the wealthy is never a popular idea during a budget deficit. However, I see what the committee is trying to do. If the budget is less based on the wealthy and more on the economy itself then the budget will fluctuate less. If the budget can remain reasonable through the business tax and not fluctuate than the state government can finally stop making cuts and have a stable economy.

THC Gene found in Cannabis Plant

There have been a couple blogs on marijuana so when I found this article I thought it might be relevant.
Scientists Find The Gene That Produces THC
Summary: The gene for THC in pot plants has been identified. This allows scientists to potentially control the amount of THC in cannabis plants. Controlling the potency in cannabis plants could allow legal cannabis free of THC in order to make hemp or very potent THC cannabis plants in order to have more effective medical marijuana.

HOW EASILY WE FORGET ABOUT OTHERS

Here's one thing most of us agree upon, but it still deserves some attention, and while i'm not here to post on every topic out there that deserves attention, i will on this one.

Animal cruelty, it comes in so many forms, and you all only know about the tip of the iceberg. This is because over 90% of incidences of animal cruelty, both domestic and government related, are never seen or heard about. No actual national system for reporting cruelty exists, and we must rely on local and state collections of data both for stopping the violence, and for our statistics and research. Lets start at domestic abuse. How come we only seem to notice this subject when people like our dearest mr. Vick show up on the news. Is dog fighting and abuse of pets not interesting enough for you all to think about unless it happens to be a celebrity doing it. I think that's ridiculous. And to all of you who are or are trying to be a vegetarian or a vegan, its a commendable choice, but why don't you stop taking perscription drugs when you are sick too because those are tested on animals as well and are all too often lethal to. Heres a video about the eggs you and i eat, and what happens to their brothers.

I'm not going to go deep into the food production industry, or into animal testing, (thats a video link) or into simple animal abuse, but i want you all to know, its worth thinking about more often than you do, and its worth contributing to more than you do, and most of all, its always worth it to fight for something you believe in nomatter how much money it costs you, how much time you spend, and nomatter how hopeless the fight may seem.

remember, you've only ever heard about, and probably only ever will hear about, just the TIP, of the iceberg

LETS ALL SPEND TEN YEARS ON WEED!

Legalizing marijuana, a topic that seems to be coming up now more than it did a few years ago, and thus deserves some attention. You know that Ron Paul wanted to do it, most students at Aragon High school wouldn't mind either, and personally, i think its PREPOSTEROUS!

Basically everyone who wants to use marijuana can, because it's everywhere, and most who use it, also sell it, meaning there are a lot of small time dealers around. So why not legalize, so that it can be taxed, and can thereby help the state and its population with that money?
BECAUSE while im sure there will be someone in the class who tells me that it'll create jobs, deal a large blow to drug cartels, bring in money, and save on enforcement of law, it is still another drug that even more people will be abusing, getting addicted to, and affecting others in the process.

People drive while high, people don't make thoughtful decisions while high, most people don't even compose complete strands of thought, logic, or reason while high. Being a pothead has medical repercussions, and while less so than smoking or drinking, it has more of the "ruin your life" effect. YES, YES, i will be criticized for saying that marijuana ruins your life, but the fact is, when addicted, which happens easily, kids forget about their education, and live mostly to feed their addiction, hurting their families, friends, and themselves. The last generation was full of potheads, and look how they turned out, just fine. But if you think of how much better they could have turned out, how many years they lost to addiction, how much they sacrificed, and how much harder it was to work up to middle class after quitting, is it worth the cost?
I don't think so, not at all.

PROTECTIVE FORCE, HOW PROTECTIVE IS IT?

50 years ago, when you got punched at school by either someone like you, or a bully twice your size, you could punch them back, maybe get into a fist fight, and then get pulled apart by teachers. Today, if i get punched, i can run, if i get cornered and punched, i can push and then run. if i get stabbed, i can now punch, and perform joint locks and breaks, which i happen to be proficient at.
This phenomenon is called protective force when applied to self defense.

If i break the rules of protective force, then i am nearly as responsible as the aggressor, and if we will both be expelled from school if that is where the incident occurred, and will also probably be reported to juvenile authorities who can give us time in juvenile hall.
While i do not condone violence and do agree with doing anything within bounds to lower the occurrences of violence both in and out of school, i do not agree with protective force. I can end up being killed in a hall at aragon because i dont want to get expelled and arrested for defending myself. The choices are great aren't they?
One of my friends was nearly killed in middle school, when a boy kicked him for something he may or may not have even insinuated, and remembering his lessons from D.A.R.E., he screamed for an adult. One was on the way to the corner where this boy had my friend trapped, but the boy managed to get another kick off at my friend who was on the ground. He hit him squarely on the throat. And for those of you (most of you) who don't know, having your windpipe broken is a fatal injury, and to do so, when it is not flexed, you need only the weight of your arm falling. My friend was picked up by his parents and rushed to the hospital, where he was told that he was lucky to be alive and that he should be able to swallow again in 2 weeks when the swelling goes down.
Can you think what he could have done had he not panicked and forgotten that he was allowed to push the bully and run, he could have saved himself. And this amount of restriction on self defense is ridiculous, because unlike you lucky women, we guys aren't allowed to stab keys or pens into our assaulters necks because of the probability of rape. I just wish this were a free country again.

Aragon School Attendance Policy

Who here has never called into school sick when they were not actually sick? I would guess very few and far between. At Aragon the attendance policy is rather strict. If the activity or reason for being absent is not on the small list of excused absences than it is an unexcused absence. Unexcused absences in their nature just cause problems.

I have heard of many reasons that students call in "sick". The need to finish a school project/paper that is due that day, the need to relax from being overworked, vacations, etc. Are these reasons rather great? Not really. The first one I personally find rather despicable. The second and third one are understandable from the student's point of view but at the same time understandably not acceptable from the school's perspective. I cannot say I have never had to call in "sick" to go on vacation or the likes.

However, along with the questionable reasons people get out of school for, their are many circumstances where students really should be excused out of class but are not by the school.

One fellow student comes to mind immediately for me. I will not mention his/her name because I have not asked him/her about writing on his/her situation on the blog.This person goes to aragon and is part of the search and rescue team in San Mateo county. That means he/she is called when they need to have a massive search to rescue people in serious danger. However, search and rescue is not on the list of excused absences. Therefore even though the police call him/her to give him a rescue mission the school does that excuse him/her. He/she has to call in sick . . . Apparently saving lives is not a good enough excuse to miss class.

Another such situation is visiting colleges. I know personally that I do not want to go visit a college while it is on vacation. I want to see the school while students are there and the college is buzzing with activity. However, normally when they have class, so do we. The counselors themselves incourage visiting the colleges while they are in session. However, college visits are not on the list of excused absenses. Therefore one of the counselors him/her self said to me "just call in sick".

To play the devil's advikit, there is a reason for the strict attendance policy. I believe it is state law or something to that affect that only certain excuses be excused absenses. It is part of the state's/district's/whoever sets the rules 's way of trying to keep attendence up so that we can all get a better education.

However, some of the things such as college visits do make our education better but require us to miss a little school. I believe that the school should have a more loose system for aquiring excused absences. Although the system of simply calling in sick works, it is a crummy system and needs to be chaned.

REQUIEM FOR A DREAM, LONG LIVE AMERICA

This will be my last post regarding president Obama and his ACTUAL agenda. I may comment in the future, but tomorrows posts, if any, will be on other topics.

