It seems to me that everyone is obsessed with identifying the problems that have misshaped our society. While this is certainly a commendable practice, it doesn't do any good unless we discuss solutions to those problems. It is always good to question our current state; I gain a little more faith in my generation every time I hear a group of students discussing our current social and political issues. However, I hear few solutions being offered. Not only have I witnessed this at a local level, but this seems to be apparent on a national level as well. The occupy movement seems to be the prime example. Thousands of people have rallied under the common notion of general disappointment with the way things are going, yet have not proclaimed any universal demand or solution. The problems are easy to identify; political futility, federal corruption, party warfare, corporate greed and a prolonged culture war have set the status quo down a path of impending turmoil. We seem to be entering a time in which common citizens are realizing that things need to change. People are questioning the way things are, and the events that have culminated our current state of disorder. Congratulations, this is the first step: accepting that there are problems with the way things are. However, we can only hope to bring about real change if we explore and invent solutions to these problems.
I have faith in my generation simply because so many of us have addressed these problems at such young ages. Although this is a great thing, it is unfortunately not enough. What we need to realize is that we cannot pretend that the problems will go away once we identify them. What we should realize is that no matter what, change is coming. Whether we like it or not, things cannot continue in the ways that they have. It is clear that as of now, the times are taking a turn for the worse. However, how things are in ten or twenty years is up to us. I am not attempting to criticize others for not acting; I am unsatisfied with how little I myself have done to bring about awareness and positive change. I simply wish that others see how important that the decisions that the young people make are. The lifestyles we choose to lead and the habits that we foster will determine what sort of world we live in when we are in charge. Although it may seem that there is little that young people can do in a scene controlled by a few wealthy, powerful, and established individuals, it is sort of the little things that count. Open conversations, along with social networking can be great ways to generate discussion. Making efforts to combat over-consumption can be rewarding and beneficial, for it is obvious that grotesque consumption has certainly contributed to the mess that America is in. We can stop supporting the corporations that control us. In going to school and crafting a career, study something you love so much that you want to share your talents and use them to benefit others. Or don't take any of this advice at all. But don't let the world forget that young people have minds of their own. Young people are the future of the status quo.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Presidential appointments
One thing for which President Obama has been sharply criticized was giving out appointments to people who raised or gave a lot of money for his 2008 electoral campaign. This is the sort of political strategy that has a lot of Americans upset right now. Many people feel that one easy solution to the corruption of our current government is to simply get money out of politics. This will ensure that our leaders attain their power by merit, rather than by monetary prowess. This would mean that our leaders are in politics to serve the common good, rather than to serve themselves. Although it is easy in words, simply "getting money out of politics" would most likely spark a prolonged political battle concerning how to go about this. Though there are most likely many interpretations of "out of politics", here are some solutions as to ensure that our politicians are truly servers of the people.
* set a limit on the amount of money any one candidate can spend on a campaign
* renounce the rights of corporations to be considered citizens
* Presidential appointees should be publicly interviewed and announced
* (as discussed in my previous blog) Do away with the "winner takes all" approach to elections; this would give third parties much greater opportunities, and diversify the voter's options.
Although cleaning up our government will be a long and difficult process, discussion of solutions and the encouragement of open minded conversations are the best ways to get change started.
* set a limit on the amount of money any one candidate can spend on a campaign
* renounce the rights of corporations to be considered citizens
* Presidential appointees should be publicly interviewed and announced
* (as discussed in my previous blog) Do away with the "winner takes all" approach to elections; this would give third parties much greater opportunities, and diversify the voter's options.
Although cleaning up our government will be a long and difficult process, discussion of solutions and the encouragement of open minded conversations are the best ways to get change started.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Winner take all
One of the most important debates in American politics today concerns the adaption of the constitution to make sense of modern issues. Because the constitution was composed in such a different social atmosphere, it has become necessary to interpret its meaning in new and appropriate ways. Let us not forget that the original constitution equated slaves as 3/5ths of a person... It is apparent that we must adjust the purposes behind the constitution to meet our modern needs and standards. Although there is much debate over how this is to be done, there is little disagreement when it comes to the Electoral College. By far, the majority of citizens who are aware of its true implications agree that it is outdated and unnecessary.
The Electoral College was originally designed to avoid tension between the northern and southern states concerning the rights of African Americans. In the words of James Madison:
"There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections."
