Romney vs. Obama. It's like a sports match. Two teams, one ref, many watchers, and the opportunity to win.
Politicians are undoubtedly charismatic presenters and eloquent speakers especially in front of their own crowd. Though debating is another ball game. This is the first Presidential debate of 2012. The challenger had energy, was ready to battle, and utilized repetition as his main play. The champ kept is cool as he defended his title and track record. They both seem to have continuously ran over the shot clock, sometimes overstepping the ref's toes, and were scattered with issues at times. Taking style points out of the equation, content should be the fight.
The economy. The two talked numbers, which may have been a bit of a disconnect with the audience since, it's safe to say, don't look at a the Nation's budget nor had time to wrap ones head around. Obama makes the case to be patient as it takes time to get the country, that was in scrambles before he took office, back on its feet. He says jobs were created, Dodd-Frank has been dissected and is still in progress, and Education is forward concern. If we can get be competitive with other countries in science, math, etc., perhaps that could put our country in a better position overall. To invest in the foundations and the entitlements that are backbone, investment is needed. Raising taxes on someone (even if that someone is Exxon) is what he supports to balance the budget and over time, decrease the deficit. Romney does not want to increase taxes on ANYONE because in a recession, he says it's not smart to do so, even on the millionaires and billionaires who were still able to fly their personal planes or fly first-class flights for vacay. He agrees the deficit should decrease, yet did not provide a somewhat specific agenda as to how to do so. With no increase in taxes - then what? Kick people off of government funded programs (that he may or may not care about, take a looks at his infamous video)? Extracting from his implicit language regarding Healthcare, drop the government from Healthcare plans because private corporation will have the interests of beneficiaries in their hearts, over their profits. Oh yes, make sense. Speaking of...
Healthcare. The sides to choose from are give each person a voucher to spend on whatever they want or allow the Feds to bolster States. In the latter, the Federal government sets standards on what services a person can get so that doesn't allow room for "bare bones" benefits. In the former, vouchers seem nice if there were competition but the truth is, there are way more buyers than sellers. Also, how would sellers not take advantage of the elderly and other beneficiaries? Insurance companies already recruit certain people as it is. And how would vouchers address the rising costs? Every state, city, service, and prescription drug varies significantly. Hospitals and doctors already charge customers outrageously as it is. And also, leaving the States to its own funding - again, how is that going to happen without federal help? Last time I checked, States don't have parents to lend money. Repealing Obamacare would take away progress in providing medical coverage while reducing costs for everyone. If it is unclear how, it is posted on the web.
All in all, the candidates covered many topics which were really meant to support arguments over the economy - from the Energy to Income and Corporate Tax to Bipartisan efforts to Job creation.
It may not be a simple choice, but maybe this could help. Which scenario is best when ultimately determining how much a carton of milk costs? If you trust corporations, vote Romney. If you trust the government, vote Obama. If you want a balance of both, perhaps move to Germany.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Pedal to the Mettle
As some of us, if not most of us, are grateful that our troops have returned home now that Obama has honored his pledge to pull out of Iraq, we still wonder why our men and women were there in the first place and if we have made progress in the nine year battle. Our courageous troops have risked their lives and watched their colleagues in addition to innocent civilians lost their lives. When the trusted authority decides to get in the middle of foreign matter, what is the criteria? Why does the U.S. focus on the Middle East over all the other countries.
Sanctions have been slapped on Iran since the mid-90s in which the reason goes beyond its anti-democratic leader. The threat of a nuclear attack surely regards a preemptive move though our friendship with Iran hollowed many years earlier somewhere in the late 70s which could be due to the overthrow of, actually democratically elected, Mohammed Mosaddegh. Iraq and Afghanistan can be added to the list of coup de etat successes. These kinds of secret missions are here and there all over the world, but very seldom in Asia and Africa where there are also authoritarian governments in comparison with the Middle East and also Latin America. From the border below, regime operations orchestrated by the U.S. can be traced to Panama, Venezuela, Chile, Brazil, to name a few. But perhaps the resistance combined with the solidarity of Latin America has pushed away the United States. From the north end, Hugo Chavez paved the road for a revolution that called for economic autonomy which trickled all the way throughout the country. South America has been quite effective in preventing the States from taking control and bullying them whereas the Muslim-dominated lands east of us has had a tough time chasing the U.S. away since its interests are heavily invested in the economy, particularly in oil.
