Every little kid loves wheels. They love speed. This is one of the main reasons why they run around the house the whole day. Kids love to have skates, or roller blades. However, every kid’s favorite object to travel is a bike. Bikes are the perfect way to travel to places that are just around the corner or a distance away. No matter where you are going, you will most likely enjoy riding a bike. There are some people who never learned how to ride a bike, and now that they have reached adulthood, they feel that they cannot learn anymore. However, everyone should learn to ride a bike since it is an awesome experience( to learn how to ride a bike, click here.) There are different reasons why people like to ride bikes. They either do it for recreational purposes or to race.
I’m fairly old now. I don’t say that with spit. I actually kind of like getting older. But there are a lot of things I know now that I wish I would have known when I was younger. In particular, there are tons of things I wish I would have known about my skin.
You see, I struggled with acne all through my teenage years, and that made middle school and high school (and even the first couple years of college) much tougher than they should have been. I was also a victim of conventional wisdom. What do I mean by that? Well, conventional wisdom just has a lot to say about skin care, and almost all of it is totally wrong. Let me give you an example. Most conventional wisdom says that what you eat has absolutely no bearing on what your skin does. And that is totally, absolutely, 100% wrong (more on this below). Conventional wisdom also likes to contract itself; for example, people used to say that chocolate is the one and only food that caused pimples. I mean, how crazy is that?
As I aged, I eventually grew out of my acne, but I was still left with quite a few scars. Plus, as I got older, I started to fall victim to other types of blemishes. For example, I seem to be prone to dark spots, which are about as annoying as any acne I’ve ever had (although I’m much more emotionally equipped to deal with a blemish now than I was when I was 13).
So, I just wanted to take a few minutes to jot down some of my thoughts in a blog post. My hope is that these little tidbits will help a young girl out there who’s struggling with the same kind of things I struggled with. Whoever you are, I hope you don’t have to learn this stuff the hard way!
- Try paleo. Paleo wasn’t even a thing when I was a kid. That’s mostly because I grew up in the 50s, when everything was canned and canning itself (as in, the actually process of putting foods in cans and then mass distributing them) was sweeping the country. However, overly processed foods cause inflammation, and acne breakouts are really just a certain kind of inflammation. So, try Paleo or any other anti-inflammatory diet.
- Use dark spot corrector. Dark spot corrector have been a godsend to me. I was totally skeptical of them at first, but they really do work. Usually, this kind of product has some sort of lightening agent. The trick here is to find a gentle cream and not something super astringent. Also, you should pair it with a good moisturizer for the best results.
- Try some gadgets! I love gadgets, and, while there are plenty of wonky, useless gadgets out there, there are also some that work really well. The Dermawand, for example, works wonders for sagging skin and bags beneath your eyes.
Those are just a few tips I’ve learned from my own experience, but I know there’s probably hundreds more. So please leave a comment if you know any!
America’s fascination with guns has existed as long as, if not prior to the creation of this country. Going as far back as 1676 when laws were put on the books requiring settlers in the New World to keep firearms in their homes. The purpose of these firearms was to provide protection against the Native Americans who were trying to remove the settlers from their land.
Jump ahead in time 25 years, and you have the Kentucky rifle. This rifle quickly became the quintessential identifying mark of a frontiersman. Because of its long-range for the time, this gun was linked to the idea of independence through force. Rifles and Rifle Accessories (including security) were a very long way off!
A century later, a very famous individual, Samuel Colt designed and mass produced a weapon that carries his name. One of the most popular slogans of the time indicated that it was God who made man, but Samuel Colt was the one that made all men equal. It was not uncommon to see men walking around carrying their Colt revolvers. These guns quickly became the thing of the lore and the thing of legend. Even today when people speak about the wild West, they do so in the same breath with these Colt revolvers.
Flash forward 200 years, and guns are still a prominent part of American life. Whether it was gangsters running through in the 1920s to 40s with their famed Tommy guns, or war veterans with their AK-47s, guns played a large role in defining what it meant to be powerful, and what it meant to be a man in America.
