Friday, May 8, 2009
In an article in The New York Times, the Obama administration discusses it's intentions with future energy needs. The fuel cell cars that the Bush administration had thought would be the future were unfortunately deemed impractical. I was sorry to hear that all work was stopped on the cars, but happy to hear about Obama's future plans. He will be restoring Futuregen a program to build a power plant prototype. The plant would turn coal into gas, separate out the carbon dioxide — a major contributor to the greenhouse gases that cause global warming — and pump it underground. Then it would burn the hydrogen, which is nearly pollution-free. One negative is that this will cost more than they had planned and will be payed for by another stimulus. How many of these can we have? I am curious to see what he will come up with next to solve our evolving energy problems and needs.
Respnse to Rhiana's #5 blog
I found your article choice very interesting and your suggestions good soound advice. I think that the bill that will end the credit card trap is something to be happy about. It makes me feel better that the teahcer has finally stepped out on the playground to keep things fair. I often feel I am stuck or being bullied by companies that hide things from you. That is completely grimey to be so sneaky about your services and charges. Why should we even have to pass a bill to be protected. It seems like this one would just be a given. Guess not.
Wow. I paid for information I already knew.
In an article from Fox News it was reported that the US has paid $400,000 to The National Institutes of Health to cruise bars in Buenos Aires to find out why gay men engage in risky sexual behavior while drunk -- and what can be done about it...Huh? I'm sorry is this a joke? The point of this study is to help in the prevention of HIV. Yes, I understand the need for prevention of such an awful disease, but I can't help but feel this is like trying to study drunk driving as a means to helping alleviate alcoholism. If we can just figure out why they WANT to drive home! Umm lets use our brains here a little bit. I'm guessing these "researchers" went to college. SO, that pretty much means they know why drunk people "mysteriously" become promiscuous. Gay or straight, I think it's a no brainer. Sounds to me like someone wanted a very funded two year Spring Break. Come on like you need to go to Buenos Aires to study. The article clearly says that Washinton D.C. has high rates of HIV. No one wants to spring break in D.C.! This just goes to show you really can get funding for just about anything. You just have to word it correctly.
Andrew Sullivan Has A Point
In a Blog titled Karl Rove's Definition of Torture, by Andrew Sullivan he talks about how Karl Rove has been agressively defending the Bush administration and arguing that nothing they did could be labeled as torture. Things like water-boarding , long-term sleep deprivation, stress positions, hypothermia, forced nudity, hooding, dietary manipulation and sensory deprivation. Mr. Sullivan then goes to show how easily the tables can be turned when telling how Mr. McCain clearly defined an experience as a POW where he was put into a "stress position" and so badly hurt that he still can not raise his hands up all the way to this day. Similar things we have done to the prisoners is not torture, but Mr. McCains was? He has a point. Mr. Sullivan asks if's Mr. Rove believes Mr. McCain was lying. Were the men that hurt him not called war criminals? So doesn't that mean that we may be war criminals? This is the question that Mr. Sullivan would like Karl Rove to answer and frankly, now so would I.
I think that Mr. Sullivan's intent for this post is to make those who are in agreement with Rove think about it again and to fire up the other people who agree already so they will speak up louder.
I think that Mr. Sullivan's intent for this post is to make those who are in agreement with Rove think about it again and to fire up the other people who agree already so they will speak up louder.
Friday, February 27, 2009
President Obama’s Budget: Some Honesty About Taxes — Finally
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/opinion/27fri1.html
In an editorial from The New York Times, written on February 27, 2009, an unknown editorialist discussed some of President Obama’s upcoming plans concerning taxes. The writer sought to uncover what he thought to be a simple fact: Economic recovery requires raised taxes. Witness to a very cynical stance on the former president, George W. Bush’s work, economic policies were referred to as “reckless” and deficits as being “dumped on the nation”. The writer recognized the need for “a credible pledge” not just a glamorous vision. Repercussions would be the loss of foreign lenders, sky high interest rates and a severely weak economy. Obama’s “blueprint,” as his plan was referred to, seemed enough to convince the writer of Obama’s plan of action as something more than mere intent to succeed. The editorial then went on to boldly state hushed tax numbers, showing the opinion that they were deemed necessary regardless of comfort levels. I believe the editorial’s target audience was to all. Its purpose of intent was to call “BS” on those who believed they were being unfairly taxed, as well as to give encouragement to others, almost as a big brother standing up to the bully.