The inhumane treatment of civilians by its government can be found in Somalia, Sudan, Congo, Burundi, CAR, Guinea, Cote d'Irvoire, this list goes on. The inhumane treatment of civilians by it's government can be found in China, North Korea, Tibet, Vietnam, Cambodia. The inhuman treatment of civilians by its government can even be found right below us, Mexico. So why don't we wage war against these leaders. Why pick on some and not others?
The obvious answer would be what would be us more money in the long run. Even more detailed than that would be what would strategically put us in the best possible position to be imperial and monopolize as much as we can. If that's not a valid analysis, then it must be a matter of spinning the bottle. There is corruption and violence throughout the world, even our backyards, yet we're willing to send thousands of troops to fight a war the American public does not wholeheartedly supports.
If the United States intends to save lives, improve the quality of lives, and demonstrate a bravery to what are basic rights - the actions and choices of our country does not appear as so, and that message is lost.
Sanctions have been slapped on Iran since the mid-90s in which the reason goes beyond its anti-democratic leader. The threat of a nuclear attack surely regards a preemptive move though our friendship with Iran hollowed many years earlier somewhere in the late 70s which could be due to the overthrow of, actually democratically elected, Mohammed Mosaddegh. Iraq and Afghanistan can be added to the list of coup de etat successes. These kinds of secret missions are here and there all over the world, but very seldom in Asia and Africa where there are also authoritarian governments in comparison with the Middle East and also Latin America. From the border below, regime operations orchestrated by the U.S. can be traced to Panama, Venezuela, Chile, Brazil, to name a few. But perhaps the resistance combined with the solidarity of Latin America has pushed away the United States. From the north end, Hugo Chavez paved the road for a revolution that called for economic autonomy which trickled all the way throughout the country. South America has been quite effective in preventing the States from taking control and bullying them whereas the Muslim-dominated lands east of us has had a tough time chasing the U.S. away since its interests are heavily invested in the economy, particularly in oil.
The inhumane treatment of civilians by its government can be found in Somalia, Sudan, Congo, Burundi, CAR, Guinea, Cote d'Irvoire, this list goes on. The inhumane treatment of civilians by it's government can be found in China, North Korea, Tibet, Vietnam, Cambodia. The inhuman treatment of civilians by its government can even be found right below us, Mexico. So why don't we wage war against these leaders. Why pick on some and not others?
The obvious answer would be what would be us more money in the long run. Even more detailed than that would be what would strategically put us in the best possible position to be imperial and monopolize as much as we can. If that's not a valid analysis, then it must be a matter of spinning the bottle. There is corruption and violence throughout the world, even our backyards, yet we're willing to send thousands of troops to fight a war the American public does not wholeheartedly supports.
If the United States intends to save lives, improve the quality of lives, and demonstrate a bravery to what are basic rights - the actions and choices of our country does not appear as so, and that message is lost.
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Why he's President
Our past presidents got the job due to their charismatic appeal, their eagerness to represent the working people, their passion to be assuredly different and greater than the last, and let's not deny their ability to raise tons of money. As each of the presidential candidate's future appears to be earnestly bright, their legacy would be essentially determined by the economic status of the country. In the next five years, we will cast our vote for the next president and the job the of the last - Barack Obama.
My excitement over a temperate African-American presidential candidate who did not play on extremes is undeniable. Throughout the debates, traveling, interviews along the campaign trail, he did not tire. It was a good sign in itself that he would be able to withstand four to eight year journey of media pressure, foreign relations, as well as defending his beliefs on critical decisions he would have to make for us. As he eloquently speaks, it is not verbatim from a teleprompter nor from a stack of papers of which he should read from. His words came from his core. I could tell by his improvisation. I could tell because he did not look down. I could tell because...maybe he meant it.
As I dutifully engage in Republican primaries, charisma, eagerness, passion, and ambition are all in the punch bowl. Rick Perry is amusing, but he is more theatrical than honest about the welfare of the struggling. Michelle Bachmann is brazen, though she is not as knowledgeable in areas that would be required of the President of the U.S. Ron Paul seems like a common sense fellow, but only if we lived in a hypothetical world; you can't expect people to be benevolent and the economy to work out on its own. (You do remember what happened with communism, right Mr. Paul?) Newt Ginrich is self proclaimed historian who has been around and can bank on his familiarity, but this country is more than history, IT IS PEOPLE. Mr. Gingrich is actually unfamiliar with how the world is on a humanity level. Jon Huntsman could be a good contender, but he doesn't like campaigning and therefore is not good at it. Mr. Huntsman, that is kind of a big deal of the job description for a president. Throughout the whole term, you are constantly trying to win US over. And Mitt Romney, you're a very good campaigner but...who are you? Where do you stand? Mr. Romney, I get that you want to represent wherever you are positioned, so you are effective at running Massachusetts or any other state. This is the United States - it's multiple states. Where is your collective thinking? This country is eclectic, and you are not (just like, by demographic, Massachusetts is not.)