Guns became a major part of the entertainment. It became difficult to watch a movie, read a book, or see a television show that did not feature a hero that was able to save the town, rescue a damsel in distress, and enforce justice at the end of a gun. Even today in the United States the most popular shows on television involved a gun wielding hero.
Guns have always been a symbol of family greatness in the United States. In many American families, guns are passed down from father to son to grandson. Having the same gun in the family represents a family legacy. It is designed to represent all of the accomplishments that the men in the family were able to make using their gun. Whether it be defending the family from attackers, conquering the land, or hunting large beast. Pride in firearms is becoming even more noticeable this year, as is gun safety and making sure people take the proper precautions to prevent any harm from coming to their family by any unattended firearm accidents.
For all of their love of guns, Americans are somewhat particular about who they feel should and should not have guns. Many gun laws that have been passed in the United States were passed not with the idea of preventing everyone from having guns, but instead preventing a selected group of individuals who were deemed as underclass from owning these symbols of power and authority. They did this while vehemently holding on to their rights to own guns.
Because of America’s history with guns, and because of the importance guns have played not only in conquering the land, but also in enforcing particular ideas and beliefs, people are extremely reluctant to give up their guns. It is unlikely that Americans will change their position on guns and gun ownership anytime soon.
In an essay entitled “The Present Human Condition”, Erich Fromm observed that our modern society “needs men who cooperate easily in large groups, who want to consume more and more and whose tastes are standardized and can be easily influenced and anticipated. It needs men who feel free and independent, not subject to any authority or principle or conscience, yet are willing to be commanded, to do what is expected, to fit into the social machine without friction; men who can be guided without force, led without leaders, be prompted without aim… This kind of man, modern industrialism has succeeded in producing.” Harsh words, but accurate.
Flash forward to the year 2009 and do we see any demonstrable change in our lives? Do we resemble those remarks?
Well, I must confess, the description is too apt for my liking. After reading that essay, I began to think about my own life, and the lives of the people around me. We all seem so stressed out, beaten down. There seems to be less time than ever to do more.
Well, more communicating, for one thing. In 1955, the major pathways of communication by individuals were by letter, for the exchange of less time sensitive communications, or by phone, for more immediate needs; mass communication was accomplished by television and radio. Computers were only found in large, corporate settings because technology was too big to carry. In 2009, we have television, personal computer internet, fixed landline telephones and portable cellular phones, as well as other, fading technological options, such as pagers (why have a pager if you can call someone directly?).
We are more connected through more technology than we have ever been. But are we communicating? I see people walking down the street talking, constantly talking; I hear what is being said, but lot of what I hear is rather mundane. Sometimes, I would rather not hear what is being said, but I don’t seem to have a choice. I went to the movies last week, and even after the pre-movie announcement told people to turn off their cellular phones, there were incoming calls and people answering them, reflexively.
Email is a wonderful invention! I love being able to send a friend a message and get one back so much more quickly than by old fashioned letter. But, these days, I find, my friends don’t have much time to reply to my messages, because they have too much to do, and too many other messages that need to be sorted through. Occasionally, I get an email that contains a software destructive virus, gumming up my computer, or otherwise causing expense and inconvenience. Or, because I belong to a group that I want to keep in touch with, we exchange emails because phone conversations between multiple members is not as functional. On the other hand, a 30-60 email thread is sometimes less effective than a five minute discussion with one or two of the key players.
Letters are very old fashioned, so much so that no one has time to write them any longer. One must wonder if future archeologists will be able to discover any footprint at all from the present generation, as regards day-to-day life. The Post Office delivers only advertising circulars and bills to my door, as well as packages of things I have ordered by; if it were not for the advertising circulars, the Post Office would have to quit operations.
If I am in a waiting room for some sort of appointment, I am greeted by a plasma television screen that broadcasts an endless stream of infomercial about procedures, products, ways to prepare vegetables or chatty witticisms. It is rather alarmingly like the two-way telescreens in Orwell’s 1984. Frighteningly enough, all of this loud technology has been made just for me, to satisfy my desires and to allow me freedom of choice.
The phone rings, and we answer. The email comes, and we answer. The text message comes, and we answer. The bill comes in the mail, and we pay it, and while we are writing checks, we respond to the direct mail request from one of dozens of charity requests we might receive during a week. We sort our garbage into different colored bins, and line them up on the street. Absently. Reflexively.
