Does the American dream still exist despite America’s troubled economic teams? Did the dream ever exist in the first place? Well, I guess that depends on who you ask. One thing for sure is that the vast influence the United States has globally is astonishing. Typical American business including the Coca Cola Company and McDonalds, to name few of many, can be found all over the world. In many of these hundreds of countries other than the country of origin, the USA, American brands sell their products for more expensive than they would be in the US. For example, a can of coke in the US may cost 50 cents whereas in Mexico, the same can of coke would cost upwards of around 70 cents. I have noticed that the McDonalds value menu in Mexico has been significantly reduced with the normal “value items” being much more than the 1 dollar that is advertised.
So this is a global phenomenon, hundreds American business stretch in almost every country on the planet and marking up the price. Whether it be food items of brand-name clothing such as Abercrombie, American Eagle or Hollister. Nonetheless, despite the sometimes 3 to 4 times mark-up on many of these items people around the world, even those who aren’t in the greatest financial situations try to settle for these brand names even if it means purchasing sometime with a domestic name takes pennies out of one’s wallet. Why? There must be some type of ideology out there that people want to know what it is like experiencing something almost exactly as it is in the United States. I mean, let’s face it. Let’s face it a McDonald’s Big Mac isn’t going to taste much different in Brazil than it is does here. Let’s not forget who wants to be caught wearing your X domestic brand when you can have you American Ralph Lauren look. A lot of people with any ability to afford such a brand name have shown an unwillingness to settle for anything less when it comes to looks.
It seems almost baffling that the McDonald’s or KFC’s abroad (both chains I am not particularly fond of) get massive lines of customers while your family-owned restaurants or domestic chains get little to no support. CEO’s stationed in the US are receiving massive revenue for products being sold abroad. Whether other countries are to seriously blame for their weaker economies and overwhelming dependence on the US is a topic of another discussion. One thing for sure is that America’s influence has been stretched out with a remarkable amount of success. Maybe the American dream doesn’t involve going to the US at all. After all, many can recall the utter disappointment witness when living in the United States and realizing that the “land of opportunity” was hardly more than a catch phrase. Maybe the American dream is merely having the opportunity to sit down, relax, and enjoy your Whopper and a Coke.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Acceptable Form of Racism?
In the United States, many Americans, in fact probably the majority of white Americans have had a prevailing negative attitude towards Mexican immigration. Not only do many people put an unnecessary stigmatization on illegal immigration, but American society has gotten to the point that illegal immigrants have been treated as inferior beings and have been labeled as "criminals" simply because of harsh U.S. law that makes it virtually impossible for Mexicans to migrate into America.
While I consider myself to be moderate, many people know my strong liberal views on immigration. Immigration is the fuel of America’s economy and illegal immigration is a necessary aspect of it. For me, this characterization of “illegal” immigration is preposterous considering the average Mexican immigrant is in America for one reason and one reason only – work. Additionally, there is a labor shortage in many American businesses and small business owners would have a virtually impossible time competing if they couldn’t hire illegal immigrants. There is simply not enough people to fill some of these minimum wage jobs.
I have gotten sick of this. There are way too many Americans who have racist views towards immigration including evil Senator John Kyl who now plans to build a fence and deport all immigrant families. People like Kyl could care less how many immigrants die trying to cross the border in search for a better life. While in Arizona where I live there are several enlightened Americans thanks to the beneficial influence Mexican can immigration can have, there are also several other Americans who have the prevailing attitude that Mexican immigrants simply don’t belong. On more than one occasion I have heard shouts telling immigrants, “Go back to where you came from” or “Your not wanted here!” I have a hard time understanding how that could be possibly be acceptable. I don’t see too much difference between these “Go back to Mexico” chants and the obviously racist remarks of “Go back to Africa!” in the Jim Crowe south when racism and segregation was extremely prevalent. Yet, somehow it is not exactly racist to have these harsh opinions of Mexican immigrants. To me this is just baffling. I thought our society advanced past that. Anyone who has had the pleasure to work in an immigrant rich area knows the great cultural and economic influence that immigrants have provided.
While I consider myself to be moderate, many people know my strong liberal views on immigration. Immigration is the fuel of America’s economy and illegal immigration is a necessary aspect of it. For me, this characterization of “illegal” immigration is preposterous considering the average Mexican immigrant is in America for one reason and one reason only – work. Additionally, there is a labor shortage in many American businesses and small business owners would have a virtually impossible time competing if they couldn’t hire illegal immigrants. There is simply not enough people to fill some of these minimum wage jobs.