By virtue of the Democrats not doing the best job of convincing us why the President of our states is effective - I will help. For over seven decades, we battled over the prospect of universal healthcare from FDR to the Kennedy's to Hillary Clinton. All were unsuccessful. Many say Obama should have focused on the economy when he got into office, but he had momentum with this, and he ran with it. Without his leadership, we could have gone on another 7 decades without it. Who knows? Now insurance is available to everyone and I believe life is a right. Regulations of the banks is a work in progress. Republicans do not wish to see more government interfering with the private, financial sector, yet without regulation our money will be like the game of monopoly at the likes of those who went to schools such as MIT. We can't understand derivatives, so bankers use it to their power and that has been the fall of our nation. Obama is setting forth agencies to oversee how our money is handled. War in Afghanistan was never quite understood. 9/11 happened, but why? Where are sending our troops? What are they doing? Why? There are few concrete answers, if any, so the commander-in-chief found a way out of it. Tax cuts. Republicans can do without extending tax cuts, true it will be murky in our national money pool, but the unemployment is still high and the middle class is hit as usual with picking up the pieces. The divide between rich and poor is larger than deficit. The middle class pays more taxes because we can't afford to invest, yet the wealthy can make it mostly off of investments which get hit at a lower rate. What we need is tax reform. The President finally got angry enough to call his "team" out so that they can agree to ease the pressure on working people. Talk about it. Discuss and get in done so we can work out a plan for ourselves as well. The President has done a lot, and that's why he's president - because we believed in him in 2008. And if we still believe in him now, he will believe in us to reelect him because the next term belongs to him.
My excitement over a temperate African-American presidential candidate who did not play on extremes is undeniable. Throughout the debates, traveling, interviews along the campaign trail, he did not tire. It was a good sign in itself that he would be able to withstand four to eight year journey of media pressure, foreign relations, as well as defending his beliefs on critical decisions he would have to make for us. As he eloquently speaks, it is not verbatim from a teleprompter nor from a stack of papers of which he should read from. His words came from his core. I could tell by his improvisation. I could tell because he did not look down. I could tell because...maybe he meant it.
As I dutifully engage in Republican primaries, charisma, eagerness, passion, and ambition are all in the punch bowl. Rick Perry is amusing, but he is more theatrical than honest about the welfare of the struggling. Michelle Bachmann is brazen, though she is not as knowledgeable in areas that would be required of the President of the U.S. Ron Paul seems like a common sense fellow, but only if we lived in a hypothetical world; you can't expect people to be benevolent and the economy to work out on its own. (You do remember what happened with communism, right Mr. Paul?) Newt Ginrich is self proclaimed historian who has been around and can bank on his familiarity, but this country is more than history, IT IS PEOPLE. Mr. Gingrich is actually unfamiliar with how the world is on a humanity level. Jon Huntsman could be a good contender, but he doesn't like campaigning and therefore is not good at it. Mr. Huntsman, that is kind of a big deal of the job description for a president. Throughout the whole term, you are constantly trying to win US over. And Mitt Romney, you're a very good campaigner but...who are you? Where do you stand? Mr. Romney, I get that you want to represent wherever you are positioned, so you are effective at running Massachusetts or any other state. This is the United States - it's multiple states. Where is your collective thinking? This country is eclectic, and you are not (just like, by demographic, Massachusetts is not.)