It occurred to me, at some point, that I spend too much time communicating not very much of substance and even more time following up on loose threads of communications. Reflexively, absently, we serve our technology; our technology does not serve us.
The Modern Myth of Connectivity, Cohesion and Community
There is no mistaking the fact that the average person has become caught up in the sticky web of the “information age.” The biggest sales pitch of the late 20th Century was that the “information super-highway” would connect people to more of the information that they crave, and that it would, moreover, all be free! In the great American tradition of “keeping up with the Jones,” the public has joined en masse in a run of materialistic hubris that has yet to play itself out. With technological advances dictating ever shorter and shorter times between the next best proprietary version, not just the United States, but every so-called “advanced” or “developed” society that has embraced the computer age has been culpable in contributing to polluting the planet in what may be an irreparable way, and has furthered defined the “anatomy of human destructiveness” that Erich Fromm observed and theorized about throughout his work, particularly in Escape From Freedom, The Sane Society and To Have Or To Be.
The pay-off for this has been what I call the myth of greater connectivity, cohesion, and community. While it is truly marvelous and useful to be able to reach a friend or business colleague on the other side of the world by phone or email, perhaps a lot of our communication that way is not so urgent. In reality, we have become spastic post-modern prisoners of our gadgets and gizmos. We are, in our Facebook world, tethered to Blackberries, iPhones and various species of laptops, just as unfulfilled and isolated as ever we were. We flinch at the first jingle of our cell phones and answer them reflexively, no matter what we are doing or who we are with. Texting has replaced face-to-face conversation. The cynical joke is that we now have more technologically advanced ways to evade contact with other people than ever before. The modern existential dilemma is that we live in fear of being out of touch. We live in fear.
Because we are so focused on our personal image of being up-to-date and “with it”, we have really trapped ourselves in little technological bubbles of false self-importance, losing sight of the world around us, cutting ourselves off from deeper connections with people. We have put the responsibility for defining ourselves and for understanding the world around us on others.
Craving for deeper connection, we are easily manipulated in the marketplace and also, by extension, at the polling places. This manipulation occurs in the most cunning way. The general message is usually something like, “we have what you want, and we want you to have it!” And we have fallen for it hook, line and sinker. “Freedom of choice!” the ad banners loudly proclaim.
How is has this been accomplished? Don’t laugh (for one thing, it is not funny!), but behavior analysis of organizations and behavior modification. We are back to B.F. Skinner and the operant perspective, but expanded to account for political behaviors. Kacmar and Baron (1999) observed that political activities have two common aspects: (1) actual motivations behind behaviors are often hidden from the target of the behavior and (2) political behaviors tend to occur when there is competition over limited resources, perhaps especially when there weak or unclear rules as to how the resources are to be allocated. Political behaviors are either enacted toward the upper end of a hierarchy or networked laterally.
Political Action at the Click of a Mouse
Since 1996, facilitating political action by computer has become a big business trend. The 2008 presidential election saw greater use of political websites than ever before. The non-profit world of “causes” was probably at the forefront of this movement toward electronic politics, offering information about causes. Some sites are more interactive than others. The on-line PAC MoveOn.org has developed an interesting “political talk” approach, definitely of the persuasive variety. Interested parties add their email addresses to the list serve, and the PAC keeps the list serve primed with all the latest news and information. Barber (1984) noted that when political talk is limited to persuasion, where individual participants do not have the freedom to participate with equality of reciprocity, the service to democracy is thin. The approach of MoveOn.org is interesting in that it appears to allow participants the opportunity of face-to-face discussion via local parties and discussion groups (where funds can be raised), but there is little evidence that participation in these groups ultimately results in a group consensus. Instead, the consensus is directed from the top by the use of persuasive email campaigns that often start with a complaint about something “the opposition” has done that should outrage us in some way (for example, a few months ago, I received a message that started out: “Did you hear what Rush Limbaugh said about Obama’s recovery plan?”). The participants are then asked, no—actually, they are directed—to write in to their Congress people or sign a petition.