You guys may keep quoting msnbc as long as you want. It still does not make it true. Still nothing but far left socialist propaganda. This discussion truly makes no sense to be continued if you cant tell the difference between freedom and dictatorship even when the dictatorship is laughing in your face. The discussion can only be continued when the two parties participating in the discussion are honest at least with themselves. And if you think you are, i'm afraid you're up for a big disappointment.

If you can't learn from the mistakes made by people a hundred, fifty, or even ten years ago, you will simply have to learn from your own. You're either in denial, or you're not strong enough to admit the mistakes in your beliefs. If you don't think they're mistakes, then you clearly think history can't repeat itself. I wonder how long you'd be willing to stay in denial. I wonder how hard your life has to get before you begin realizing your mistakes. And then how long it will be after that, before you start admitting them. It really isn't me that you're angry with, its not even all those angry mobs at town hall meetings and the tea baggers. What really bothers you is the lack of substance that the left party is experiencing when its time to answer questions raised by the true patriots of this country. It's so much easier to accuse them of racism than to simply deal with the questions being raised. Because you're being caught lying over and over again. And being stubborn after you realize that you've been wrong for so long really isn't the greatest sign of intelligence. I'm glad that at least on this blog you don't denegrate yourselves to the level of degenerate insults and threats that i've been recieving from so many of you in face to face conversations. Why would someone who has a good argument in their pocket belittle him or herself to the level of barbaric insults.

And if the teacher at school, is proud of the nickname commissar, if the teacher clearly favors one political party, and preaches that to his students, then i don't know what would be more of a clear indicator, that education is being politicized. I thought that that was not a role or job of a schoolteacher. Eerie how similar it is to the education in countries that we recognize as dictatorial. Every little similarity adds up. And i have shown, that there are many thats are more than little. If you can not see that, can you ever even tell the difference between truth and lying propaganda? How many times will we fall into the trap of "it cant happen here." It is happening here..

Wouldn't it be more simple for all of you to win this discussion simply by good argument. You couldn't could you. All of what i've seen so far has been pointless refutation of fact with myth and biased if not outright incorrect speculation. Please continue to preach that it can't happen here and then go out and read 1984 again, i don't think you did so carefully enough on the first run through. But if a communist dictatorship is what you really want, at least, be honest about it.

Im extracating myself from this discussion from this point on due to the lack of a WORTHY OPPONENT. Lets all agree, that time is truly the best judge of all. Lets let history run its course, and maybe in a year or two, the truth will become so apparent that nobody will be able to SPIN it.

Don't Throw Me in Jail, Just Tax My High

So here is a controversial topic for you: legalization of marijuana. There are lots of reasons for it to be legal, and I am going to discuss them.

First I’m going to take a look at the reasons criminalization of marijuana does not work. People in law enforcement will tell you flat out that it should be legal; laws against it just don’t work – they cannot be effectively enforced.
California has over 0.6 percent of its adult population in prison – A higher rate than any other state in the United States, and higher than most other nation states, even those with repressive regimes. 21 percent of inmates are drug offenders. I’d say this is a good sign that the law is in no way lowering drug usage.
Criminalizing marijuana is a failed experiment – just like prohibition. Making marijuana possession a crime didn’t eliminate usage, it just drove it into the black market. So now a lot of people go to jail for it, and we get no tax money from the sale of it.
And instead of going through legal markets, it goes through drug cartels, who use the drug income to fund other criminal activity. Marijuana now funds violent crime, smuggling, and prostitution.

Now what are the positives of having it legal? First and foremost, tax money. The state of California could be raising a large amount of tax revenue from marijuana sales, if it were legal. Other drugs such as tobacco and alcohol are legal and taxed, why shouldn’t marijuana be?
And I know some arguments against its legalization will be that use of it is immoral. But we legalize and tax plenty of other so-called immoral activities, such as gambling, and use of the drugs I just mentioned – why not marijuana?
Another pro of legalization is regulation. If it is a legal enterprise, not only can it be taxed, but sales can be regulated by the state. If you make it legal, you practically destroy the black market for it, and thus make it much more difficult for those who are underage to procure it.

Now I want to address two more arguments I know will be raised against my opinion.
First, people will say it is bad for you. My answer to that is simple: Yes it is, but so are tobacco, alcohol, and Twinkies, and marijuana is much less dangerous than any of them. The answer is not criminalization, it is effective and correct education to go with free choice.
Others will tell me that studies have shown it to be a gateway drug, that use of marijuana leads to use of other more dangerous drugs. My answer to this is even simpler: These studies have been proven inconclusive or incorrect.

-Ilan Seid-Green

Why should we do that? We might get Sued!!!!!!!!!

I am tired of the ridiculousness of lawsuits. We have all heard of ridiculous law suits such as a robber breaking into a garage while a family was out of town and getting stuck inside the garage. He then had to live off of dog food for a couple weeks. When the family came home and found him rather than being put in jail, he sued the garage making company and WON.

Well that case may be true or not, many other ridiculous law suits do happen in America.
Examples 1-12
I am assuming that most of these lawsuits were lost. However, even when a failed law suit occurs, legal costs and time are both quite a hefty loss to the defendant.

The consequence of these ridiculous law suits is that many companies and organization take ridiculous measures not to get sued.

I work at California Pizza Kitchen. Every night when closing up all the extra bread left over ( sometimes up to 15-20 loafs) is thrown away. When I asked my boss why we do not donate the bread to a soup kitchen his response was "It is company policy that we have to throw it away. We do not want to give it to the homeless because if they get sick they could sue us". I did not have a response to that. That kind of logic is so stupid that it is sad.

California Pizza Kitchen is just one example of a common trend in America. 1) People believe law suits are the solution to all problems 2) People are overly afraid of law suits. These two trends seem to contradict each other. If law suits are becoming overly common then wouldn't the companies be justifiably afraid of law suits? Not Really. In my opinion, there is still a line that should not be crossed. If it is the right thing to do, fear of lawsuits is not a good reason not to do it.

WAIT QUICK! TEACHER'S LOOKING, PRETEND TO BE INTERESTED!!!!!

this will be a quick post responding to the lovely people at school whom i dare not name because my sarcastic tone will be "offensive" to them.

not you katie jensen, this is someone else who criticized my tone.


For most of you who did not hear this verbal attack upon me, i was told today "you're a f word racist pig, an im not afraid to say it. some day you will end up alone and unhappy, with all of your homophobic, racist comrads, you stupid narrow minded piece of [fill in the blank], (synonym feces). I wanna see what you have to say after we show you what we obamunists do around here to haters like you." by the way, i will excercize my first amendment rights and not tell anyone who questions me who it is that said this, because i think that the fact that i put it online can get them into alot of trouble, and that is not my intent, nor will it happen.

In responce to the sensitive, tolerant, open minded young future voters who said this to me, i think that you should be posting more of this up on my posts as comments. really, i wouldnt mind, what could the commissar do if you posted anonymously? i'd rather hear the more honest opinions rather than class grade oriented watered down 'find something original to say' comments. While i do not discourage this, go ahead and look out for your grades, but if you actually want to voice an opinion however you want to voice it, go ahead.

I would hate to wake you all up from your brainwashing, but believe it or not, while being against gay rights and abortion are perfectly valid opinions, not every conservative holds them.

For example, I do not hold these opinions, I am Pro-Gay Rights, and Pro-Choice, which i know, many of you are not. Drew, don't bother responding angrily, which you may or may not want to do, i know you're against abortion, you've told me many times. go ahead and list your reasons, it is your right, of course. For now at least, while the first amendment hasn't been clarified, (aka limited) further.

