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?
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Saturday, October 11, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Hot Potato!
The debate over bailing out Wall Street continues. Everyone has an opinion about this matter because, frankly, everyone will be effected by it. Congress has a lot of weight on its shoulders as it must decide who will take the responsibility for the 700 billion dollars to bail out lenders. While nobody seems to want to hold this "hot potato", the American public waits . A recent editorial in the Los Angeles Times, Bail out the bailout, discusses the poor judgement of Washington's political powers in dealing with the mess.
Good arguments are made throughout the editorial. The author points out Congress' avoidance of the issue as they failed to pass a bailout bill. 700 billion dollars is a big check write and Congress has the only account big enough to back it. Unfortunately, signing away that much money does not make it easy to be the one holding the pen. Someone has to pay. The author's makes a conclusion that opponents should deal with their responsibility and make improvements to the discipline of the market. This argument is valid as it addresses opposition and considers concerns of readers. Americans depend on the economic well-being of the United States for survival. It educates, feeds, clothes, and houses them. Like it or not, the U.S. economy has a lot of control over our next meal. The author discusses the fact that taxpayers forget this bill is for their own good, but for some reason viciously hate the thought of it. This mentality seems to have convinced the U.S. Congress not to help when it had the chance. The author makes a strong appeal as the general good of people equates with passing the bailout bill. It would make sense that passing the bill would be beneficial to everyone according to these arguments. Why hasn't it happened?
The author simply states "they [Congress] can't pretend that it's someone elses problem to fix." To the dispair of many and disgust of others, he is correct. People cannot be so caught up in their own pride that they forfeit the survival of our economy, more specifically, our next meal or tank of gas. The author points out the serious condition of this impending economic crisis by referencing the Federal Reserve Chairman. The use of his desperation conveys the attitude that each one of us credit card swipers should adopt. We are on thin ice. This is not only the opinion of some pencil pushing desk jockey, but a reality backed the U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman. The author drives home his argument by questioning the reasoning of Congress. According to the author, they need to seek out wise council before making any more decisions. These decisions have a much greater impact than relieving Congress from the heat of the potato; the United States could be facing a financial crisis. Congress may have not made this mess and nobody wants it. Congress, as stated, in this article is our only hope. Will they pass the bill?
Good arguments are made throughout the editorial. The author points out Congress' avoidance of the issue as they failed to pass a bailout bill. 700 billion dollars is a big check write and Congress has the only account big enough to back it. Unfortunately, signing away that much money does not make it easy to be the one holding the pen. Someone has to pay. The author's makes a conclusion that opponents should deal with their responsibility and make improvements to the discipline of the market. This argument is valid as it addresses opposition and considers concerns of readers. Americans depend on the economic well-being of the United States for survival. It educates, feeds, clothes, and houses them. Like it or not, the U.S. economy has a lot of control over our next meal. The author discusses the fact that taxpayers forget this bill is for their own good, but for some reason viciously hate the thought of it. This mentality seems to have convinced the U.S. Congress not to help when it had the chance. The author makes a strong appeal as the general good of people equates with passing the bailout bill. It would make sense that passing the bill would be beneficial to everyone according to these arguments. Why hasn't it happened?
The author simply states "they [Congress] can't pretend that it's someone elses problem to fix." To the dispair of many and disgust of others, he is correct. People cannot be so caught up in their own pride that they forfeit the survival of our economy, more specifically, our next meal or tank of gas. The author points out the serious condition of this impending economic crisis by referencing the Federal Reserve Chairman. The use of his desperation conveys the attitude that each one of us credit card swipers should adopt. We are on thin ice. This is not only the opinion of some pencil pushing desk jockey, but a reality backed the U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman. The author drives home his argument by questioning the reasoning of Congress. According to the author, they need to seek out wise council before making any more decisions. These decisions have a much greater impact than relieving Congress from the heat of the potato; the United States could be facing a financial crisis. Congress may have not made this mess and nobody wants it. Congress, as stated, in this article is our only hope. Will they pass the bill?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