These are very effective campaigns of persuasion, but do they serve a greater democratic consensus or are do they actually serve a more shallow democracy? And if the latter is true, who are the people defining our democratic action for us (first massaging us by telling us they know we are thoughtful and responsible and reasonable people) telling us what we should be thinking and how we can act on behalf of whatever that is? Could this be lobbying masquerading as democracy?
But, PACs are not the only political entities making use of persuasive political talk. Think about all the email you receive from your Congress persons. Somewhere along the line, you signed up or you wrote in, and your email address was captured, so that you are on the list-serve of some politico who sends you personal notes at intervals. Do they have time to do this? No, of course not. They are busy doing their work. And have press aids or other assistants to write these informative, and sometimes persuasive, letters about the latest legislation they want you to support.
Our Choices, Made By Others
While we are busy keeping up with all the messages from all their various streams and avoiding our work by playing computer solitaire, we are missing what is going on in plain sight. It starts at the municipal level and in the workplace, and permeates every aspect of our living:
We have put our faith in our municipal civic leaders to make decisions on how best to run our communities. We don’t tend to watch these activities closely, we are busy with other things. Then we find out that our city is going bankrupt because the city staff has sold out to developers.
We have put our faith in our union leaders to make decisions that are in our best interest. We let them tell us how to vote, we let them lead collective bargaining. We don’t tend to watch these activities closely because, well, we are working and we think, this is why we have leaders, so that they can look out for us. Then we find out that our leaders have collectively bargained our jobs to other shores, dealt away our health care benefits and pilfered our pensions.
We put our faith in our government regulatory agencies to provide safeguards for our health and safety. They are professionals, we think to ourselves, and we don’t have time, like they do, to do the studies and all the reading. Then we find out that expensive drugs have been put on the market (and widely advertised by all our communication streams) that cause greater health risks than the conditions that the drugs were supposed to alleviate. But we don’t find this out until lots of people end up in the hospital or, worse, die.
We put our faith in our political party leaders to know what we want, what is good for everyone, what is equitable and just. This is why we belong to the party—we don’t have time to keep up with all the issues that our party leaders are on top of day in and day out. We vote they way the party tells us to vote. And then we find out that the party that we have had faith in doesn’t have the backbone to vote in a way that makes life equitable and just.
All Systems Failing
I walk down the street in my town, and the streets are in bad shape; maintenance has been deferred, because the town does not have the money to make the repairs. And even if the town had money to make the repairs, they had to layoff the workers who would do the work.
The cable company keeps double billing me. I call in, but have to wade through a complex phone system to get a customer service person who can talk to me incoherently about my bill. In the old days, there was a line you could call for billing, a line you could call for service; now there is a single phone number and an alphabet soup of exchanges one must make by push button on the phone to direct the call to the right person. Once you get to “the right person” chances are you will be redirected to yet another individual—and the phone connection might be lost, so you have to start the entire process over again.
The Internal Revenue Service reminds me of the telephone exchange in Kafka’s The Castle, where you speak into the receiver, but it is unclear if anyone is at the other end of the line and no one answers your query; in the case of the IRS, you send in paperwork that is never acknowledged, but requests for more paperwork and more money come to you, and none of them ever seem to find true resolution, but lead instead to further requests. There is no way for an individual to investigate what is happening or not happening, and one cannot work with a single agent to resolve an issue from beginning to end. There is no way to determine if what is being done on your case is accurate or inaccurate, just or unjust.
What I allude to, by way of these vague hypothetical examples, is that we believe we live in a land that proclaims freedom and choice. But our choices are determined for us, perhaps most of all by large companies who stock miles of store shelves with consumer items we must purchase if we want to prove to our neighbors that we are free and have choice. Now that I have purchased the plasma television that is digital, not analog, I am told that I am sucking up too much of our precious energy and that this is bad, but there is no going back—analog is gone now. Was that a real choice?
I am free and have the choice to pay for sustainable housing, health insurance, college education, the latest technological gizmos, the ecologically sound car, organic snack foods. But what does this mean? And if I cannot afford to do this, what will happen to me? If society cannot afford to do these things, what will happen to it?