I think it isn't fair that today i was threatened today for blogging about how i think Obama is a socialist or worse.. oops since half of my class may or may not be socialist, i guess i'd better say: or farther left. but in my opinion, farther left=worse for the country. so to clarify, that earlier "socialist or 'worse'" was not worse as in you are worse people it was worse for the country.

Now, for some novelty, I want to talk about motivation and perserverence.

Everybody at some point in their lives has experienced some sort of motivation and has acted on it. feel free to challenge that.

and, in this country, people seem to take too much for granted.
Why don't you listen in your classes when they tell you how people raced and are still racing to get into America, the land of oppertunity. They know, they know that if you come, and use the free education, then you can become a doctor, you can become a lawyer, you can go to any university, you can design bridges, you can convert at will, you can live without fear of political persecution (well for now), and you can forge your own life. Not depending on whether or not the government can put you in a good position, but depending on your own initiative, motivation, drive, and desire to perservere.

For some reason socialists dont understand that this can and probably will be gone if the government runs the economy, small business and the private sector, and just our lives in general eventually. And liberals not fighting against socialism are taking us there. Thanks!

Now, to my other point, while everybody else in the world understands what this country stands for, while still capitalist, the people born in it seem not to.

We all, including myself, take our education for granted. We all, including myself, have felt like school was a nuisance at times, some people more than others of course. But on the other side of the world, people are dying to forge a nation where their grandchildren might have the opportunity to grow up treated like humans, not dirt. While we think about the 2 hours homework will take out of your weekend others are thinking about how if they swam the ocean, they might not starve as often, and might even go to school someday.
So next time you think of being bored at school, unstimulated, or even unmotivated, think about how many people would murder for your place. Think about how lucky you are and actually force yourself to feel different.
take advantage of opportunity, while you still have it, because it may not be around forever.

The Legal Right To Discriminate By Age

In America, we are taught it is unjust to discriminate. Discrimination by race is wrong. Discrimination by gender is wrong. Discrimination is wrong wrong wrong, except when it comes to age.

Citizens cannot drive untill till they are 16.They cannot vote, make their own decisions, buy porn, or drive while on the phone until 18. They cannot drink until 21 etc. The list could go on forever. I have mixed feelings about discrimination on age. Do I want 5 year olds looking at porn, driving, and voting? Not really. However, what is the difference between 17 an 18 or 20 and 21.

The first aspect of discrimination by age is the legality behind it. It is perfectly legal. The Constitution and Laws of the United States condone discrimination by age and apply it constantly. The Constitution gives the right to free speech correct? Wrong. The Constitution gives those over 18 the right to free speech. Parents can take away this right at any time they like. The Constitution creates a nation of liberated people correct? Wrong. The Constitution gives those over 18 the control of their own life.

I think that age discrimination itself is a hard topic to argue simply because it is necessary but at the same time people mature at different ages. Does there need to be a voting age requirement? yes. However where it has to be is rather unclear personally. Some people begin looking into politics, following elections, and having opinions at 14. Some start at 16. Some people never do. Why should an 16 year old child educated on the issues with a thought out opinion not get to vote, but the 25 year old homeless person who does not even know the candidates have the ability to vote.

Do children need to be cared for and under the control of their parents? Yes. However, when does one stop being a child. Maturity is different for everyone. I know 14 year olds more capable to make thier own independent decisions that some 18 or even 24 year olds.

As I said at the beginning of the post I have mixed feelings about the issue. Obviously, I am biased because I am under 17 and victim to age discrimination. However, my age does not change the issue. What is your opinion of age discrimination? How do you set a universal age requirement when everyone has a different maturity level and background?

IN THE END, ITS A DICTATORSHIP. NOMATTER WHAT YOU CALL IT

I am at a loss of understanding whether i need to provide specific evidence of what our president is doing wrong or not.
Earlier today you put this question for me on the internet.
Later today, you withdrew your question. Kindly, Clarify your stands. Do you still need me to explain to you what i meant, or have you figured it out on your own?
...History WILL repeat itself.


SO, lets analyze the historical economic path that socialist countries have taken and what exactly had led them to economic disaster all over the world.

October 1917, the Russian Revolution began. The very first declaration by the government was to nationalize by declaring ownership of industrial factories, agricultural lands, and small businesses. I believe that the Russian government did this under the assumption that it would be better able to run the economy and businesses including the private sector better than individual businesses, private enterprises, and entrepreneurs. Today, all of the latest actions and decisions made by the white house are clear evidence and indications of the same approach and belief that the Russian government exercised from 1917 to June 1987.

After the revolution, the Russian government seized all news publications and completely silenced the opposition. The country became a one party system, or simply, a dictatorial regime that really wasn't any different from Nazi Germany which started from the same idealistic social democratic ideas. Today in America, the white house has already made attempts to silence talk radio when it attempted to silence conservative host Rush Limbaugh.

Pretty much in every socialist, communist, and fascist country, the opposition was vilified and columniated. They were then called dissidents. Most of them were either sentenced to 25 years to life of hard labor in camps, and many were executed simply for voicing a different opinion. But nevertheless, it started with simple vilification of these people. Today in America, people disagreeing with the white house's policies are called unamerican, angry mobs, tea baggers, brown shirts, nazis, and racists.
I wonder how long it will be before they are being prosecuted?
The first amendment the liberals used to fight for, is already being challenged by no other than liberals themeselves.
Lets not forget June 1989, when hundreds of dissidents, or could we call them tea baggers, were leveled into the pavement by chinese tanks on Tainanmen Square.

Once upon a time, this country used to have a legislative process in which politicians used to represent people to the government. There was an electoral process, where people of this country, had elected these representatives into the senate and the house of congress, and therefore, the people, of this country, had vested power in these representatives.
Today we have 33 czars, never elected, never scrutinized. They can not be questioned by the people, they cannot be questioned by the senate, and they cannot be questioned by the congress. They only answer to the new president of the United States. From this example, we may conclude that slowly but surely, our new president is seizing power!
This process, in an awfully similar manner, has been used in EVERY country known to to us as a country with a dictatorial regime.

In communist China, Mao Zedong created a new movement of civilian security forces, the hunweibins.
In Nazi Germany, we had brownshirts and Hitler youth forces.
In Russia, they started with C.K. later known as NKVD, later the KGB.

-all of these groups were used as civilian security forces or secret police, and were specifically used to control the political views of the population.

Our President mentioned several times that this country needs civilian security forces just as big, as powerful, and as well finded as an american army. considering historical examples of every country under dictatorial regimes in the world today and in the past in which civilian security forces were always used strictly to control political views and subjugate citizens, i cant find an answer as to what use civilian security forces would have in the country by the people and for the people.
Democracy and civilian security forces dont really go together because the second will cancel the first.


all of these countries driven by noble ideas, politicized education in schools. And students had to pledge to be loyal servants of the leading party and the leader. Wasnt that quite literally the same the part removed from President Obama's address to the students recently. The white house made a request to the board of education to impliment a "suggested lesson plan that calls on school kids to write letters to themselves about what they can do to help President Obama...For grades 7-12, the Department of Education suggests teachers prepare and ask as questions for students to prepare such as 'How will he inspire us? How will he challenge us?'" Obama went so far as to request that a pledge of service to him to be made by all students. Later, the white house removed this request because of critics responces.

We can go on and on, the amount of evidence indicating the shift from democracy to dictatorship is overwhelming.

Its a convenient game of obfuscation when true intentions are hidden behind beautiful words, ideas, and ostensibly philanthropic intentions.
But in the end, its ALWAYS a dictatorship, no matter what you call it.

How About That Blogging?