Today, the Electoral College serves as an unnecessary step in the election process. Most states have adopted a "winner take all" approach to the electorate system. This process is largely undemocratic, because it completely disregards the votes of hundreds of thousands of individuals simply because they were the local minority. However, those votes add up, and therefore many elections may have had very different outcomes. This winner take all approach has been extremely negative in our election process, and has had lasting negative effects. These include:
*In 2000, George W Bush became president although opponent Al Gore received more of the popular vote. Bush won because he was the majority in a few large states with many electoral votes, rather that Gore, who had more individual votes.
*The winner take all approach gives candidates incentive to focus solely on states where there is rarely a clear majority. Minority voters in "decided states" have little incentive to come out and vote, because their vote will almost always be transferred to the opposing candidate. This is extremely undemocratic and disadvantages many thousands of voters, while privileging a select few (those in swing states).
*This system disadvantages third party voters as well, as their votes will almost always never count. This distorts the whole purpose of third parties because third party votes usually end up benefitting the candidate that they least favor (spoiler effect). If electoral votes were actually given to the candidate they were intended for, many voters would be empowered, and third parties would stand a much greater chance.
It is obvious that many Americans are unhappy with our political system. The "winner take all" approach to politics has accomplished little but to perpetuate a 2 party system and disadvantage thousands of voters. The founding fathers warned of this problem, especially James Madison, who argued against "an interested and overbearing majority" and the "mischiefs of faction" in an electoral system. The current system has twisted the original intent of the democratic electoral process.
Many Americans today are discussing potential solutions to our current political disappointments (disappointments being an understatement). In my opinion, doing away with the "winner take all" approach should be seriously considered.
The Electoral College was originally designed to avoid tension between the northern and southern states concerning the rights of African Americans. In the words of James Madison:
"There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections."
Today, the Electoral College serves as an unnecessary step in the election process. Most states have adopted a "winner take all" approach to the electorate system. This process is largely undemocratic, because it completely disregards the votes of hundreds of thousands of individuals simply because they were the local minority. However, those votes add up, and therefore many elections may have had very different outcomes. This winner take all approach has been extremely negative in our election process, and has had lasting negative effects. These include:
*In 2000, George W Bush became president although opponent Al Gore received more of the popular vote. Bush won because he was the majority in a few large states with many electoral votes, rather that Gore, who had more individual votes.
*The winner take all approach gives candidates incentive to focus solely on states where there is rarely a clear majority. Minority voters in "decided states" have little incentive to come out and vote, because their vote will almost always be transferred to the opposing candidate. This is extremely undemocratic and disadvantages many thousands of voters, while privileging a select few (those in swing states).
*This system disadvantages third party voters as well, as their votes will almost always never count. This distorts the whole purpose of third parties because third party votes usually end up benefitting the candidate that they least favor (spoiler effect). If electoral votes were actually given to the candidate they were intended for, many voters would be empowered, and third parties would stand a much greater chance.
It is obvious that many Americans are unhappy with our political system. The "winner take all" approach to politics has accomplished little but to perpetuate a 2 party system and disadvantage thousands of voters. The founding fathers warned of this problem, especially James Madison, who argued against "an interested and overbearing majority" and the "mischiefs of faction" in an electoral system. The current system has twisted the original intent of the democratic electoral process.
Many Americans today are discussing potential solutions to our current political disappointments (disappointments being an understatement). In my opinion, doing away with the "winner take all" approach should be seriously considered.
Monday, October 31, 2011
current event blog/mmj CA vs. Feds
*** The four U.S. attorneys in California have announced intent of a major federal crackdown on medical marijuana dispensaries. Hundreds of letters have been issued to landlords warning about the upcoming prosecution. Letters have also been issued to banks to close the accounts of dispensary owners. This is seemingly controversial because Obama announced during his campaign that patients who were following state law would not be prosecuted. The attorneys announced that most of the targets would be in Southern California, especially in San Diego, where there is likely to be less resistance. An official announcement is to be made by the attorneys in Sacramento this upcoming Friday. This is obviously a perfect example of conflict between states and the federal government, as marijuana use has some legal status in California (among other states), but remains a felony nationally.
I believe that the federal government has wasted a copious amount of resources in combating the use of cannabis. I believe that states should maintain the right to determine substance laws, and that the feds have overstepped their boundaries. I think that it is childish of federal agents to continue to combat the growing acceptance of the cannabis industry, rather that incorporating it into a potentially beneficial aspect of our economy. Our government has far more important issues to address than persecuting marijuana use in a state in which nearly 50 percent of voters favor legalization.