Where This Leaves Us and What Can Be Done
If you think the foregoing assessment has been cynical and unrealistic, let me give you a concrete example from current events: healthcare. For the first time in 8 years, we have an opportunity to finally, after nearly 20 years, get a national healthcare plan. Or do we? Our elected, Democratic Party leaders are working on our behalf, making national healthcare a reality for all people who live in the United States. Or are they?
The reality is that ours is a republic, not a democracy. Our representation can be democratically chosen, and should be—but the system is not democratic. We tend to ignore many of the details at the start of an election process, and vote at the end of it reflexively, based on our party affiliation more than any other reason, as if we don’t have any choice in the matter. And the truth is, we don’t have any real choice, for we have largely given over our personal power to someone or something beyond ourselves.
What is the solution to this dilemma? Well, there is no easy, push the button solution—that is certain. A start is to recognize that our choices are really quite few. We cannot complacently live as blind operatives within an incoherent system—and as if we asked for the system to be that way! No, we must stop acting reflexively, and look away from our technology out at the world, applying critical thought, rather than cute consensus twittering, to things we have too long taken for granted and given over to others to do, without oversight.
Where do we begin? Well, take that popular slogan, “think globally, act locally” and put it into practice when thinking about what your real choices are, and what you want them to be. Any global real choices that we want, we should want them not just for ourselves, but for everyone: clean air, clean water, healthy food, affordable housing, healthcare, meaningful work for a living wage. We need to want that, and work for it where we live; knowing that we can only closely tend our own garden. If we start by working locally, by becoming truly informed on local matters and acting toward what we believe to be in the best interests of everyone, we will be less likely to act reflexively at the ballot box. Read here emptywords.ca
I read the New York Times yesterday on the student loan debt crisis. It is hitting at the worst time, when the economy is just beginning to show some signs of getting out of the recession. A Vanderbilt professor of mine said that the students would eventually start defaulting on their loan obligations in large numbers, very similar to the housing crisis continuing to weigh on the US economy at present. And he’s being proven right. The student default rate in Georgia and Tennessee is already 9.2% and 10.8% respectively. The national rate is 8.8%. If Congress fails to act decisively to reduce debt obligations for students, it will slow economic growth and reduce the number of American innovators that become job-creators. However, I believe that if our legislators take the right steps, we can ensure that our country will continue to remain competitive with other nations in the future.
Interest rates on Federal Stafford Loans are set to increase from 3.4% to 6.8% interest on July 1st, assuming that Congress is unable to agree on how to pay for the $6 billion dollars that it will cost to keep rates low. I feel, however, that the federal government should actually reduce the rate to 1% to allow students to pay off their loans more easily. Although the cost will be greater for the government initially, reducing the rate would make it less likely for a former student to default on their obligations. The interest rate goes primarily towards combating inflation. Since the inflation has remained low for some time due to the recession, I think that it would be reasonable for the government to lower their rates, at least until the economy begins to move forward once again.
The federal government should also take the position of allowing the deferment of payments for up to 2 years after graduation. This gives a college graduate the opportunity to find employment and save up money required for making the proper payments. This would solve the issue of being unemployed while having to make payments of $800 or $900 dollars a month without an income. The student will be able to find a good job with enough income to pay down the debt more quickly.
Another solution to the student loan crisis involves reduced state and local payments for public colleges. Over the last few years, states have asked their state college students to shoulder a larger burden of the costs of going to school. According to College Board, state and local financing declined 24% from 2001-2011. Meanwhile tuitions and fees at these schools increased 72%. If states were willing to increase their education budgets, they would be able to lower tuition for students which would make it less likely that they would need to take out loans in the first place. State legislators need to be publically pressured to stop the educational budget cuts, especially in a recession.
By implementing these solutions, we can ensure that our young Americans are not bankrupting themselves while trying to further their education. If they have more disposable income to spend on items rather than their loans, these students will be able to help the economy. It’s time that we invest in America’s future. Education is a right not an entitlement. Generation Y deserves an opportunity to exercise that right and create a brighter future for themselves and their children. Read many related article from homepage
As we all know, the issue of student loans is becoming more and more daunting everyday. With unemployment still hanging around at 8 percent, it is becoming harder and harder for graduates to find the income necessary to pay off their loans. As Hirak stated, the national student default rate is currently 8.8%.