I have gotten sick of this. There are way too many Americans who have racist views towards immigration including evil Senator John Kyl who now plans to build a fence and deport all immigrant families. People like Kyl could care less how many immigrants die trying to cross the border in search for a better life. While in Arizona where I live there are several enlightened Americans thanks to the beneficial influence Mexican can immigration can have, there are also several other Americans who have the prevailing attitude that Mexican immigrants simply don’t belong. On more than one occasion I have heard shouts telling immigrants, “Go back to where you came from” or “Your not wanted here!” I have a hard time understanding how that could be possibly be acceptable. I don’t see too much difference between these “Go back to Mexico” chants and the obviously racist remarks of “Go back to Africa!” in the Jim Crowe south when racism and segregation was extremely prevalent. Yet, somehow it is not exactly racist to have these harsh opinions of Mexican immigrants. To me this is just baffling. I thought our society advanced past that. Anyone who has had the pleasure to work in an immigrant rich area knows the great cultural and economic influence that immigrants have provided.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
The Palin Option
When McCain announced Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate, I, along with millions of Americans, was shocked. After Obama’s choice of Biden, there was nothing but rumors for six straight days regarding who McCain will or should pick. Moreover, few if any of these rumors involved Palin who until now has been rather unknown for citizens outside of the state of Alaska.
To say the least, Palin was a masterful choice for McCain’s running mate. Is Palin my favorite politician? No. Are there other potential vice presidents I personally might have preferred? Yes. However, in terms of a political strategy in an attempt to capture the White House, I honestly do not think McCain could have chosen better. Palin is articulate, charismatic and she seems to share the country first at all costs philosophy that has gotten McCain where he is. You may not agree with all of her views, but she certainly is not stupid and her introduction speech was excellent. This is a progressive reformer who I can back. Also, McCain picking her has not only maintained his maverick unorthodox self, but also showed the public that voting Republican will also change the make-up of Washington by electing the first woman as Vice President. Choosing Palin was a smart choice for letting Obama knows that completely overlooking Hillary was a mistake. Obama’s biggest claim is that he represents the people in that he is a break away from “Carl Rove” politics and he was the self-made man representing some of the poorest in Chicago. However, to some extend Palin represents Americans in an even greater way that a lot of American families can relate too, especially the most hardworking of them all. Palin is conservative a mother of five who characterizes herself as your typical “hockey mom.” She also has a young child with down syndrome as well as a son who is a soldier in Iraq so she really knows what it is like to be a hardworking mother. I really do think this will encourage McCain to get some of the “soccer mom” vote that he wouldn’t have got otherwise. To be honest, I really do think that a lot of Democrats will vote McCain in November, who definitely would not have voted for a Romney or Huckabee candidacy.
The choice of Palin not only encourages bipartisan support, but it definitely helps unite conservatives. Name one Republican figure that hard-line conservatives can legitimately be happy with, while still allowing McCain to preserve his maverick image. To be honest, I really can’t name anyone outside of Palin. McCain has a lot of buddies, some of who I really like including independent Joe Lieberman; however, you as well as I know that this pick would have been political suicide for capturing the conservative base. Palin has a strong conservative philosophy also representing religious family values.
At the same time Mitt Romney seemed like the obvious choice for McCain, and I feel that most people who are unhappy with McCain’s choice of Palin are the people upset the Romney didn’t get picked. However, Romney would have been an awful pick in several ways.
First, had McCain picked Romney, he would have had to somehow resolve all of the banter that was going on during the race to the White House including the name calling. I even believe the word “pig” was used at one point. To see the vehement disagreement just YouTube the “Republican Debate Ronald Reagan Library.” Secondly, Romney is your traditional Republican, there really is not anything that truly makes him stand out from your old-fashioned hard-line conservative. Choosing Romney would signal a regression to the past Washington which is exactly what both Obama and McCain are trying to avoid. Politics as usual seems to clearly be the opposite of what voters want.
As I have mentioned before. Obama’s primary message which is “change we can believe in” is really lost with a McCain candidacy and even more so now that McCain has chosen Palin, a “soccer mom” outside of Washington beaurocratics. Yes, this was a true maverick choice, yet still a Republican choice. Palin is a progressive Replublican with a soaring approval rate. Nonetheless, I really like how perfectly the New York Times put it:
“Yet if he disregarded more conventional prospects, like former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, it might be that Ms. Palin was still the fallback from a more audacious decision that Mr. McCain ultimately eschewed.”
Politics has gotten interesting and the playing field is getting much tougher than I thought possible.
To say the least, Palin was a masterful choice for McCain’s running mate. Is Palin my favorite politician? No. Are there other potential vice presidents I personally might have preferred? Yes. However, in terms of a political strategy in an attempt to capture the White House, I honestly do not think McCain could have chosen better. Palin is articulate, charismatic and she seems to share the country first at all costs philosophy that has gotten McCain where he is. You may not agree with all of her views, but she certainly is not stupid and her introduction speech was excellent. This is a progressive reformer who I can back. Also, McCain picking her has not only maintained his maverick unorthodox self, but also showed the public that voting Republican will also change the make-up of Washington by electing the first woman as Vice President. Choosing Palin was a smart choice for letting Obama knows that completely overlooking Hillary was a mistake. Obama’s biggest claim is that he represents the people in that he is a break away from “Carl Rove” politics and he was the self-made man representing some of the poorest in Chicago. However, to some extend Palin represents Americans in an even greater way that a lot of American families can relate too, especially the most hardworking of them all. Palin is conservative a mother of five who characterizes herself as your typical “hockey mom.” She also has a young child with down syndrome as well as a son who is a soldier in Iraq so she really knows what it is like to be a hardworking mother. I really do think this will encourage McCain to get some of the “soccer mom” vote that he wouldn’t have got otherwise. To be honest, I really do think that a lot of Democrats will vote McCain in November, who definitely would not have voted for a Romney or Huckabee candidacy.