By virtue of the Democrats not doing the best job of convincing us why the President of our states is effective - I will help. For over seven decades, we battled over the prospect of universal healthcare from FDR to the Kennedy's to Hillary Clinton. All were unsuccessful. Many say Obama should have focused on the economy when he got into office, but he had momentum with this, and he ran with it. Without his leadership, we could have gone on another 7 decades without it. Who knows? Now insurance is available to everyone and I believe life is a right. Regulations of the banks is a work in progress. Republicans do not wish to see more government interfering with the private, financial sector, yet without regulation our money will be like the game of monopoly at the likes of those who went to schools such as MIT. We can't understand derivatives, so bankers use it to their power and that has been the fall of our nation. Obama is setting forth agencies to oversee how our money is handled. War in Afghanistan was never quite understood. 9/11 happened, but why? Where are sending our troops? What are they doing? Why? There are few concrete answers, if any, so the commander-in-chief found a way out of it. Tax cuts. Republicans can do without extending tax cuts, true it will be murky in our national money pool, but the unemployment is still high and the middle class is hit as usual with picking up the pieces. The divide between rich and poor is larger than deficit. The middle class pays more taxes because we can't afford to invest, yet the wealthy can make it mostly off of investments which get hit at a lower rate. What we need is tax reform. The President finally got angry enough to call his "team" out so that they can agree to ease the pressure on working people. Talk about it. Discuss and get in done so we can work out a plan for ourselves as well. The President has done a lot, and that's why he's president - because we believed in him in 2008. And if we still believe in him now, he will believe in us to reelect him because the next term belongs to him.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Roof on Fire
How many times can one read or hear "debt ceiling" in one day? For the past couple of months or so, it seems like a little over 14 trillion times. OK, that number may seem exaggerated, however its meaning is not. As of May 16, that is how much our government has been borrowing. It's the amount owed to those of us or they who have purchased US Treasury bonds in addition to funds meant for Social Security and Medicare. Therefore, if our government continues to borrow past its "ceiling" reportedly, our country will be in default and our credit rating will drop a floor. I guess that's what an empire looks like these days.
It's rather similar to if I were to buy a brownstone from basement to rooftop that I would not be able to afford without taking some form of loan while taking to that home a most entertainingly expensive car, again, via a loan, and then attend truly elaborate, ridiculously priced dinners courtesy my credit card. Oh, and may as well travel the country by taking out some 401K. That is, the analogy I am very comfortable with making. After all, amidst the salaries and perks of our senators, they are able to draw money on earmarks (1.92 M for U.S. Territories Rum industries - I doubt this country needs help in the drinking department), expense pricey meals (for sake of visitors and business, of course, what I meant I would do), go to other countries to bully and/or exploit them (that's another article in itself), and enjoying private jets to places (ehem, Mr. Christie!!!)
I have questioned this once and now again, how do the people on Capitol Hill expect us to forgive banks of allowing us to grab loans and win approval from credit cards just to notify us that it's our fault we live beyond our means? We are punished every day at almost ten percent unemployment. I am blessed with a job which puts me in a position to stimulate the economy and I do, however somewhere between buying a tennis ball-sized peach for $1.50 and absorbing the 3% increase in rent, I have to draw the line. Businesses too big or too small to fail have shut their doors, or at the very least scaled back a considerable amount of employees. Making mortgages and buying homes is still a thing of the tangible past and elusive future. If we have to make sacrifices that work best for the whole family, it would be nice to have a role model at the top.
Just like the rest of the nation on a personal level, something has got to give. Raising the debt ceiling will only present another opportunity for mal-budgeting and the need to up it again in a few years. Taking away from Medicare, Social Security, or any other entitlement programs is a sheer desperate measure that would only make sense if such were not running efficiently.
Perhaps it would be most effective if large corporations were taxed like they ought to be - close the loopholes. Now here's an original idea, tax the wealthy at a higher rate since they write off bonds, dividends, and earnings which eases the burden on income. The United States is suppose to be an empire defined by big money. Our foreign peers do not have the sneaky tax escapes that we do. Tax the rich, get rid of earmarks, do not start programs that are not implementable.
As usual, the Republicans and Democrats are playing a game to see who will budge at the expense of our country as a whole. The root of our problems is political gain. Dear Gov't, we know you want to watch out for your friends, but what about the rest of us who can barely afford to buy lunch (25% increase at my local deli buffet!)?
My eyes and ears quickly became tired of "debt ceiling" as the hot word of the summer, so I chose "roof on fire" just because the borrowing limit is such a hot topic that if a bargain hasn't been met by Aug. 2nd., the roof will be burnt to a crisp and there will be no option but to live beyond our trillions. On the other hand, if our government can figure out a way to budget in a responsible manner like they expect the rest of us to do, we can still save the roof over our heads that we have left. Though, it was been burning for a while now.
It's rather similar to if I were to buy a brownstone from basement to rooftop that I would not be able to afford without taking some form of loan while taking to that home a most entertainingly expensive car, again, via a loan, and then attend truly elaborate, ridiculously priced dinners courtesy my credit card. Oh, and may as well travel the country by taking out some 401K. That is, the analogy I am very comfortable with making. After all, amidst the salaries and perks of our senators, they are able to draw money on earmarks (1.92 M for U.S. Territories Rum industries - I doubt this country needs help in the drinking department), expense pricey meals (for sake of visitors and business, of course, what I meant I would do), go to other countries to bully and/or exploit them (that's another article in itself), and enjoying private jets to places (ehem, Mr. Christie!!!)