Hirak’s idea of lowering the interest rate on students coming out of college is one that I fully support. With the default rate being rather high already, increasing the amount students will have to pay will merely add more people from our generation to that statistic. Lowering the interest rates will keep it more affordable for everyone, thus more people will be making their payments. Loan debt works in much the same way as an economic downturn. When the downturn begins to affect many people, they begin to panic and think short term. The same thing happens with loans. When many people begin to default, the immediate reaction is to raise interest to get your money back more quickly. I would encourage our government to think long term in times of crisis. By lowering the interest rates you will end up making more in the long run becuase you will have more loans fully paid off.
HIrak’s idea of a 2 year deferment, however, promotes irresponsibility. While it may be hard to find a job in this economy, allowing graduates a 2 year “grace period” per say would be very difficult to regulate. It also would promote a false sense of security. If the payments are initiated immediately out of college, then the graduate will have incentive to be driven rather than “weighing their options” a.k.a. accepting that it is hard to find a job and deciding they will take a break for the time being. If the interest rates are cut to 1%, there will also be less pressure on the student if they are indeed unable to find a job. That being said, in certain circumstances (of freak proportions) deferments should and would be allowed.
As for the view on state payments for colleges, the state can only provide so much money to cover tuition. The reason for the 24% decrease in financing between ’01-’11 was the crashing of the economy. With America struggling monetarily, it was very difficult for the government to continue giving as much to the schools. The real problem that needs to be addressed is the schools themselves. There has been a 72% increase in tuition over the same period of time as the 24% decrease in state funding. So where does that extra 50% come from? I will grant that some of the increase comes due to the inflation of the dollar. The majority of the increase, however, does not. Increasing state education budget will simply require more taxes coming out of our pockets which will lead to us paying the cost anyway.
The problem has started with the schools, and must stay with the schools. One way in which schools could lower tuition for in-state students is to give less money to out of state students. This would require some sacrifice by us to stay in the state in which we live. At the University of South Carolina, most out of state students go to school for the in-state price. That raises the price for in-state students to make up for the money lost by not charging for out of state. While it is necessary to have out of state students to help offset tuition, if our generation would decide to stay in-state more often, then tuition would gradually lower.
The goal is to allow each young individual to get the best education possible, not only for the student him/herself, but for the benefit of the country as a whole. Education is a necessity, therefore it should be within reason for it to be attained. View more
Some of my friends were in town for the NATO Summit protests this week. NATO was founded during the Cold War to counter the Soviet Union. In recent years, it has been involved in the air campaign in Libya and the War on Terror in Afghanistan. This week, Obama sat down to discuss accelerating the timetable for the Afghan takeover of defense duties from NATO to 2013 rather than 2014. While the focus is primary on Afghanistan, I think that the more important discussion should be over the role that the US plays in future world conflicts.
World War I and World War II set the stage for the enlargement of the US role in world politics. By the end of the war, the Soviet Union and the US were recognized as world superpowers. During the Cold War, the US intervened in several conflicts including the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Afghan-Soviet war in the 1970s. The US wanted to prevent the Soviets from expanding their sphere of influence. Despite the Co 5a8 ld War’s end in the 1990s, the US continued to have military presence in many different countries throughout the world.
The US must reduce its military presence abroad. While President Obama has withdrawn troops from Iraq, he needs to follow through with doing the same in Afghanistan. The commitment to reducing the NATO commitment by 2013 is encouraging. However, there needs to be improved military strategy on preventing long drawn out conflicts in the future. Part of that strategy must include more engagement in diplomacy to cultivate allies. Especially crucial to diplomatic calculations will be Pakistan whose relationship with the US is at an all-time low. The US needs to convince Pakistan to work with Afghanistan to fight terrorists on its borders. In doing so, the US can encourage cooperation and lessen the dependence on US firepower.
The US must reduce its military budget and increase US economic foreign aid to other countries. The US needs to focus on building schools and fighting poverty in developing countries. It is currently just 0.95% of the US budget as of 2011. Targeting aid to the countries that need it the most would be productive for our nation’s security interests. It is far more difficult for terrorists to recruit in countries when the population is educated and doing well economically. It would also serve to build good-will around the world.