I believe that the federal government has wasted a copious amount of resources in combating the use of cannabis. I believe that states should maintain the right to determine substance laws, and that the feds have overstepped their boundaries. I think that it is childish of federal agents to continue to combat the growing acceptance of the cannabis industry, rather that incorporating it into a potentially beneficial aspect of our economy. Our government has far more important issues to address than persecuting marijuana use in a state in which nearly 50 percent of voters favor legalization.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Immigration/DREAM act
Immigration policy is yet another issue that our government has to tackle. Last week, California passed what is known as the DREAM act. This act will allow immigrants who entered the United States illegally as minors the ability to receive state funds to attend college. This act is basically a California version of Obama's DREAM Act. Obama's bill would have provided illegal immigrants who entered the country as minors, or who have completed college or service in the military a means by which to become U.S. citizens. I believe that this bill would have solved a lot of problems in people's lives, and provided a means for many hard working, productive individuals to become fully legitimized members of our country. I think it's unfortunate that the DREAM Act was not passed. However, I think it is good that California has found a way to provide aspiring immigrants with equal opportunities to education.
Now, I think readers should be reminded that these students will only receive funds if they have been accepted into college. I am pretty sure it is hard to get into any college if your legal status cannot be verified.. It is obvious that these students are dedicated to bettering the quality of their lives. Although I think that this is a good plan, I believe it should provide some means of a path to citizenship. An example of this would be if students were provided with limited funds and an extended visa, as long as the individual promised to apply for citizenship once completing college. Regardless, I think that more efforts should be spent integrating current immigrants into our economies instead of spending large amounts of money in attempt to identify and deport them, and that we should change our policies to prevent future waves of undocumented immigrants. We should make use of our current immigrants and improve our economy, before we are the ones who are knocking at the doors of other countries in search of work.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Are young people losing faith in democracy?
In response to the article....
I don't think so. The article portrays young people as blaming the current global situation on the shortcomings of democracy. I believe that young people around the world are upset at the distortion of democracy in many countries. Although I cannot speak for those in other countries, I can certainly give my observations of our own.
I believe that many people are beginning to realize that what we have is not a true democracy. We elect politicians to represent us, but that rarely seems to be the case. Our politicians are heavily influenced by big corporations such as the oil and pharmaceutical industries. It seems more and more that politicians are more concerned with staying in office or holding power than actually addressing the needs of the day-to-day citizen. I was shocked when I heard that there is a proposed constitutional amendment that would require all laws passed by congress to actually apply to members of congress themselves. Wtf? Is this seriously not already assumed? How can I be expected to trust our leaders when questions like this are brought to light?
I think that many people are now beginning to recognize that our representatives are not doing their jobs. The economic crisis that has emerged from the poor decisions of our leaders, as well as prolonged, expensive and unethical wars, unconstitutional abuse of power, and a culture war have all amounted to widespread dissent among average citizens. Members of the emerging generation of many other countries have shown similar frustrations with the corruption among their leaders. To me it is clear that it is not democracy that young people are losing hope in, but the way in which it has been twisted to benefit a select few powerful individuals. It is from this realization that we see uprisings like the Occupy Wall Street movement, among other uprisings globally. It is clear that working people around the world are tired of the system that politicians and powerful corporations have established. Although there may not be one perfect solution to the problems of our current political atmosphere, it is obvious that something needs to change, and that there are many people who are ready to set this change in motion.
I don't think so. The article portrays young people as blaming the current global situation on the shortcomings of democracy. I believe that young people around the world are upset at the distortion of democracy in many countries. Although I cannot speak for those in other countries, I can certainly give my observations of our own.
I believe that many people are beginning to realize that what we have is not a true democracy. We elect politicians to represent us, but that rarely seems to be the case. Our politicians are heavily influenced by big corporations such as the oil and pharmaceutical industries. It seems more and more that politicians are more concerned with staying in office or holding power than actually addressing the needs of the day-to-day citizen. I was shocked when I heard that there is a proposed constitutional amendment that would require all laws passed by congress to actually apply to members of congress themselves. Wtf? Is this seriously not already assumed? How can I be expected to trust our leaders when questions like this are brought to light?