I have questioned this once and now again, how do the people on Capitol Hill expect us to forgive banks of allowing us to grab loans and win approval from credit cards just to notify us that it's our fault we live beyond our means? We are punished every day at almost ten percent unemployment. I am blessed with a job which puts me in a position to stimulate the economy and I do, however somewhere between buying a tennis ball-sized peach for $1.50 and absorbing the 3% increase in rent, I have to draw the line. Businesses too big or too small to fail have shut their doors, or at the very least scaled back a considerable amount of employees. Making mortgages and buying homes is still a thing of the tangible past and elusive future. If we have to make sacrifices that work best for the whole family, it would be nice to have a role model at the top.
Just like the rest of the nation on a personal level, something has got to give. Raising the debt ceiling will only present another opportunity for mal-budgeting and the need to up it again in a few years. Taking away from Medicare, Social Security, or any other entitlement programs is a sheer desperate measure that would only make sense if such were not running efficiently.
Perhaps it would be most effective if large corporations were taxed like they ought to be - close the loopholes. Now here's an original idea, tax the wealthy at a higher rate since they write off bonds, dividends, and earnings which eases the burden on income. The United States is suppose to be an empire defined by big money. Our foreign peers do not have the sneaky tax escapes that we do. Tax the rich, get rid of earmarks, do not start programs that are not implementable.
As usual, the Republicans and Democrats are playing a game to see who will budge at the expense of our country as a whole. The root of our problems is political gain. Dear Gov't, we know you want to watch out for your friends, but what about the rest of us who can barely afford to buy lunch (25% increase at my local deli buffet!)?
My eyes and ears quickly became tired of "debt ceiling" as the hot word of the summer, so I chose "roof on fire" just because the borrowing limit is such a hot topic that if a bargain hasn't been met by Aug. 2nd., the roof will be burnt to a crisp and there will be no option but to live beyond our trillions. On the other hand, if our government can figure out a way to budget in a responsible manner like they expect the rest of us to do, we can still save the roof over our heads that we have left. Though, it was been burning for a while now.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Something old, something new, something...still there
On Friday, April 29th, 2011 a new Fairy Tale is born. The elegant, young, commoner Katherine Middleton marries Prince Charles oldest son, the bashful, handsome William in a extravagant, yet simple affair. Buckingham Palace got a face lift in preparation for London's many citizens as well as many visitors pouring in from around the world to witness a how a Royal wedding is done in this new century. For weeks the media has gone nuts over this occasion since it was a delightful escape from real-life and real-world dealings.
On Saturday, everyone was still on a royal high as commentators, whether it be on TV or in the deli, doused about the classy Grace Kelly-like dress Kate wore, William giving her not one, but two little pecks, and how light-hearted and funny his younger brother Harry is. What a sunny next day and a bright future for the country.
On Sunday, the news quieted down a bit just to be brought back to a higher level with the announcement of Osama Bin Laden. Because he is to blame for the turmoil Al Qaeda has caused to not only the U.S. but also Libya and other nations, many tuned in to hear the details of a US-led bust in Pakistan. Most vividly, Americans see his face behind the destruction of the Twin towers, the Pentagon, and numerous family units who have lost loved ones in the mix. New Yorkers and those who happen to be in the city came together in Times Square to watch our President on the big screen confirm that our worst enemy is dead.
In the aftermath of the weekend events, I still feel a bit uneasy. It's great to watch a beautiful fairy tale take place, but I'm still fending for my lunch every day, cent by cent. However, I'm extremely lucky in comparison to others who are too sick, too family-less, and too mentally unstable enough to take care of themselves. The Kings, Queens, Prices, and Princesses will lead a wonderful life and I hope they know it's in their duty to spread that wonderful wealth to those without.
It's also great to hear that the man responsible for rallying such a hateful group is taken down. However, that hateful group is still around and for some reason or another feel they are so victimized that others deserve to be also. Innocent bystanders and those fighting the battle for the most greedy beings in our world have been murdered beyond numbers.
So with all this, the only feeling I can say I have felt for certain this weekend is not one of jubilation nor relief, but rather of worry that we get too caught up in the hype and the symbolism. These events are not definitive. Poverty and violence lives on. It only takes one looking east, west, north, or south of the nearest major city to see it. Let's not forget those who need us over us needing to find a happy ending.