Overall, the US needs to bring b 32e8 ack its focus to the domestic front and reduce its presence militarily on the international front. Our deficit is rising and our economy will need further help in the coming years.That does not mean that we should not help other countries. I believe that we need to solve conflicts through diplomacy and economic aid to those in need. Occasionally, military intervention will still be necessary but that should involve shorter actions that avoid boots on the ground if possible. I also hope to see President Obama pursue efforts to improve the economic well-being of developing countries. In doing so, he will be moving in a positive direction, towards a more peaceful world.
War is a necessary tool when it comes to fighting violent groups of people and can also increase a country’s power. As Hirak stated, World Wars I and II increased American influence in the world. While power is not, and should not, be the only goal of war, it is necessary to have influence on the direction the world is to go.
The US does not simply put troops in countries just because they can. In most situations, there is a strategic reason for the placement of the troops whether it is for our protection, or the protection of another country. While I agree that we may spend a little bit too much money on military interests here and there, I also understand that freedom comes at a price.
Reducing our military budget and increasing aid does not save American dollars in any sense. If the goal of reducing military costs is to save money, then why would we turn around and give even more in foreign aid? We have already seen that aiding other countries (Afghanistan and Iraq in the 90′s) does not work. In fact, it seemed to have the opposite effect. Going back to the Cold War, we see the same thing happen. The US was allied with the Soviet Union and helped aid them, then the Soviet Union became American public enemy number one. In theory, aiding countries and avoiding war sounds great, but in practicality cannot be done.
We must look at America much like we do the world’s top enterprises. Which company do you think is more likely to be targeted by somebody looking to do serious damage, Trump International? or a mom and pop shop? I think it is fairly obvious that the answer is Trump International. Well, what would we say is Trump’s best defense against an attack? Would we say that Trump needs to pay to help the mom and pop shops progress, or would we say that Trump should invest in state of the art defense systems? I would say it would be the defense systems. So why would you have a different opinion for the US? The US is still one of the world’s superpowers, regardless of our economic situation. We will continue to be targeted and the only way to combat these attacks is a strong defense system, aka our military.
While aid is a great thing, and should be done (in moderation), it alone cannot defend the US or even spark progress in other countries. This has been proven time and time again through the examples i mentioned above, as well as in the Diem dynasty during the war in Vietnam (before we joined in). The only way for the aid that we provide to do the job that it is intended to do, is for us to oversee that it goes to the spots that it is designated for. Otherwise, the money will have gone to waste. Who would we use to oversee the distribution of aid? The military. We needn’t do it through force, but we should insure that our aid is not going to waste. That cannot be done without the presence of our military.
Reducing the military presence would be the worst thing that the US could do when it comes to protecting our country. People often overlook the safety that is provided to us through the sacrifice that these men and women give, not always with their lives… but certainly always with their time. I am not saying that we should vamp up our military efforts, I’m simply saying that we should not reduce our military in the hopes of putting an end to future attacks. Diplomacy and aid can only do so much for a country who is not looking to change their ways. Read this article: http://www.emptywords.ca/liberals-would-you-date-a-tea-partier-bipartisanship-in-21st-centur-21f0-y-politics/
To the question above, I answer strongly in the affirmative. I would certainly date a member of the Tea Party if the opportunity came up. As I’ll outline later in this piece, successful relationships are similar to successful work in Congress to pass legislation that moves the country forward. The failure of both endeavors hinges on a lack of compromise and often a lack of maturity.
The best relationships succeed on the ability to work out disagreements. There will be times when both individuals feel they’re in the right. A simple example entails choice of movies. One member of the couple may want to watch an action film with several explosions while the other is adamant on a “chick” film with the plot built more around relationship dramas. One of the options is for one side to give in completely. The other alternative would be to watch a documentary, which in this case, both want to see. With both sides happy, the conflict is resolved. However, if both sides wanted to prove they were right, the debate would rage on for days with a possible termination of our once happy relationship. The lack of maturity in Congress lately represents a termination of legislative sanity.