So I’ve noticed some flaws in the mode of discourse on this blog. I do not feel that people here are paying enough attention to their writing. I feel compelled to discuss proper writing and discussion techniques.

First, I have noticed a problem with grammar. It seems to me that people assume that because this is online, they can write things hurriedly, without much or any proofreading, and without conscious attention paid to being grammatically correct. Not being grammatically correct can be a serious hindrance to communication. I admit, minor problems in spelling or punctuation may not throw most people off. They do throw me off, as I notice the problem and begin thinking about it instead of the point of the article. However, when you get into seriously incorrect sentences, it can make it near impossible for the reader to understand what you are trying to say.

A second problem I have noticed is posts that seem to have no central theme. Without a central point to focus your writing on, how can you get any message across at all? People tend to couple this with a lack of clear progression and connections. If you make a statement, it is necessary to follow it up, and make it clear how what you say next is connected to your statement. People tend to say something, and then randomly jump to another topic, or throw in a few examples without explaining how the examples are pertinent to their theses.

A third major failing people seem to have on the internet is respectful civic discourse. Flaming is not the only way to fail at this. To come across as respectful and intelligent, you must have respect for the intelligence and points of view of others. Part of this is the tone of discourse: Hostile confrontation or an accusatory tone does not assist in advancing ideas. However, another part is what is hidden or implied in seemingly respectful or civic words. For example, if you state something as fact and in some way say that intelligent readers will of course agree with you, you may not say it, and you may sound perfectly respectful, but you are quite clearly calling all those who do not agree with you stupid and/or illogical.

This leads us to a discussion of logic. Making statements without proof or making clearly illogical arguments not only makes your post harder to understand, and makes people less inclined to agree with your point of view, but it is also annoying to no end, and will cause people to pay less attention to anything that you say that actually is logical. Blogging may be about opinion, but it is about expressing your opinion in a clear way to others. For this to happen, you must use logic.

Last, but certainly not least, is audience. If you are going to get your point across, it is an absolute must that you have some sense of your audience. If you do not understand who is going to be reading your post, or you do not understand what kind of person you are discussing with, your post is going to have a very serious weakness. If you are not writing to the readers, the readers will not understand.

I admit that I may, and probably have, made some of these mistakes myself. I will do my utmost to fix it from this point on. I hope that I have followed all of my own criteria in this post, and I do hope that those of you who aim to discuss things with me in the future will attempt to follow them as well, as I will, so that we may have meaningful discussions.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, WHY CANT WE ALL BE COLORBLIND?

I want to ask you all, meaning i want responses, do you think that given a perfect meritocracy cannot happen, we should be moving towards merit based success, or either aristocracy or politically-correct success.
Let me explain myself, I am by no means a white supremacist, a racist, or any type of elitist, but, i think that affirmative action is the biggest load of garbage political correctness (aka the government trying to control you all by guiding and restricting your freedom of speech) has ever come out with.
Lets say a college is accepting its final round of students. It has accepted without much discrimination based on mostly merit so far but now comes the percentage inflation week. Here at this (basically any) admissions office, during percentage inflation week we will try to make up for the vast number of white applicants who deserved to get in outnumbering the number of ethnic minority applicants who deserved to get in. In essence, we will take any ethnic applicant who is equal to or bearably lower in standard than those applicants thus far and let them in with no questions asked because we need 2% this ethnicity, 6% that ethnicity, and if 4 of the 6% did not deserve to get in at all, well who cares? maybe we'll consider bumping it down to 5.9% for this year and then 6.1% the next.

Also i would like to differentiate between colleges looking into background and looking into racial background. It is more difficult to get far from a lower position, and therefore, more merit should be awarded to the mexican-american who applies from a poverty stricken background than to the pretty white boy who was nursed in a seperate 3 story house in the backyard just waiting for him to grow up and inherit it. However, this is not racial, the poverty stricken student gets more merit because of being poverty stricken and in a more difficult starting position, not for being mexican-american.


This same garbage happens in workplaces everywhere, and is accepted. Because if anyone disagrees with it, and they are a white male, then as commissar says, its just their white supremacy complex showing. If they are not a white male, well....then that's just their opinion and you cant do anything about it being wrong can you?

As a matter of fact, that's my opinion, and i'm a conservative white male. And i believe in COLORBLINDNESS, where race doesnt matter at all, as if you are blind to it, whereas merit does matter.
If you think that affirmative action is good, i urge you to look into your liberal values of equality and justice and tell me if its fair that you can get something based on the color of your skin in this country. This is supposed to be the land of opportunity, not the land of political correctness, and reverse racism.

LETS ALL FLING MUD AND BE HYPOCRITES!

I'm going to be making several posts today, each not as big as the one from yesterday which i wish to see more comments on.
So, first off i would like to praise and give a round of applause to a few select liberal students at Aragon High School who after reading my blog yesterday, did exactly what i expected them to, and i wish to tell you about it, because after all, while i cannot insult anyone on this blog, i can tell you what happened to me today.

Yesterday i wrote a post that seemed to offend many Obama fans and Obamunists at school, and they had things to say to me. Now, i am a conservative, and i am open minded. I can see and find merit to both sides of almost anything, but i am not a hypocrite, there is still always a better choice.
Liberals at Aragon who claim to be open minded, tolerant, and welcoming to opposition seem to be under a misconception.
Today at school i noticed many people starring at me and glaring me down. When i walked over to some of them, they told me that they had read my post, and asked me whether or not it was a joke. I said no, and was called an "insane idiot."
After telling another open liberal that i was not joking last night, i was informed that i was "out of my goddamn mind"
Now I know that this is virtually no representation of the liberal population, but it does make me wonder. How can these specific people call conservatives close minded, unintelligent intolerant, and uptight. My pinion is that they do so for two reasons. First, they are trying to deflect attention away from the fact that it is really them who are close minded, unintelligent, and intolerant of opposing views, and second, that they are trying to convince themselves that they are what they advocate, and that the other side is not, that the other side is wrong. Both of these traits are signs of their weakness to me, and that is why i was not offended when a particular freedom fighter today who read my post said i was a "racist pig", and that is why i am calling them on it.
But what shocked me the most today, was that a particular person at school used their power to play off of the rather large audience's opinions and get them riled up against something while really, truly, i feel as if this act was directed towards me. And this act was a responce to my post and i feel that it was meant to make a joke out of my views. To this person, i can only say this: WHY BOTHER?

Now, to the jist,


For all of you who read my post yesterday, i have a question.
once upon a time the liberals in america used to say "I may disagree with you sir, but ill fight to the death, for your right to say it"
I think those old fashioned liberals were really fighting for everyones ability to excercize their first amendment rights. And the first amendment itself was designed to protect an unpopular opinion.
It seems that i am the only conservative in this class. Do you all still believe in the first amendment, or would you fight to the death until i shut up, or pretend to hold your brainwashed in and guided opinions.

President of The United States

The position of the president of the united states is one of immense power. It is the power to represent a nation of over 300 million people. The power to veto bills of legislature. The power to order troops. The power to be heard by every single person in the nation. So how did the colossal power end up in the hands of a moron such as George W. Bush? Is this blog going to be a Bush bash? a bit but more importantly it is about the effect of having such an idiot be president.

For me, my entire view of the presidency has been of Bush. Bush was elected in 2001. I was 9 when that happened. I had no idea of politics or Clinton when I was 9. So before Obama was elected last year, I had never been aware of another president. This means a huge amount. My personal respect for the position is much less than that of someone who has in their life had educated and intelligent people lead the nation.

