Current Events: Government Edition

[whiteheatisscreaminginthejungle]

[whiteheatisscreaminginthejungle]

[whiteheatisscreaminginthejungle]

[imtooopinionatedforthis]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1999/dec/05/wto.globalisation

Summary: This article discusses what happened in Seattle on December 5th, 1999. WTO was negotiating deals with poorer countries, but all of the discussions were kept secret. People saw this as a threat to their democracy and protested. Riots broke out, and police forces went so far as to shoot people in the streets for protesting. Many of the people involved in the deals were unable to make public appearances in order to protect themselves.  Commentary: I still don’t fully understand what was happening in these WTO meetings that were making people so upset. I understand that world trade is a tremendous ordeal, and I’m sure I would’ve been upset over the situation as well. However, I feel like the whole situation was completely blown out of proportion. Over 500 people ended up in hospitals, and many dead. Is it really worth it at that point? People thought that world trade was destroying jobs. However, I’m sure that the World Trade Organization takes that into account. They aren’t going to make deals that will ultimately destroy America. If the deals were still secret, why did Americans assume for the worst automatically? Violence is never the answer. The police forces should not have been sent in, and protestors should not have gotten violent over this issue in the first place. Doing so is not going to help anything. Because of this violence, I don’t see these protests as heroic at all. I see it as people harming one another because of their views, and that’s not okay. 

[imtooopinionatedforthis]

Poverty in Third World Countries

http://www.developmentgoals.com/more-resources/financial-crisis-third-world.html Summary: This article is about how the U.S.'s economic crisis is affecting third world countries. Apparently, our financial crisis is having a huge effect on third world countries. This is mainly because we are no longer able to help out by giving money to other countries to help with their economies. Third world countries need help stimulating their economies, and because our economy is so poor, we are unable to help. Commentary: I think this article is a load of bull. I'd like to point out that America rarely helps out other countries, in my opinion, unless they have something to gain. If our economy was perfectly up and running right now, we still wouldn't help. Countries typically don't rely on other countries to help fix their economy. If this were true, we would be getting help from so many different countries right now. On the issue of poverty, however, I think it's extremely sad that we wouldn't help nations in third world countries. We all know what's going on in those countries. People are working 14 hour days in sweatshops. We complain about our economy and they literally have nothing. I would love to think that if the American economy was running smooth, we'd help out. Ultimately I know we won't. 

[imtooopinionatedforthis]

NAFTA: California's Environmental Regulators

http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2009/04/last-thursday-california-yet-again-proved-itself-to-be-a-laboratory-of-innovation-by-becoming-the-first-state-in-the-nati.html Summary: This article talks about when California finally decided to impose regulations that would help the environment. They planned to create a new market for alternative fuels and to lower emissions by passing the Global Warming Solutions Act. However, these measures would be going against trade agreements made with NAFTA. This would be the third case against California's environmental regulatory policies. Commentary: I think that California trying to reduce emissions into the environment is extremely responsible. Just because it is going against trade agreements doesn't mean it's wrong. I am starting to disagree with NAFTA policies. There are still 49 other states, also. The U.S. is helping Mexico and Canada more than we are helping ourselves with the whole NAFTA agreement. It should not spike so much conflict to simply have some environmental regulations. If anything, other countries should be doing the same thing. We are destroying the planeet here. 

[imtooopinionatedforthis]

The Road We've Traveled

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/22/my-review-obamas-road-weve-traveled/ Summary: This article mainly summarizes the movie, but at the end you get a glimpse of the author's bias. This article was written by Fox News, who are known for being very biased.  They said that the video is making Obama seem omnipotent. They mention how Obama should look at the Carter presidency, which started out with a worse situation than Obama inherited from Bush.  Commentary: I chose to read this article because I was very curious as to what Fox News had to say about the video. I was shocked that they weren't more harsh about it, but it seemed very evident that they had underlying messages in there. I thought the video was great, and I support Obama. I think people need to focus more on the great things he's done for our country. He's done nothing but help us. We are slowly seeing ourselves in a better economic position. I don't understand how people can complain about him so much. I especially can't believe that Fox News is dissing him by comparing his term to other presidencies. Just because they believe Carter's presidency was great doesn't mean that Obama's is awful. This is what frustrates me more than anything. 