I think that many people are now beginning to recognize that our representatives are not doing their jobs. The economic crisis that has emerged from the poor decisions of our leaders, as well as prolonged, expensive and unethical wars, unconstitutional abuse of power, and a culture war have all amounted to widespread dissent among average citizens. Members of the emerging generation of many other countries have shown similar frustrations with the corruption among their leaders. To me it is clear that it is not democracy that young people are losing hope in, but the way in which it has been twisted to benefit a select few powerful individuals. It is from this realization that we see uprisings like the Occupy Wall Street movement, among other uprisings globally. It is clear that working people around the world are tired of the system that politicians and powerful corporations have established. Although there may not be one perfect solution to the problems of our current political atmosphere, it is obvious that something needs to change, and that there are many people who are ready to set this change in motion.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
hard rain falling..
So this one's gonna be kinda rantish, but it effects me directly, and has me thinking quite a bit.
September 10th- 7:00 am. Heading down highway 46, on my way to Cuesta College to take the ACT. I'm running late. I start to slow for the 101 entrance, and then... boom. Sirens and flashing lights in my rear view mirror.. pulled over. At first I didn't even think it was for me- I couldn't think of anything I had done worth getting pulled over for. So it went: "Hey officer, whats the problem"? "Blah blah blah 74 in a 65.." I couldn't believe it. I was getting a ticket for going 9 miles an hour over the speed limit. Seriously?
Not even a month prior, my neighbor- a bond hair, blue eyed woman, 40 something, got off with a warning (from the same officer) for going 80 mph on the same road.. But that's a whole other issue I'm not even going to bother carrying on about. It speaks for itself.
What really got me thinking was the question of where was my money even going? And for what purpose? Why penalize the student who's on his way to take a test? Why not spend that same energy busting a meth lab somewhere? Or gaining a lead on one of the seven armed robberies that have occurred in Paso this year? Then i realized why.. because it was easy. The city draws revenue from infractions and misdemeanors, and from "wine country tourism". No money is made when a gang member is arrested, or when publishing crime damages the city's reputation among wine-snobs.
So I am now supposed to pay a fine of three-hundred and thirteen dollars. Man, its a good thing I have a college book fund to pull that from.... and I hope to god that no single parent has to rush on their way to a second job or anything like that- how is someone in that sort of situation supposed to be able to sacrifice 300 bucks and a day off of work to go to court? I fail to see our authorities looking out for the true common good.
And what will my money be spent on? Will it be on a construction project, or on improving roads? Will it be spent on a teacher's salary? Or will it be on something else.. Will it go straight into some fat-cat congressman's retirement? A crate of ammunition to be shipped to Iraq? A bomb to Libya?
Our society's real problems are simply not being addressed by the authority's current policies.
September 10th- 7:00 am. Heading down highway 46, on my way to Cuesta College to take the ACT. I'm running late. I start to slow for the 101 entrance, and then... boom. Sirens and flashing lights in my rear view mirror.. pulled over. At first I didn't even think it was for me- I couldn't think of anything I had done worth getting pulled over for. So it went: "Hey officer, whats the problem"? "Blah blah blah 74 in a 65.." I couldn't believe it. I was getting a ticket for going 9 miles an hour over the speed limit. Seriously?
Not even a month prior, my neighbor- a bond hair, blue eyed woman, 40 something, got off with a warning (from the same officer) for going 80 mph on the same road.. But that's a whole other issue I'm not even going to bother carrying on about. It speaks for itself.
What really got me thinking was the question of where was my money even going? And for what purpose? Why penalize the student who's on his way to take a test? Why not spend that same energy busting a meth lab somewhere? Or gaining a lead on one of the seven armed robberies that have occurred in Paso this year? Then i realized why.. because it was easy. The city draws revenue from infractions and misdemeanors, and from "wine country tourism". No money is made when a gang member is arrested, or when publishing crime damages the city's reputation among wine-snobs.
So I am now supposed to pay a fine of three-hundred and thirteen dollars. Man, its a good thing I have a college book fund to pull that from.... and I hope to god that no single parent has to rush on their way to a second job or anything like that- how is someone in that sort of situation supposed to be able to sacrifice 300 bucks and a day off of work to go to court? I fail to see our authorities looking out for the true common good.
And what will my money be spent on? Will it be on a construction project, or on improving roads? Will it be spent on a teacher's salary? Or will it be on something else.. Will it go straight into some fat-cat congressman's retirement? A crate of ammunition to be shipped to Iraq? A bomb to Libya?
Our society's real problems are simply not being addressed by the authority's current policies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)