More than just Bush's intellect (or lack of it), the hatred of him (especially in the bay area) really has a lasting effect I think. A lot of people disprove of Obama. However, a lot of people aprove of him as well. To me it is wierd to think that people whom I respect or agree with at times praise the president. It feels wierd when I agree with Obama because I am so used to hating the person who holds that office.

I hope my natural feelings towards the position change overtime but I do not know if they will. I think that Bush did to the generation of adolescents during his office as Nixon did to the adolescents during his presidency. Before Nixon, it was not uncommon to have complete faith in the president. However after his corruption, many people became more cautious and cynic about what comes out of the president. It is different though. While one can call Nixon a crook (despite any speeches he may have given denying it), no one can call him stupid or unintelligent. I think that while Nixon degraded the trust of the president, Bush degraded the respect of the president.

In all honesty, how useful are political debates?

Political debates occur all the time. Whether between high school students between classes or adults at work, many like to voice their opinion. However, the percentage of the time in which I have actually seen someone change their minds is small. I feel like if someone is fiery or opinionated enough to enter a debate that they have generally already decided what he/she thinks. period

I think that this might occur for many reasons.

1) like Mr. Silton (I think it was Mr. Silton) brought up in class, it hurts to be wrong. It is an unpleasant feeling and just sucks. The only thing that sucks more than being wrong is having to admit to someone you are arguing with that not only are you wrong but they are right. It is a necessary thing that you should just suck up and admit sometimes. However, a lot of times people will convince themselves they are right or just not admit they are wrong

2) The political party system just screws things up. Oh I am a liberal and a republican came up with the idea so I should not support it. Or my parents/ congressional representative / Barack Obama is against it so I am also against it.. Just because the apozing party came up with something or because someone you support does not support it should not affect your opinion. The politcal system works bottom up NOT TOP DOWN. We the people are supposed to decide on how we feel about an issue. Then the people who represent us or whose politcal party we are in are supposed to represent what we feel as the people. Deciding on an issue because the person you voted for supports it is so ass backwards it is just wrong.

In my experience the only time that politcal debates or arguments really affect anyone's perspective is when one or more of the people involved have a huge lack of knowledge or real preference. Generally the otherside will present some facts that the other is simply not aware of and that will change his/her opinion.

Are politcal debates useless? I do not think so because many crystallize /refine their views through debate. However, I do not believe that they are very affective in the aspect of changing someone's side of a political issue.

THOSE WHO DONT KNOW HISTORY ARE PRONE TO REPEAT IT

I wonder how many people understand the meaning of the phrase "those who don't know history are prone to repeat it"
That makes me wonder how many of you know history, and i dont mean know the facts, i mean know the concepts, what they indicate, and how they relate to today's issues.

1917, there was a massive redistribution of wealth in Russia. in 1918, massive civil unrest, followed by civil war, poverty, starvation, and millions of deaths. it took the government four years to realize that the government cannot run business and the economy as well as small business enterprises driven by profit can.
What do you know?

1922, the government implemented NEP. How many of you actually know what this abbreviation stands for??? After starving dozens of millions of people to death, the government allowed NEP to happen.
New Economic Politics, a controlled form of capitalism, in which everyone who seized their newly granted opportunity, succeeded and prospered. Former Russia, now the Soviet Union government, realized its incompetence in economics and its ability to run business.

There were another 20 million people who were free to challenge the government, but the government was better informed, better backed up, and more experienced. And so, while they were free to express themselves, the government knew what was better for them, and 20 million people were executed in Russia in the 1930's.

Should we be talking about the 60 million people executed by marxist believers in China?

Im not sure if i should make you guys waste your time THINKING about what marxism (the base philsophy behind communism) did to people of Cuba and North Korea. We are all aware that life there is so great, that people just cant line up fast enough to immigrate to those countries.

There are several more dozens of countries in the world that have tried to run this experiment successfully and YES, it was a GREAT success, for the very tiny, elite groups of people that in so called, in uneducated, obtuse, southern-type thinking states, we call dictators. NO, these people are more accurately labeled by the liberal politically-correct term: Freedom Fighters.

All these wonderful people have started with such magnanimous ideas, why not, after decades of their progress, and history in the making, just take a tour through those countries, converse with people, breath some free air, and share the joy that those free people are experiencing today.


And less than a hundred years after the first experiment, through our reforms, we're following in the exact footsteps of Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Hitler (who by the way, started as a national socialist), Castro, and please dont forget Kim Jong Il!!

You might ask WHAT politics of our president today have in common with all the above mentioned philanthropists.
For one, they all engaged in the redistribution of wealth. One of the greatest things that all of these leaders had in common was that they promised a free heaven on earth to everybody who would follow them. However, so far, our leader was not as successful at silencing the opposition as were the other philanthropists, although, there have been a few attempts by the white house in recent months to silence radio talk shows stirring up opposition. But then again, Why should atrue intellectuals waste their time by listening to Rush Limbaugh? All of the fortunate people from the past thought that the government can run things better than the private enterprises and look where they are now, 'heaven' on earth!

SO...
Maybe, just MAYBE, its time, to start thinking, to start using your own brains!
Make your own analysis.
But then again, WHY BOTHER.....just look at the wonderful worryfree life that marxist based socialist countries have to offer!
Lets all support Obama as he takes us towards socialism. Lets all put on hats with red stars. And sure enough, Mr. Obama will take care of us.

Don't Look Now, You're Being Americanized!

So I’ve done two days of political blogging, and I’m a little tired. So today I’m going to discuss a topic that comes a little more easily to me: The Pledge of Allegiance. This may seem to be a bit more of a rant than my previous posts, but this is after all a blog, and that’s how I’m feeling today.

I’m going to start with the most obvious problem: “Under god.” The United States of America is in no way intended to be “under god,” and thus such a statement has no place in a recitation of allegiance to America and American ideals. This nation was created as a secular nation, outside all influences of religion or faith.
Easy solution: Put the Pledge back how it was before 1954, which is the year those two words were added. In case you were not aware, before 1954 the Pledge ran “I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

But that easy solution isn’t enough; I do not think that the Pledge of Allegiance should be recited in schools even without the words “under god.” Children are taught from a young age to recite the words with no knowledge of their meaning. They are taught the words completely out of context. If I’m not incorrect in my definitions, I would call this indoctrination and brainwashing. Students should learn to believe in America through knowledge of its history and current political and cultural state, not through a poem pledging their allegiance to something they know little about.
The Pledge also alienates those who are unable or unwilling to recite it, such as Atheists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and those who believe in globalism, or in fact anything other than American supremacy.

On a side note, the Pledge of Allegiance is a poem written by Edward Bellamy. How would you feel if you wrote a poem which masses of people recite, except that they decided to just change a bit, add a few words, to add some extra meaning? I highly doubt Edward Bellamy would support additions to his poem to “make it better.”

-Ilan Seid-Green

The Senate Finance Committee's Health Care Bill . . . Finally

According to CNN http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/16/health.care/index.html the bill would cost about 850 billion dollars over 10 years. Unlike some of the other health care bills proposed, the health care bill created by the senate finance committee would mandate that every American be covered by health care. If I understand this correctly and I am not sure if I do, they are also not calling for free health-care. The senate committee wants to establish non-profit health care corporations that everyone has to buy their insurance from. Rather than being free for
everyone the government would simply pay part of the health care depending on the individual.

I am a liberal and proud to be so. However, I think this plan is ridiculous. It is one thing to make government health care optional so that the less fortunate can buy it, but I am not supportive of replacing everyone's health care with the government care. On top of that, what is going to happen to the private insurance companies if this bill passes? The insurance industry is a big industry in America and this would be a huge blow if not a fatal one for it.