On Saturday, everyone was still on a royal high as commentators, whether it be on TV or in the deli, doused about the classy Grace Kelly-like dress Kate wore, William giving her not one, but two little pecks, and how light-hearted and funny his younger brother Harry is. What a sunny next day and a bright future for the country.
On Sunday, the news quieted down a bit just to be brought back to a higher level with the announcement of Osama Bin Laden. Because he is to blame for the turmoil Al Qaeda has caused to not only the U.S. but also Libya and other nations, many tuned in to hear the details of a US-led bust in Pakistan. Most vividly, Americans see his face behind the destruction of the Twin towers, the Pentagon, and numerous family units who have lost loved ones in the mix. New Yorkers and those who happen to be in the city came together in Times Square to watch our President on the big screen confirm that our worst enemy is dead.
In the aftermath of the weekend events, I still feel a bit uneasy. It's great to watch a beautiful fairy tale take place, but I'm still fending for my lunch every day, cent by cent. However, I'm extremely lucky in comparison to others who are too sick, too family-less, and too mentally unstable enough to take care of themselves. The Kings, Queens, Prices, and Princesses will lead a wonderful life and I hope they know it's in their duty to spread that wonderful wealth to those without.
It's also great to hear that the man responsible for rallying such a hateful group is taken down. However, that hateful group is still around and for some reason or another feel they are so victimized that others deserve to be also. Innocent bystanders and those fighting the battle for the most greedy beings in our world have been murdered beyond numbers.
So with all this, the only feeling I can say I have felt for certain this weekend is not one of jubilation nor relief, but rather of worry that we get too caught up in the hype and the symbolism. These events are not definitive. Poverty and violence lives on. It only takes one looking east, west, north, or south of the nearest major city to see it. Let's not forget those who need us over us needing to find a happy ending.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
USA.edu
Street smarts are a vital tool. Some neighborhoods are safer than other though the high risk areas tend to be close to the poverty level. Not many people prefer to get lost, get robbed, or get anything worse. I'll even take a risk at betting that people don't even want to be on the defense in the first place. So why then don't we look to evaluate the offense? High crime ties to high unemployment ties to high drop out rates in school, in any order, it's a cycle. The best thing we can do begin to see a change in the game is to lay out the foundations of a good education so we can make informed decisions and empowered communities.
Education is the building block of everything great, thoughtful and useful. It is needed in order for one to operate at his or her full potential. However, the cracks have become so plentiful and deep at such an alarming rate that it has become an overwhelming problem in which unfortunately few have been able to fix. It's not that the value of good schooling is overlooked. Schools are more funded than ever in the last forty years (more than 27% is spent per pupil) with teachers spending more to acquire a masters degree (more than half as opposed to a quarter)but it's simply not enough. Our kids are no more smarter than they were before even with these factors. The U.S. is only #21 and #25 in science and math respectively. Something is clearly missing. If a country prides itself as being a global leader in economy, entertainment, democracy, etc., its placement in knowledge should reflect the same.
The working formula for successful schools, that is those with a high graduating rate and better test scores than average, seems to be treating it like a business. Not meaning necessarily approaching it top to bottom as it is valuable to hear the kids out. They want to learn, as long as they see it will benefit them functionally and intellectually. Companies have an executive team lead by a CEO who has the power to make a change when and where it is needed. Although there is a board of directors, there should be a paradigm and also a bottom line. The board of directors should include parents and teachers while the bottom line should simply be to get the kids that diploma and prepare them for the future. The current structure doesn't allow room for change and for all parties to have a say since it is so political. Recently, Mayor Bloomberg has chosen Cathie Black of Hearst to become chancellor of the Harlem Children's Zone sans any experience in teaching. Who cares? She runs a successful business. Give her a chance and see what she can do which is likely better than those in the industry who don' t know how to manage money and people.
In addition, unions also inconvenience change. Teacher who are not being held accountable for the continuing mis-education of our children are retained. For whatever reason, whether it be poor resources, bad leaders (i.e. principals, superintendents), the more we drink from the same water, more sick we become. The more we become sick, the more we will have to rely on benefits to take care of us.
What people don't realize is that those who expect social services and government money are those who never had a chance to finish school, nor to make a career, nor just a job. These services cost Americans so much that we complain about paying taxes. The root of it is the learning institutions and how we can nurture our future with the resources and tools they need so that won't have to worry about being a burden on society later. We must move now and create a world of obtainable success for students.