Stirring the pot a bit further, what happens when we add political disagreement to our hypothetical relationship? Mary Matalin and James Carville are one of nation’s most famous bipartisan couples. Rich and Linda are another example of such a case. The couple says that they got along by not taking the political battle home. What they share in common is that both are parents with a mutual interest in taking care of the kids. What trumped politics in this case was creating a great environment for their kids to thrive and grow into productive members of society.
Moving on to our dysfunctional Congress, scoring political points with a dead on arrival ObamaCare repeal resolution or DISCLOSE Act looks great for electoral posturing but it hasn’t helped our country. Congress is on track to pass the least legislation in history. In 2011, Congress passed just 80 bills. This year, we’re on track for yet another futile year. While moderates like Arlen Spector, Artur Davis, and Olympia Snowe bemoan the increase of partisanship in Congress, I believe members are ignoring the issues where they share positions in common. Tea Partiers and progressives are both concerned about the deficit. Both sides could agree on getting rid of some subsidies and tax loopholes. By virtue of this agreement, the country takes a small step forward.
I strongly believe that whether you’re a Romney, Obama, Gary Johnson, or Jill Stein supporter, you’re strongly invested in seeing this country succeed. I want to see our Congressmen put the country’s present and future first not their own reelection. I’m concerned about how climate change will affect our kids or how high my taxes will be raised to pay mounting the country’s mounting debts 20 years from now. We share these concerns in common.
Relationships and passing legislation in Congress take patience. They call for cooler heads to prevail. Congressional members need a lesson in pragmatism and maturity. We’ve seen Congress pass a big student loan, transportation, and flood insurance bill. Now I’m issuing a call for action. For all of us to talk about our issues and find common ground whether it’s the latest fight about budget cuts or that your significant other hasn’t been spending enough time with you lately. I recognize that this mission will be hard to accomplish. But by all of us pitching in, we can create a better environment for ourselves politically and socially. Here is many more article www.emptywords.ca
When my mom was remodeling the kitchen, she decided to add a glass piece to the cupboard holding all the “too good to touch” dishes. I cannot forget going into the building and seeing all the choices. Sooner or later my mom settled on bumpier texture of rainbow colored glass. I didn’t specifically like it, but I wasn’t the proprietor of the home. There are new ways to include glass, although, into interior design of your home or workplace. Custom printed glass is a new option to enhance the workplace location or home. Photographic glass is an exclusive way to aid your company stand out and your residence be memorable.
Printed glass contains your personal preference of texture and photographs, illustrations and logos. Texture can do a lot to a photographic glass piece. Let’s say you pick a fish design for your workplace. Employing a texture can add an animated feel to the image glass. Indoor placement would work greatest for decorative glass art. On the other hand, utilizing printed glass as a logo is in contrast to anything I’ve seen for a enterprise downtown or in any city for that matter. Pictures can be fade resistant up to five years, because they are being created with UV-curved inks. This indicates it is intended particularly for outside applications that are going positioned in direct sunlight. There are other variables to contemplate with outside placements, such as your geological location, and the atmosphere that your application will be set.
Your new decorative glass piece is logically priced based mostly on size and time. Specified projects are certainly going to take much more time than to theirs for illustration, a wall mounting is most likely going to be significantly less than say decorative glass panels, like room dividers. If you are choosing photographic glass for your workplace, contemplate obtaining a new logo. The option is accessible for single or many quantities of your logo. Again, in your workplace atmosphere, if kids often go to, contemplate choosing the safety glass option amongst the option to print your pictures on tempered or annealed glass. Technological innovation has definitely advanced the glass art planet. Blown glass is a beautiful creation itself. I instead like the concept that I can have the photographic glass in my living room.
Printing has a long and detailed background. There are numerous various ways of printmaking. Some are outdated, but continue to be used as an art form. Others are staples that are used often for a variety of printing needs. See here some awesome graphic design work: dearphotograph.com
About AuthorBenjamin Rivers is a production designer for a graphic design firm in downtown toronto, ontario, canada. a co-founder of online comic funny the bitter couch with friend and colleague ivor stines, this spiky-haired country boy has been doodling out comics and related art since the age of five.
His most recent achievements include... um, well... shut up! what have you done lately!?