How far will Obama stretch his power?

In class today, Commissar Silton commented on the expansion of executive power from the Bush presidency, and how Obama has kept many of the new toys Bush left for him.
Bush imposed signing statements, allowing him to interpret and decide how much he will or will not obey a congressional bill, therefore giving the executive powers of interpretation formerly held by the judicial branch.

The Obama administration has chosen to keep many of the Bush imposed novelties to the presidential sphere of influence, including the right to confine whoever they choose under the "unlawful enemy combatant" card, as seen when Obama did not detain Al Marri, a citizen of Qatar who was held captive for five years without charges but left the possibility that he could detain people in this manner in the future.

To clarify my position on this topic, i must explain my views about the role of the president. I believe that first and foremost, it is Obama's job to look out for the safety of the general population and to solve the nations greatest problem, which is the failing economy.

While Bush imposed powers stretch the executive influence beyond the comfort zones of many informed citizens, such as my family and myself, Obama has begun to revolutionize the scope of presidential power.

Firstly let me point out that the Obama presidency, more than most before it has become iconic to Americans in many ways. When Mishelle planted an organic garden, so did countless american families. The media has gone far with its support of Obama and has taken it to the point that millions of people practically worship the man. Whenever Obama says something interesting to the public, it is sure to make headline news and have more influence than could possibly be safe.

On monday of this week, President Obama was asked about his thoughts on rapper Kanye West's outburst during the VMA awards, after telling the reporter that Kanye's actions were "very inappropriate", Obama called West a "jackass"

While some may view this to be an honest mistake on the president/overlords part, i think that considering how influencial the comment was, it was highly inappropriate for him to even answer to the reporter. Obama is taking a sharp turn into meddling with peoples lives, and does so with power no one else has. His comment will permanently affect Kanye West's career more than any amount of celebrities siding with Swift ever could. In addition, the idea of the predident publicly taking sides in the multitudes of overinflated dramas in Hollywood startles, frightens, and even stops me in my tracks.
With Obama chiming in in Swifts defence, millions more people will have found out about this 'outburst' of Kanye West and will have inevitably sided with Swift having formed an image of West in their heads that was hand made and solidified by Obama. At this point i believe that if the president made a speech on why wearing pink crocks makes sense for everyone, nearly everyone would be wearing them sooner or later...
The real issue with this is that Obama is using his influence as president and his popularity to inflict his views upon the masses, while the Swift incident did not pose a particularly controvercial view, it did pose a fundamental question that all of us should be asking. WHATS NEXT?
Will our God Obama dictate his opinions on peoples lifestyles, life choices, or even their beliefs through his influence over them? I believe he is on his way... and it is just the another step for him to begin his control over the world of entertainment, a step that with his comment, he has effectively taken.

A Comment on the State of the State

So yesterday I investigated government spending and control. Today I'm going to step down a governmental level and attempt to tackle problems in the California legislative system.

Two main parts of the election of Legislators in California lead to an inexperienced and ineffective legislature.
First, the ability of the legislature to determine the boundaries of its own electoral districts, which leads to what is known as gerrymandering, the act of redrawing electoral districts in order to manipulate the election in favor of a specific party. This in effect creates separate districts solely for each party, which in turn leads to the election of extremists on each side. Having extremists in the legislature makes for an inability to work across the aisle - legislators who cannot work together and cannot compromise.
Second, short term limits. People think badly of career politicians, and so think that they do not represent the people as well. With term limits we can keep career politicians from controlling the government. Or something. However, all term limits do is make it so that there are not enough people who actually know about the political system of California to be elected, and so people who know less must be elected. Thus we end up with a new crop of neophytes each election; people who know little to nothing about politics, who have to learn how to be legislators, as well as learn the content matter and figure out how to vote.
A highly connected problem is the tendency of voters to vote for people they like, not people who will do well for them. People vote for actors, movie stars, well known figures to lead their government - people who know nothing about politics, and thus do a lousy job of running the state.

Now that we've analyzed the failures in election of legislators, we should look at a major consequence of the above mentioned problems. Money is being cut all over California because of the failure of the California legislature and Governor to pass a budget on time, and their inability to pass a meaningful budget that raises enough money to pay for necessary services.
The first problem that leads to this is the necessity of having a two-thirds vote to pass a budget. A two-thirds vote is near impossible to achieve with the gerrymandered districts and resultant extremist.

Second, legislators are just people: people need incentives to compromise and get things done. They have no consequences for failing to pass a budget on time, and thus have no reason to compromise in any way to do so.
Last, California is an extremely large state; it has a huge population, and a huge economy. But the state government cannot run a deficit to keep up with said huge economy.

My proposed solutions for these problems are simple and as follows:

Get rid of term limits (if you don’t like the legislator, vote her out of office), and have an independent committee redraw the electoral districts in a fair, non-politically biased way.

In these ways moderation can be encouraged, lessening tension and increasing ability to compromise.

I am sadly unable to come up with a viable solution to my last articulated problem, of California’s large economy run by a state.

Links O' the Day

Yea, let us now change the subject.

No one is immoral here! Certainly not Max. Trollish on occasion and in desperate need of a work-study in less than fully privileged community, sure, but he's still a mensch.

Fun stuff I read today:

Stanley Fish sees the dark cloud of curiosity -- certain to blow Sam's mind. The comments thread on this (which is edited by the NYT) is unbelievably smart. Wow.

Are Universities Doomed? Holy moly, I am about to be replaced by a computer. That stinks. I totally agree that the communal experience of an academically legit residential college is a sort of luxury; after all, there was a reason some of my classmates affectionately referred to Bowdoin as "Camp Bo-Bo." Nonetheless, the credential, for better or worse, matters.

Domestic Violence is a pre-existing condition?? We live in a wicked world. h/t: Steve Benen at The Washington Monthly.

Blogging note: h/t means "hat tip" which means "I found this thing through this other site, so a tip o' the hat to them."

Did Bush really refer to Obama as "this cat?"

Consider this an open thread. If you don't know what an open thread is... you should read more blogs.

I'm Sitting in the Dark with no Water Waiting for my Disability Check

So I've been hearing a lot in the past week about pro-free market capitalists rising up against so-called government control. Now why don't we take a look at what exactly they want the Obama administration to "take its hands off."
First, they want less control of the free market. Fewer regulations, they call for. They want to be free to do what they want; free to have their banks collapse and businesses fail. I think that deregulation is a great idea - if you want more failures such as the Lehman Brothers' last year.
For example, one way that the government controls the market is through the Federal Deposit Insurance Commission (FDIC); which guarantees people's life savings accounts. I'm very much a fan of looking carefully at the consequences of things you support. These people don't seem to remember that the freedom they so strongly call for leaves greedy bankers free to lose the life savings of their investors.
Second, they want the government's hands off their money: for instance, "hands off my Medicare and disability insurance!" No matter that the money they want the government to stop controlling is in fact coming directly from the government.
Last, income taxes! We can't stand to pay income taxes. The government is already taking too much of our money; they don't need more of our hard earned dollars. But really, they ought to get to work on fixing up those roads, and they better not stop giving me water and electricity, and by gods they should really make the postal service better... Oh wait.

-Ilan Seid-Green

Health Care Reality Check

This article from the NYT about Med students' summer job experience would be great for anyone thinking of a career in medicine. The spirit of the article is pro-reform, but it does not wade into weighing the trade-offs of different proposals or the political game amongst various government officials.