Teachers, principals, and yes, parents make up this world as well as the interior and exterior of the buildings itself. How motivated would anyone be if wall paper is pealing, water is leaking, and computers run slower than a the internet on a blackberry? The best way to show kids that they are worth it, it is to create an environment that they would want to spend their day learning in. A positive atmosphere sets the move. Presentation at least works in Advertising and Marketing as a vital component in relaying a particular message. And if the building looks neat and welcoming, perhaps the rest of the neighborhood could follow.
Let's turn the streets smart by giving our kids the chance to the best education that can. It takes an adaptable and competent team as well as a positive environment to build a society and country of able citizens. Every decade, another generation retires leaving the ones following to pick up the tools. It is up to us to build a strong foundation of education now, so that we can safely inhabit any neighborhood...and not pay more taxes in the long run no matter where we live!
Education is the building block of everything great, thoughtful and useful. It is needed in order for one to operate at his or her full potential. However, the cracks have become so plentiful and deep at such an alarming rate that it has become an overwhelming problem in which unfortunately few have been able to fix. It's not that the value of good schooling is overlooked. Schools are more funded than ever in the last forty years (more than 27% is spent per pupil) with teachers spending more to acquire a masters degree (more than half as opposed to a quarter)but it's simply not enough. Our kids are no more smarter than they were before even with these factors. The U.S. is only #21 and #25 in science and math respectively. Something is clearly missing. If a country prides itself as being a global leader in economy, entertainment, democracy, etc., its placement in knowledge should reflect the same.
The working formula for successful schools, that is those with a high graduating rate and better test scores than average, seems to be treating it like a business. Not meaning necessarily approaching it top to bottom as it is valuable to hear the kids out. They want to learn, as long as they see it will benefit them functionally and intellectually. Companies have an executive team lead by a CEO who has the power to make a change when and where it is needed. Although there is a board of directors, there should be a paradigm and also a bottom line. The board of directors should include parents and teachers while the bottom line should simply be to get the kids that diploma and prepare them for the future. The current structure doesn't allow room for change and for all parties to have a say since it is so political. Recently, Mayor Bloomberg has chosen Cathie Black of Hearst to become chancellor of the Harlem Children's Zone sans any experience in teaching. Who cares? She runs a successful business. Give her a chance and see what she can do which is likely better than those in the industry who don' t know how to manage money and people.
In addition, unions also inconvenience change. Teacher who are not being held accountable for the continuing mis-education of our children are retained. For whatever reason, whether it be poor resources, bad leaders (i.e. principals, superintendents), the more we drink from the same water, more sick we become. The more we become sick, the more we will have to rely on benefits to take care of us.
What people don't realize is that those who expect social services and government money are those who never had a chance to finish school, nor to make a career, nor just a job. These services cost Americans so much that we complain about paying taxes. The root of it is the learning institutions and how we can nurture our future with the resources and tools they need so that won't have to worry about being a burden on society later. We must move now and create a world of obtainable success for students.
Teachers, principals, and yes, parents make up this world as well as the interior and exterior of the buildings itself. How motivated would anyone be if wall paper is pealing, water is leaking, and computers run slower than a the internet on a blackberry? The best way to show kids that they are worth it, it is to create an environment that they would want to spend their day learning in. A positive atmosphere sets the move. Presentation at least works in Advertising and Marketing as a vital component in relaying a particular message. And if the building looks neat and welcoming, perhaps the rest of the neighborhood could follow.
Let's turn the streets smart by giving our kids the chance to the best education that can. It takes an adaptable and competent team as well as a positive environment to build a society and country of able citizens. Every decade, another generation retires leaving the ones following to pick up the tools. It is up to us to build a strong foundation of education now, so that we can safely inhabit any neighborhood...and not pay more taxes in the long run no matter where we live!
Thursday, November 4, 2010
You can have the House, I'll take the car
President Obama is halfway through his first term. While some ask, "so what exactly has he done so far?", others don't even go that far as to ask but instead, choose to vote Republican if they even vote at all. The answer to the question, in a nutshell is:
Obama and his administration have prevented credit card companies from hiking up interest rates on consumers; created a bureau to protect consumers (let's hope this works!); taken our troops out of a place they do not belong - Afghanistan; stopped banks from propriety trading (aka trading our funds on items that conflict with our interests); extended benefits for same-sex Federal employees; and amongst other strong legislation, HEALTHCARE. And no, Viagra to sex offenders is not in the Healthcare bill. Stop listening to shock news.