[imtooopinionatedforthis]

Comcast, AT&T Broadband Close Merger

http://www.internetnews.com/xSP/article.php/1503051/Comcast+ATT+Broadband+Close+Merger.htm

Summary: When Comcast and AT&T merged together, they created the world's biggest cable company. It was valued at $60 billion. They have over 59 thousand employees and their customers rose to about twice the size that it was before. However, now they are in debt $30 billion.  Commentary: Mergers in general seem like a good idea to me if I were running a company simply because it would reduce competition and I would ultimately end up making more money. However, at the same time, as a consumer, this is a bad thing because ultimately prices would not go down too much. I think that what Comcast and AT&T did was very smart and they seemed to be getting a lot of support, but they didn't handle everything correctly. How could they have ended up in so much debt? I feel like most mergers end up being failures because companies overestimate their abilities. For example, the Time Warner/ AOL merger ended up failing miserably as well. Both of these mergers had the right concept but failed miserably. 

[imtooopinionatedforthis]

Are America's Best Days Behind Us?

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2056610,00.html Summary: This article is about how America is doing economically. The author of this article believes that America is still only above other countries economically because we are still living off of advances made in the 1950s and 1960s. America is no longer ahead of other countries in rankings, aside from having the most people with guns, the highest crime rates, and other things that people would normally not like to brag about. The government is not spending enough money on the things that will help us in the long-run such as science, technology, innovation, and infrastructure. Commentary: I don't believe necessarily that America's best days are behind us. I think that we had good days behind us, and while they are not current, can be saved for the future. However, I think that if the government stays the way it is right now, we will never reach better days. I am disappointed in the way America's economy is 1st in the world, but there are so many people unemployed and living in poverty. I am disgusted by the government's lack of funding for programs such as NASA. When I was as little as 6 years old, I told my parents I was going to work for NASA one day, but now, I probably won't have that opportunity, and if I do, I won't be making bank, which is really upsetting. I don't understand how other countries in the world could possibly look up to this one. We should be basing our economy off of all the other successful more equal economies in the world. We may be number 1, but that doesn't mean we can just stop trying.  

[whiteheatisscreaminginthejungle]

So basically, my friend Ari is baller as fuck. 

[imtooopinionatedforthis]

Seriously guys, fucking listen. Fuck.

[hrmnzrisdeletingherblog-deactiv]

OK I DID NOT MAKE THIS BUT IM FOLLOWING THIS GUY ON SOUNDCLOUD AND HE POSTED THIS AND IT’S PROBABLY THE BEST ENTRY FOR THE HOMESTUCK MUSIC CONTEST I’VE HEARD YET????

kynes - davecore (upward movement)

9 minutes long jfc

[whiteheatisscreaminginthejungle]

So basically, my friend Ari is baller as fuck. 

[imtooopinionatedforthis]

Seriously guys, fucking listen. Fuck.

[imtooopinionatedforthis]

Congress Approval Rating Lower Than Porn, Polygamy, BP Oil Spill, and America Going Communist

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/16/congress-approval-rating-porn-polygamy_n_1098497.html

Summary: Approval ratings of Congress have dropped incredibly low. Right now the current approval rating of Congress has dropped to 9%. More people approve of polygamy than Congress. A whopping 11% of Americans approve of polygamy, 30% approve of porn, 26% approve of banks, and shockingly 16% approve of the BP oil spill. Even during Nixon's Watergate Scandal, the approval rating was 23%. 

Commentary: I cannot believe how low the approval rating of Congress is. Ok, maybe I can believe it, but it's still shocking to see that only 9% of people approve of Congress, while during Nixon's term it was 23%. This seems completely abnormal to me, and it really says something. Get your act together, Congress! There are 307 million people in America, and that means that only 27 million people approve of Congress. This doesn't seem right at all. They should probably do something about it. 

[imtooopinionatedforthis]

Bill In Congress: Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011

http://sundial.csun.edu/2011/09/peeping-tom-or-safety-net/

Summary: This article is about a Bill that is being reviewed in the House of Representatives. The government wants to monitor the internet and track people who look at child pornography. Child pornography increases by 150% each year, and creeps are able to view this material all over the internet. However, 80% of voters say that they do not want the government viewing what they do on the internet. 

Commentary: I do not like the idea of having someone track what I look at online. It is my own personal business. I find it very ironic that this bill is trying to stop people from viewing child pornography but not trying to stop actual child pornography. If child pornography is actually increasing at this rate, there is obviously something wrong other than the fact that these kids are being exploited on the internet. I find this very disturbing. Maybe instead of tracking people's personal business, the government can stop this exploitation. 

[imtooopinionatedforthis]

the Democratic Party

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/historyprofiles/p/democratic.htm Summary: This article talks about the history of the Democratic Party and what they stand for. The Democratic-Republican party was founded in 1796. During the 19th century, Democrats were more like the way Republicans are now. In around 1948, the Democrats surpassed the Republicans on civil right issues. This article talks about several views of the Democrats and how they are superior to the Republican Party's views.

