Revolutionary Ideas...

A revolution's possibilities may very well be in the eye of the beholder. The article, "In its infancy," points out some touchy subjects, while offering some hypocritical advice to the nation. The idea that the United States of America needs change, goes without saying. Some people live in mansions while others starve in the streets. Something went wrong somewhere. Change is necessary, not impossible. Change occurs over time. Small steps lead to large scale change, which takes patience. I understand that patience can be a difficult virtue to exude when the nation looks like it's in a endless downward spiral, taking the rest of the world along for the ride. This is where I don't understand the author's stance on wishing he could escape the problems.  He only resorts to the idea of helping because he decides that running away from the problem isn't possible.  

The problems that the author points out are valid.  The United States has wasted outrageous amounts of resources and continues to overlook its attitude of ignorant materialism.  If we continue to try passing the buck on each other, but never take responsibility for our own individual actions, the nation has little chance of change.  The author correctly states that those people who create problems are the ones who complain.  He fulfills this very statement with his article.  He complains, yet is likely guilty, in some sense, of supporting the very economy/government that he so adamantly criticizes.  We all do.  Filling up on gas, buying food, and purchasing clothing creates a revenue that supports the "monster" franchises.  The people have power to boycott, but choose not to.  Where do we get off blaming the government for our problems?  

Solutions to these problems aren't necessarily the government's problem.  We cannot forget about the world around us in the struggle to survive.  Strong relationships with other nations helps international trade, creating jobs for those in America.  Turning our backs on each other will not cultivate a strong nation.  Maybe someday people will help each other instead of trying to run from problems.  Neglect has hurt this country enough.  Finger-pointing will only take away hands that could be strengthening the nation.                      

Moving To Canada?....Seriously?

The recent presidential election has pleased many while discouraging others. Many of my facebook friends posted a common theme on their status the night of the election: Obama? I'm moving to Canada! The conservative community has made similar statements voicing their negative attitudes about being part of a country under the leadership of President Elect Barrack Obama. Does it seem strange to anyone else that these people would chose to remove themselves from United States society at the drop of a hat? I'm sure that they are trying to make a bold statement, but attempting to do so in an extremely ineffective, irrational way. Running away from a situation that opposes a given groups' opinion shows fear and instability. The nation’s collective support of the new president, regardless of personal opinion, would have a major impact on our government and, in turn, the nation. A more vested interest in the United States government doesn't necessarily require a hard-core republican to adopt the President's view or agree entirely with his policy. The founding of our country’s Constitution set up government to be by the people and for the people. The key term here is PEOPLE. People have a voice in government that they rarely use. Those who create so much controversy and noise have an opportunity to use all their efforts for good (or at least what they consider good).

Those elected to government offices have a responsibility to work for the good of the United States. This means that their office serves those who elect them. Citizens have adequate opportunities to lobby for change, yet there seems to be so much bark, but little bite. We see heated debates and endless editorials, even facebook opinions. Granted, opinions are healthy and debate challenges ideas. When these stop at only words our nation will suffer and has! Leaders may have policies and ideas, but people taking a stand for issues helps refine policy.

Many have strong opinions and political views, yet are extremely uneducated about reasons for political agenda. This fault does not fall entirely on the general public, as most government officials operate out of the public eye, emerging only for speeches and campaigns. On the other hand, people could make time and effort to more actively participate in government. Both are at fault, but both have a Constitutional responsibility to work together. Sometimes citizens of the United States forget the privileges of this nation because they get tied up in hate or pity for themselves. Arguments arise that the government is a corrupt institution, only concerned agenda in its best interest. The government doesn’t help people so why should people support the government? These people point a finger and makes accusations of hypocrisy, yet refuse to make changes themselves. The success of our nation depends upon the combined efforts of ordinary citizens and leaders. Moving to Canada seems to remove an important part of the equation!

Murder?

Ms. Cheatheam's article "Why do we think we have the right to kill the Unborn?" raises some interesting points to consider about the morality of abortion. Unfortunately she fails to address her opposition and cites articles only supporting her claim. By doing this she stiff-arms pro-choice advocates and weakens the effectiveness of her viewpoint. She approaches her stance as a hot headed argument rather than making a plea for readers to re-evaluate their opinion of the issue. Her description of the abortion process and the reality of the matter does make a strong emotional appeal. This could be considered a tactic used to irrationally scare someone to support pro-life. Interestingly enough her points only express true facts about the medical process of abortion. They are not pretty or pleasant, but real. We need people to start being bare bones honest about injustice and Ms. Cheateam lays it on the table. The title makes a bold and highly relevant point. Unborn does not translate to non-human. A live fetus existing inside a woman's uterus relies on others to live. Nobody can argue the fact that an unborn fetus is living and yet some are of the opinion that they have a "right" to abort it. Where does this right come from? Where does our right to exist come from? If somebody on earth were threatened, they would not agree that someone else had a right to abort their existence. Superb title! One specific comparison was made about a man dismembering his wife and a doctor dismembering an unborn fetus. She asks why we don't treat both instances as murder. A better question might be: "How can a country grant anyone the right to terminate the existence of another human or fetus. And for that matter, on what premise do we decide that a walking and breathing human has more rights than an unborn fetus, who is the beginning of human life? The issue runs much deeper than what appears on the surface. The author needs to make an argument asking people how they can justify being granted this kind of right. While the idea has great potential, greater detail needs to be considered when trying to help others see a specific point of view. Nobody likes a slap in the face, with a hand or words. Facts about abortion are nasty but so is a narrow minded argument. Since both can be turn-offs, she needs to explore and seek to expose motives behind abortion. She claims that abortion is murder, which may very well be true. My question is why?