The Commissar Is In Town

As most readers of this blog know by now, Aragon HS has been identified as a school that indoctrinates instead of educates its students because Assistant Principal Silton (sic) obviously wishes to cultivate a cult of personality around President Obama. See this post for more over the top nonsense regarding yours truly, Commissar Silton.

There is a relevant 1980s music video, of course:


FYI, I have copied below the response I sent to the administrator(s) of hillaryis44.org. While I wrote this mostly for my own amusement, I really do want to live by the principles that I articulate in it. In other words, while I am very transparent in class about what is fact, standard interpretation, alternative interpretation, and my opinion, admitting the possibility of bias is not the same thing as being truly objective and fair to alternative points of view, and that is what I'm striving for. I don't think that goal is incompatible with being honest and witty, but if you think my balance is off, I'd like to know about it and not have you suffer in silence through my brainwashing. A former student recently sent me a link to this article relating to this theme, which I generally agree with.

To Whom it Concerns:

Thank you for teaching my point better than I could have ever hoped for.

I absolutely stand by my decision to use hillaryis44.org as an example of a bad political website in my AP Government curriculum. Nearly everything at your site illustrates conventional propaganda techniques, seemingly driven by a typhoon of bitterness and personal malice.

The first amendment is alive and well in my classroom; I'm about as anti-censorship as they come, and I have nothing to hide. I wonder if you have the guts to print this letter on your site in its entirety? Or will you censor it, quote it out of context, or ignore it?

I’m verbose as well as transparent, but my students know I respect them as young people quite capable of holding their own convictions. In fact, I got the impression that some of them resented your presumption that they were incapable engaging with and negotiating my course of study with a sense of perspective.

I do not respect hillaryis44, however. This place is a cesspool of conspiracy, paranoia, propaganda, and hyperbole. Exactly the sort of website to be on the watch for, from any extreme.

To be frank, most of my students are smarter than anyone participating on your site, and I had no trepidation about sharing news of your silly post about me with them immediately when I saw some in the hall at lunch. We got a good yuk out of it.

Those students that happened to follow the link I provided to hillaryis44 during the original assignment had universally commented about your breathtaking nuttiness. Those students that didn't happen to use that link (since the assignment was to discover their own favorite sites) will surely check you out now. You've totally demonstrated the perverse fun of trolling, unfortunately, which I'll have to un-teach somehow, but on balance I'm glad more of my students got to engage with this example than otherwise would have. What a terrific way to bond with my students! We may not know much, but at least we aren't blinded by hatred. That's a pretty good starting place for a Government class these days.

Aragon High School is a happy place of learning, full of talented faculty serving a diverse and supportive community. It is a wonderful place to teach. I have had a nice record of success there, and am confident the entire school community would get a good laugh out of your nonsensical accusation of indoctrination. I say 'would' because I doubt very many people will waste their time with it.

Alas, I am not a high and mighty Assistant Principal, just a teacher. Nor am I a communist -- far from it. Since your labeling me has no credibility, I won't claim damages. Instead, please accept my thanks for helping me bond with my new students. Maybe next year I'll pick out a different extremist website as a counter-model.

Or maybe not.

In any case, I will most surely be playing some Pink Floyd on Tuesday morning in class. I think it will be one of the highlights of my career.

regards,
Scott Silton

Texting Becoming an Issue

We are teenagers.. and most of us text constantly. I know that I use texting as a basic way of communicating with someone I am not with at the moment. Texting is beginning to become a problem though as,"The phenomenon is beginning to worry physicians and psychologists, who say it is leading to anxiety, distraction in school, falling grades, repetitive stress injury and sleep deprivation. " There has not been enough time passed yet to conduct experiments linking to health issues, but there are other problems at hand. Teens especially stay up late at night wasting much needed hours of sleep, and text during school despite school codes. This in turn is causing teens to have falling grades and be sleep deprived. Who knows what is going to come of this recent study, but it seems to have created awareness of the issue of over texting.

US Govenment holding majority of GM Stock

The US Government has provided over 50 billion dollars to general motors, and now with GM looking at declaring bankruptcy by this coming Monday the US is faced with holding over 70% of GM's stock during the restructuring. What I see as a possible issue with this is that employees of General Motors may blame the government for closing factories and laying off workers. Although GM insists that the Government will have no involvement other than holding stocks within the company; and that GM managers will be in charge of renegotiating contracts and selecting product lines. What reaction do you think employees will have to the government involvement?

Maddow Calls Out Obama On His "Prolonged Detention" Policies

A different view to Obama's prolonged detention plan. How we can put people away for something they might do in the future... check it out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jshogbjtYs&feature=related

Prop. 8 Court Ruling

As much as it depresses me to say this, I certainly agree with the ruling of the California Supreme Court that Proposition 8 was a legal proposition under CA law. I wish that the court had had the power to strike down Prop. 8 and return California to those ever so brief times of marriage equality, but by following proper judicial protocol and ruling on the case on its specific merits (whether the subject matter qualified as a proposition), not on the moral feelings of the court.

Seems to me this ruling might even help the marriage equality movement in the long run, as some charges of morality-based judicial activism may no longer hold water...

For those of you who, for some reason, have the desire to read any or all of the decision in its entirety, the document is here

Saving others through Autopsies of the fallen

I found this to be an interesting article about how the US started doing autopsies on fallen soldiers. The US has done over 3,000 autopsies more than any other nation and the findings have been life saving. Not only has the US learned about enhancing war equipment, but also the US has been able to make medical advances. An example of this is lengthening the tube to help air get into a collapsed lung;after autopsies researchers found that over 50% of soldiers could die from a collapsed lung simply because the tube was too short to reach the lung.

I am glad the US started doing autopsies of soldiers we have been able to learn a lot and enhance our armed forces. Do you think this should be done? Or should soldiers be left at peace after defending our nation?

"A Blatant Violation of International Law"- Obama

President Obama declared Monday that the United States and US allies would “stand up” to North Korea; after North Korea set off what looks to be its second nuclear bomb testing. Obama acted quickly working with allies to come up with an international remark to the bombing. North Korea has become too much of a threat with nuclear weapons at hand and they have a proven capability to set of a nuclear weapon. Obama says this is, “a blatant violation of international law” and something needs to happen to stop this. Opinions? What should be done to stop North Korea? Are nuclear weapons really a realistic issue?

Resume Immigration Talks with Cuba

The Bush Administration suspended immigration talks with Cuban dictatorship in 2004, but now President Obama wants to re-open for talks with Cuba; hoping to discuss safe and legal migration for Cubans to the US. Cuba has been problematic in not allowing Cuban citizens to retain exit permits in order to leave the country, even though Cuban citizens have been able to get visas and jobs within the United States. Obama wants to solve this issue and start a safe immigration to the US, and the immigration should help Cuba as well “The administration is missing opportunities to make real change in Cuba by not conditioning this type of opportunity on the regime acting to stop denying its citizens exit visas and charging exorbitant amounts of those whom they chose to let exit,” says Sen. Robert Menendez.Do you agree with Menendez? Do you think this is a good idea, to start Immigration talks again?

Emissions Political Cartoon

This cartoon is about Obama’s recent emissions standards of 35 mpg. I thought it would be a good addition after the article posted on the new emissions standards a few days ago.

Simple Walking Test-- Tell You Your Mortality Rate

I thought this was interesting….
A simple test of:
Exercise/ walking- measures your “cardiorespiratory fitness, or how well your heart, lungs, muscles, and blood vessels work together to use oxygen and produce energy.”During the test administered by ones physician one either walks or runs on a treadmill and the inclines change along with the speed of the treadmill. A doctor can then rate how well ones cardiovascular system is and how that can relate to your death.
This test then can determine if you are at higher risk of losing you life within the next couple of years compared with your age group. Cardiovascular fitness is now linked to most causes of illness/dying. Do you believe this? Can a simple walking test really tell me if I am going to die before the rest of people my age depending on the fitness of my cardiovascular system?