Now that that's covered, the economy and job creation is essential and should be top priority; so let's take a look at the U.S. economy in history to get an idea of where were are possibly headed. The dotcoms took off in the 90s, though high unemployment slipped in around the beginning. Why? Mainly because of inflation, oil issues, and new banking regulations. But before that, another crisis despaired our country. That crisis was due to the Iran Revolution and oil issues (yet again). Bankruptcies overcame businesses, President Reagan concluded that tax cuts to the wealthy would trickle down, and as the ever scary inflation inflated matters. But before that, the stock market crash in the mid-seventies was probably the worse. War in Vietnam had to be paid for and oil, again was an issue. But before that, the baddest of them all, The Great Depression in the thirties holds the great crown of the United State's economic disasters. The banking industry completely collapsed and it would take more than fours years to climb out of that hole. Unemployment hit a record twenty-five percent. Still a record. Jobs weren't actually recovered until another decade. In the 70s, the percentage of people without jobs may of hit about 9% and didn't lessen until the 80s in which it peaked back up again. Getting back work and the rate down took anywhere between 3 to 6 years in previous downfalls. So this time around, how can we expect for jobs to turn around so quickly? It's only been two years since Bush's financial tactics were realized and two years since Obama has sat at the desk. It's going to take a while.
After midterms, it seems that America wants a change but there hasn't even been enough time to let the changes just made surface. The president has been rallying around the country in order to send out the message that something is being done and the people, or party, driving this something being done (please refer to the top of the page as to what "something" is) need to stay put. He also whipped out an analogy meant to sum up his message. If the country were a car, then Republicans drove it into a ditch. The Democrats are now in the ditch trying to get the car out as the Republicans yell they are doing it wrong without offering solutions and oh, they're drinking a slurpee. Now that the car is out and on the road, it is pointed in the right direction. All of a sudden, or actually pretty anticipated, the Republicans want the keys back.
Well Republicans, you can have the House, but we're keeping onto the keys. I'd rather put the car in "D" and take this country to a better place. Obama has done a great deal during his presidency so far and it's probably best to ride with him.
Obama and his administration have prevented credit card companies from hiking up interest rates on consumers; created a bureau to protect consumers (let's hope this works!); taken our troops out of a place they do not belong - Afghanistan; stopped banks from propriety trading (aka trading our funds on items that conflict with our interests); extended benefits for same-sex Federal employees; and amongst other strong legislation, HEALTHCARE. And no, Viagra to sex offenders is not in the Healthcare bill. Stop listening to shock news.
Now that that's covered, the economy and job creation is essential and should be top priority; so let's take a look at the U.S. economy in history to get an idea of where were are possibly headed. The dotcoms took off in the 90s, though high unemployment slipped in around the beginning. Why? Mainly because of inflation, oil issues, and new banking regulations. But before that, another crisis despaired our country. That crisis was due to the Iran Revolution and oil issues (yet again). Bankruptcies overcame businesses, President Reagan concluded that tax cuts to the wealthy would trickle down, and as the ever scary inflation inflated matters. But before that, the stock market crash in the mid-seventies was probably the worse. War in Vietnam had to be paid for and oil, again was an issue. But before that, the baddest of them all, The Great Depression in the thirties holds the great crown of the United State's economic disasters. The banking industry completely collapsed and it would take more than fours years to climb out of that hole. Unemployment hit a record twenty-five percent. Still a record. Jobs weren't actually recovered until another decade. In the 70s, the percentage of people without jobs may of hit about 9% and didn't lessen until the 80s in which it peaked back up again. Getting back work and the rate down took anywhere between 3 to 6 years in previous downfalls. So this time around, how can we expect for jobs to turn around so quickly? It's only been two years since Bush's financial tactics were realized and two years since Obama has sat at the desk. It's going to take a while.
After midterms, it seems that America wants a change but there hasn't even been enough time to let the changes just made surface. The president has been rallying around the country in order to send out the message that something is being done and the people, or party, driving this something being done (please refer to the top of the page as to what "something" is) need to stay put. He also whipped out an analogy meant to sum up his message. If the country were a car, then Republicans drove it into a ditch. The Democrats are now in the ditch trying to get the car out as the Republicans yell they are doing it wrong without offering solutions and oh, they're drinking a slurpee. Now that the car is out and on the road, it is pointed in the right direction. All of a sudden, or actually pretty anticipated, the Republicans want the keys back.
Well Republicans, you can have the House, but we're keeping onto the keys. I'd rather put the car in "D" and take this country to a better place. Obama has done a great deal during his presidency so far and it's probably best to ride with him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