Obama's Got a Big Butt!

Election time has rolled around. The race for President of the United States is in full swing. You can almost smell the hostility in the air. Even if you have been a hermit, barricaded in your house, you most likely see hostility somewhere between re-runs of Everybody Loves Raymond and CSI Miami. Negative campaign ads on TV are, for the most part, impossible to escape. The opponents sling political mud at each other like children at recess. How mature. Our presidential candidates are making a last ditch effort to win an election. It would seem quite interesting, however, that they resort to tactics used by second graders to degrade one another. No offense to those seven and eight year old kids who may display more maturity. The competition ensues: who can make who look worse? Every negative detail of either party's candidate exposes their flaws as a politician or personal inadequacies.
Negative campaigning has its benefits of course; just like pushing old ladies down at to snag the last remaining model of that new toy for your child at Christmas. It gets the candidate what they want, who cares what they look like doing it. Shockingly enough, the American public doesn't speak out against this sort of behavior. Instead most sit in wonder with eyes glued to the appropriately named boob tube, soaking in the negativity. This tactic, while very effective, reveals a great deal about character. These candidates spend time, energy, and money on put-downs while our country has valid problems that need addressed. Mr. Obama actually stressed the need for efforts to be placed on important issues facing the nation rather than negative campaigning. How interesting that just recently ads have appeared on television cutting down Senator McCain. Neither party is innocent of these name-calling games and they will most likely continue until election day. Stepping on someone else to elevate yourself does not show respectability or responsibility. Some of these ads are in defensive response, but acting like one's "enemy" does not show a higher standard. What happened to honor and class?
It is beneficial to know where each candidate stands on issues. This would be the reason for debates, speeches, interviews, and even television ads; but please spare the childish banter. If we want to tickle our ears with name calling, there are plenty of elementary school buses that need monitoring. In school the name-caller must serve detention hall. Why then, when he grows up do we change our standards and elect him to The Oval Office?

Pinching The Penny

Doubt and controversy are sweeping the nation as the USA appears to be on the verge of an economic crisis. One question worth asking is: Will this really be a crisis? Arguments have been raised on both sides of this issue. Some critics and media suggest that an economic catastrophe is inevitable. Others view the potential recession as a building block for better American economic stewardship. The End of the Economy, a recent post by Christopher Ketcham in the Counterpunch blog, makes a strong argument against those who over-dramatize this pending economic "crisis."
Ketcham uses bold, witty remarks to discuss his opinion about mainstream media's interpretation of the economic decline's effect on America. According to Ketcham, many see the crisis as a looming disaster because it will force them to abandon flambouant living and adopt a more simlistic lifestyle. This point packs a powerful punch, but in some respects, doesn't consider all possible ill-effects of another Great Depression. The economic condition of the United States has a much broader effect than Ketcham accounts for. While those who are in a wealthy upperclass family may have to downgrade their vehicles and houses, many average middle-class families could face dire difficulties in survival. He fails to consider the strain that could be imposed on people recieving government aid or other monetary funding such as senior citizens.
Most people reading Ketcham's arguments would agree that Americans should be more responsible with our resources. Landfills are full of waste that could have been used more wisely instead of disarded blindly. All these statements are valid and, if acted upon, would improve economic conditions. Unfortunately, this point alone cannot excuse the fact that there are hungry families living on minimum wage who struggle to pay rent. Another Great Depression would devastate those who already struggle to make ends meet. Ketcham's point becomes bittersweet to those who agree with the truth presented, but live in fear of how economic disaster could leave them jobless, starving, and on the street.
Ketcham makes a point that no one will be able to play the "game," in an economic recession. Instead, survival would force maturity and sensability into the American people. This is a great truth that would change values of people to some extent for some time. Although it would be nice to assume that people's values would endure, we must remember that the 1920s was an era of mass consumerism. The Great Depression surely taught those involved a great deal about sensability and value. Obviously, as today's America shows, we have yet to fully learn this lesson of economic stewardship. History, as seems, may repeat itself. When will we learn our lesson?
Ketcham is justified in his anger toward a society of wasteful ingrates. An economy spiriling towards some extent of crisis would force those in the lap of luxury to downsize. To many, this could be hope for the start of a better economy. For others, this could spell disaster. Ketchum forgets to look at the issue from their perspective. The disaster would lie in the fact that some won't have the option to downgrade. Their only downgrade may be grocery shopping in the McDonalds dumpster.
A county filled with those who pinch pennies, no matter what financial bracket, in order to better the quality of living for others, would be ideal. Christopher Ketcham envisions this kind of society. He makes a powerful argument against those who whine about the responsible kind of lifestyle that kind of society demands. Unfortunately, he seems to forget about those who may be trampled in the downfall of the old system. Is the economic boogey-man really knocking at our door? It depends on who's looking through the peephole.