World Economies Plummet

There has been a recent plunge of world economies. I recommend that reading this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124286297167741263.html

Abortion Speech at Notre Dame

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/18/us/politics/18obama.html?ref=politics

On Sunday May 17 Obama made a commencement address at Notre Dame on abortion. Obama did not speak of taking sides but rather spoke of, “open hearts, open minds, and fair-minded words;” to help prevent unwanted pregnancies and support women who keep their child. Still many protesters waited outside campus shouting “baby killer” and speaking out against having a pro-choice advocate speak at a Catholic Institution. Was the decision to have President Obama speak of abortion at a Catholic school ok? And was this just a typical protest? Thoughts anyone?

Senate Refuses to Allow Closing of Gitmo

Today, the Senate decided to disallow the releasing of prisoners Guantanamo. The decision was based on the desire for a firm plan on what to do with the detainees once they shut down the prison. It is a completely understandable stance that the Senate Democrats are taking. There needs to be a 100% clear plan on what to do with these potentially dangerous individuals. Obama has also stated that he plans on presenting detainee policy this Thursday.

Also, I read that the Senate won't be able to remove the detainees until Sep. 30th. It was stated that government doesn't have any spare money to transport them. So, Sep. 30th is when they will be removed, simply because the government needs to get some money to spend on it.

End to a 25 Year Civil War- May 19, 2009

In Sri Lanka President Mahinda Rajapaksa declared the end to a raging twenty five year civil war against a terrorist group called the Tamil Tiger Rebels. The rebel group was founded by Velupillai Prabhakaran, and is well known for woman suicide attacks and suicide belts. The group is considered a terrorist threat in thirty two countries, and is responsible for the assassination of two world leaders. The long reign of the group has now ended as of Tuesday May 19, 2009, as the body of Prabhakaran was found. . “The rebels have fought for an independent state for minority Tamils in Sri Lanka since July 1983. An estimated 70,000 to 80,000 people have died during the quarter century of fighting.” Rajapaksa has declared tomorrow Wednesday May 20, 2009 a national holiday for Sri Lanka, and now needs to get back to work housing thousands who fled during the rebel attacks this past week.

Has anyone heard about this recently on the news? It simply amazes me that a war can be going on for over two decades and get so little attention in other countries until something drastic happens such as ending a civil war, and defeating one of many terrorist groups. Thoughts anyone?

Obama’s New Car Emissions Standards

Obama is tuning into the world’s major pollution problem by implementing new fuel efficiency standards that will start to take effect in 2012. These new standards show the rest of the nation how tough California’s program already is. Obama is hoping to create cars that are more fuel efficient and over forty percent cleaner than cars on the road today. By 2016 Obama wishes to have the average fuel efficiency of cars at 35.5 miles per gallon; as of today the national average for cars fuel efficiency is 25 miles per gallon.

This is a drastic change that will alter not only our environment but also the auto industry. Car companies will have to put millions into the development of new cars. Is this really the right thing to do when our auto industry is already hurting with a recession? Or do you think that now is the time to act to start saving our environment?

Resource Blessing

Here's a NYT article sure to drive Nelson crazy with cognitive dissonance: Thriving Norway Provides an Economics Lesson. Discuss amongst yourselves. This is complementary to my resource curse lesson which will be finished tomorrow.

Rush Limbaugh Destroyed by Stephen Colbert

This is a hilarious clip from the Colbert Report about Rush Limbaugh.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/220780/march-05-2009/tip-wag—rush-limbaugh

Zimbabwe

Recently, 14 opposition party members were imprisoned in Zimbabwe. Today they were freed on bail. Reading this article, I wonder why the U.S. isn't helping Zimbabwe in any effective way. Perhaps it is because we have spread ourselves thin in the middle east. But the other main reason, I would say, is that the U.S. has no interest in anything Zimbabwe has to offer. Our country heads over into the Middle East with little initial political opposition because we know that the region has oil to offer. We won't go to help the Zimbabwean people simply because they have nothing to offer us. The typical American idea of an exchange is for one person to do one thing and they can expect a return. I, perhaps being a little radical on this topic, encourage the shifting of this idea to not expecting a gift back. Let us help others not for an immediate payment back, but to give from the goodness of our hearts. The greed behind political decisions is disturbing, it needs to change. Any thoughts of my opinion? I'm not sure that it is completely developed into my firm belief, but it is just what I have been thinking about recently.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124162623144692263.html

Legalization of Marijuana and what we can learn from others

A somewhat interesting topic that is popping up lately is this marijuana legalization and taxation issue. Gov. Schwarzenegger has stated that he is open to debate. While this issue may seem kind of like a last resort kind of measure in order to fix the financial state of California, it brings up an interesting idea. Schwarzenegger says that as the debate for marijuana continues, we should look at other places outside of CA that have passed similar laws, and look at how they are doing. I think that this is sort of an underutilized method of reviewing legislation. There are many issues that are discussed that other places have already dealt with one way or the other, and as far as I know, other country's are sort of overlooked as sources of data. One example is the marijuana issue, the article says that Austria has done this, but that they are not so happy with it. Another example would be the issue of low voter turnout. This issue is often talked about as a problem with the political system, but I haven't really heard any kind of talk about somewhat simple fixes for this, such as automatic registration, or even, though rather extreme, mandatory voting. While I don't necessarily support forcing people to vote, (that could backfire just as easily as not) I do think that once our country gets back onto its feet, the actions and laws of foreign countries or states should play a somewhat larger part in decision making.

Interesting Conspiracy Theory- New World Order

Having written my research paper on causes and effects of conspiracy theories, I came across this video. The video displays the typical topics presented by the New World Order conspiracists. I thought of this video after my last post, talking about the grip that the media has on society, in general. Perhaps the theory is a rather radical viewpoint of government, it certainly holds some truth within itself.

The commentator comments on the fact that our society is being bombarded by the media at every moment. Yet, our country's education ratings are plummeting downward. Why? If it is the government's interest to educate the people (public schools), they would educate them correctly. In other words, if the government isn't getting the results that it wants, it should change it's strategy towards education. However, it hasn't made drastic changes.

Though I am writing a post on this widely circulating theory, do not think that I believe in it. I simply think that the theory contains some interesting explanations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PpMdTmVMpo

Now that that crazy old flu thing is fading, we can start worrying about some other things!

No, I'm not being weird, I was just trying to make a sarcastic title about that thing that Zach Agoff mentioned. Anyway, we've got lots more to deal with. Who will replace Souter on the supreme court? According to Obama "a pragmatist, not a radical", well that's not too revealing so let's move on. How about... this! This is pretty great

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/05/04/palin-joins-old-pal-mccain-to-rescue-gop-from-extinction/

Palin is coming back into our lives. I know I missed her. While I guess it would be pretty cruel to keep her out, I still think it's pretty crazy to have the old dynamic duo back to try and clean up a mess that they definitely helped make. And now Palin has joined the "panel of experts". I would be very interested to have a good interview with some of these GOP guys and ask them some questions. Isn't bringing Palin back into the mix just gonna remind people of the embarrasing interviews and Tina Fey-enacted satires? I'll be surprised if this new Council really does anything at all. To me, it seems like the time to join up with the government and try to make some changes, not make more organizations to complicate the climate.