To me this editorial’s main statement was this: Only 3% of American’s will be hit hard by this tax increase. Those 3% will now be dealt with like the rest of us. Boo hoo.
That sounds fair to me. I am seeing this one sided of course, which makes me a very bland source. I have never been in a position where I would see the difference in my taxes if I made over $200,000 annually. This argument does relate to my experiences somewhat though. As a fair person I do not see it as fitting to take from someone just because they have more than others. I do however think that we are equal. Why are we not able to have one rate for everyone? I can understand going to a store and paying the same percentage of sales tax on my $300 worth of clothing as the lady paying $30 behind me. Sure, I would like to get a discount for spending more in the store but that would be a treat not a right. Why is it so complicated? This would be the simplicity in me coming out and I suppose the need for a little research is in store. I agree with the editorial that we are going to have to sacrifice a little if we all want some improvement. It kind of makes us sound like spoiled children expecting something out of negative.
In an editorial from The New York Times, written on February 27, 2009, an unknown editorialist discussed some of President Obama’s upcoming plans concerning taxes. The writer sought to uncover what he thought to be a simple fact: Economic recovery requires raised taxes. Witness to a very cynical stance on the former president, George W. Bush’s work, economic policies were referred to as “reckless” and deficits as being “dumped on the nation”. The writer recognized the need for “a credible pledge” not just a glamorous vision. Repercussions would be the loss of foreign lenders, sky high interest rates and a severely weak economy. Obama’s “blueprint,” as his plan was referred to, seemed enough to convince the writer of Obama’s plan of action as something more than mere intent to succeed. The editorial then went on to boldly state hushed tax numbers, showing the opinion that they were deemed necessary regardless of comfort levels. I believe the editorial’s target audience was to all. Its purpose of intent was to call “BS” on those who believed they were being unfairly taxed, as well as to give encouragement to others, almost as a big brother standing up to the bully.
To me this editorial’s main statement was this: Only 3% of American’s will be hit hard by this tax increase. Those 3% will now be dealt with like the rest of us. Boo hoo.
That sounds fair to me. I am seeing this one sided of course, which makes me a very bland source. I have never been in a position where I would see the difference in my taxes if I made over $200,000 annually. This argument does relate to my experiences somewhat though. As a fair person I do not see it as fitting to take from someone just because they have more than others. I do however think that we are equal. Why are we not able to have one rate for everyone? I can understand going to a store and paying the same percentage of sales tax on my $300 worth of clothing as the lady paying $30 behind me. Sure, I would like to get a discount for spending more in the store but that would be a treat not a right. Why is it so complicated? This would be the simplicity in me coming out and I suppose the need for a little research is in store. I agree with the editorial that we are going to have to sacrifice a little if we all want some improvement. It kind of makes us sound like spoiled children expecting something out of negative.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Nation's schools would get $106 billion from federal economic stimulus package
http://http//www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-me-schools13-2009feb13,0,2343348.story
The federal economic stimulus package that is in the works right now would contribute $106 billion dollars to the nation’s education. This money could be used for special education, repair and modernization of existing buildings, and to help keep teachers from being laid off. Schools would be happy to see this money although they acknowledge that it does not mean total relief. Some argued that while this is a good way to help out schools, it does not help stimulate the economy. In return to that opinion was the fact that money given to update schools does indeed stimulate the economy by providing many jobs. As of now there are 886 approved school projects waiting for the go.
I took interest in this article because I am going to be a teacher and this will one day affect me. It will also effect most everyone seeing as many go on to have children or can understand that everyone’s children grow up to be our future.
The federal economic stimulus package that is in the works right now would contribute $106 billion dollars to the nation’s education. This money could be used for special education, repair and modernization of existing buildings, and to help keep teachers from being laid off. Schools would be happy to see this money although they acknowledge that it does not mean total relief. Some argued that while this is a good way to help out schools, it does not help stimulate the economy. In return to that opinion was the fact that money given to update schools does indeed stimulate the economy by providing many jobs. As of now there are 886 approved school projects waiting for the go.
I took interest in this article because I am going to be a teacher and this will one day affect me. It will also effect most everyone seeing as many go on to have children or can understand that everyone’s children grow up to be our future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