Commentary: It was nice to read some history on the Democratic Party, but what was really interesting was the author's obvious bias towards the Democratic Party. I totally agree that the Democratic Party's views are in fact better than Republican views, but it was weird to read an article that kept saying it. Democrats stand for change, whereas conservatives want to go back to the way things were, but how is that even possible when times are changing? We definitely need change, and the Democratic Party has more progressive things in store for our country. They are closer to a "civil liberty" party than Republicans are, and we really need to protect our civil liberties.

[imtooopinionatedforthis]

Republican Party: Bloodthirsty?

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/27/are-republican-debate-crowds-bloodthirsty/

Summary: This article talks about the behavior of the Republican crowds at debates. When asked about where they stand on gays serving in the military, crowds of Republicans booed. When Rick Perry was asked about the death penalty and how over 200 executions have happened under him in Texas, crowds cheered loudly. Rick Perry, in another speech, asked if a 30 year old man should be allowed to die, to which the crowds wildly cheered. Is this right?

Commentary: Reading this article made me speechless. I don't want to judge the views of these people, but what they are doing is extremely disrespectful. I don't want to be completely biased here, but honestly, Republicans say they want equality, but then don't want gays to serve in the military. They say they want what's best, but then cheer when an extraordinary amount of people have been put to death in our "free" country. To be quite frank, reading this article made me believe that Republicans are indeed bloodthirsty, and it truly disgusts me that they can be so hypocritical and rude. 

[imtooopinionatedforthis]

Political Parties: Lacking Substance

http://www.statenews.com/index.php/article/2011/10/political_parties_lack_substance

  Summary: The author of this article believes that both of the United States' main political parties lack substance. It is said that both of the parties are living in the past. They don't come up with their own solutions to problems and instead base things completely off of situations we have faced in the past. He states that Democrats are stuck in the 1960s while the Republicans are stuck in the 1980s. They have not come up with an actual plan that will be able to fix our economy, and the closest they have come to actually modernizing their ideals is talking about raising the age of health insurance from 65 to 67 because life expectancies have become higher. 

Commentary: When I first found this article, I was actually quite surprised. It has never really occurred to me that our political parties have been "living in the past" and to be quite honest, I disagree. The author states that we are all simply just getting ideas from the past and trying to use them now, but I don't see a problem with doing so if these ideas worked in the past. I think that even though they didn't work perfectly, we are not going to come up with a plan that magically fixes America forever, so we have to go with what we think will be best for right now, even if it means taking ideas from older days. I do however agree with the statement that Democrats are living in the 1960s and that Republicans are living in the 1980s, but I don't see why this is a problem. Obviously our economy needs fixing, but using old methods to fix it will ultimately be the same as coming up with brand new ones. We've tried so many things already that I think it would be awfully hard to even come up with something that doesn't steal some concept from the past.  

[imtooopinionatedforthis]

The Right to Bear Arms

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/

Summary:

In the Supreme Court decision of District of Columbia vs. Heller had to figure out whether the second amendment protected the right of the individual to bear arms or the right to keep arms only if connected to the Militia. It stated that the amendment protects the rights of the individual. People should keep arms in case needed in self-defense, but the court said that their must be a trigger lock, which goes against this right because it would restrict a person from using it in self defense. In McDonald vs. Chicago, the court decided that in most cases, owning a handgun is illegal. It is said that "self-defense" is the part of the second amendment that needs to be upheld. They should only be used in case of an emergency. 

Commentary: 

This right is something I have a lot of opinions about. I do think we should be able to protect ourselves if needed, but I do not agree that we should even have the right to bear arms. If no one had arms, then no one would need to use them in self defense. There are other means of self defense, such as karate, and most household appliances can be used as a weapon if necessary. Many people will ask me, "Well if you can use knives or other household appliances as a weapon, what's the point of banning gun use?" Killing people with guns is so much faster and easier, so it is extremely likely that murder rates would go down if we were restricted from having that one weapon. It's too late now though, because so many people already own guns, and therefore even if they were banned, people would find a way to obtain them, however, we'd be a much more peaceful country if we didn't have them. We have the highest murder rates in the world. There are over 11,000 murders in the U.S. every year just committed with guns. In other countries, gun murder tends to go from 100 - 400 murders a year. Plus, you are more likely to kill someone in the heat of the moment with a gun than with any other weapon. I know a lot of people really appreciate this right, however I think it's more harmful than helpful.