The choice of Palin not only encourages bipartisan support, but it definitely helps unite conservatives. Name one Republican figure that hard-line conservatives can legitimately be happy with, while still allowing McCain to preserve his maverick image. To be honest, I really can’t name anyone outside of Palin. McCain has a lot of buddies, some of who I really like including independent Joe Lieberman; however, you as well as I know that this pick would have been political suicide for capturing the conservative base. Palin has a strong conservative philosophy also representing religious family values.
At the same time Mitt Romney seemed like the obvious choice for McCain, and I feel that most people who are unhappy with McCain’s choice of Palin are the people upset the Romney didn’t get picked. However, Romney would have been an awful pick in several ways.
First, had McCain picked Romney, he would have had to somehow resolve all of the banter that was going on during the race to the White House including the name calling. I even believe the word “pig” was used at one point. To see the vehement disagreement just YouTube the “Republican Debate Ronald Reagan Library.” Secondly, Romney is your traditional Republican, there really is not anything that truly makes him stand out from your old-fashioned hard-line conservative. Choosing Romney would signal a regression to the past Washington which is exactly what both Obama and McCain are trying to avoid. Politics as usual seems to clearly be the opposite of what voters want.
As I have mentioned before. Obama’s primary message which is “change we can believe in” is really lost with a McCain candidacy and even more so now that McCain has chosen Palin, a “soccer mom” outside of Washington beaurocratics. Yes, this was a true maverick choice, yet still a Republican choice. Palin is a progressive Replublican with a soaring approval rate. Nonetheless, I really like how perfectly the New York Times put it:
“Yet if he disregarded more conventional prospects, like former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, it might be that Ms. Palin was still the fallback from a more audacious decision that Mr. McCain ultimately eschewed.”
Politics has gotten interesting and the playing field is getting much tougher than I thought possible.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Playing Cards with a Political Twist
PoliticallyWild.com has unleashed a humorous and innovative form of playing cards called Politically WILD! Playing Cards. Forget the mundane deck of playing cards, now you can get a full version of playing cards that feature political figures. Each numbered card features the face of a political celebrity with the body of the animal. Above each image there is a brief description of the animal of the politician’s body. These descriptions can often be quite comical. For example, for Ann Coulter is a pink flamingo in the eight of hearts and above her image the description reads: Pink Flamingo: Bird having very long legs and neck. Additionally, beneath the image of each politician there is a funny comment. The royalty cards (Jack, Queen and King) are extremely original because they each feature a hot-button political issue with a witty comment. Even cooler is that you submit your own ideas for each card by posting a comment on the Politically Wild Blog at http://blog.politicallywild.com/.
There are two different types of decks a Democrat Deck and a Republican Deck. As it would appear, the Democrat Deck caters towards the Democrat Party and the Republican Deck caters to the Republican Party. The aces of the Democrat Deck advocate support for Barack Obama and the aces of the Republican Deck feature McCain. For just $15.98 you get two decks. You can elect to purchase two Democrat Decks, two Republican Decks or one of each. If you are interested in politics and enjoy some witty political humor, you will love these new political playing cards which are very pertinent to the current political arena.
Go to www.politicallywild.com today and get your own deck of Politically Wild! Playing Cards.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
And What Change is that Mr. Obama?
“No more Carl Rove politics.” “Change you can believe in.” Sound familiar? If you have been following American Politics it should appear to follow pretty closely to the whole image of Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama. From Obama, we have heard the same old cheesy lines over and over again regarding how he represents change…but then again, doesn’t everybody? This message might have worked against a Mit Romney “I love America as it is” type of candidate, but against McCain simply claiming some ideological benefit is not going to do anything but start to make people question whether Obama is merely composed of false hopes. The problem with Obama is he does not stand for anything. He is the type of person that will outright avoid the loaded political questions, whereas McCain is very upfront on where he stands. Sure, McCain has made some mild flipped flops on issues such as tax cuts, but at least he will express his views in terms of policies. On the other hand, who knows where Obama stands. All we can assume is that he will take a very liberal platform.
A few weeks ago somebody asked Obama what individuals can do to help the oil crisis and Obama mentioned that people can inflate their tires to the appropriate dimensions and immediately the McCain campaign made a mockery of such a thing. McCain and his followers decided to pass out air gauges that said “Obama’s Energy Policy.” Once Obama caught word of this, Obama tried to do a two for one: he denied that his energy policy was to inflate tires as well as defended inflating tires. This approach may have actually worked if he actually detailed in his speech what his energy policy consisted of, but instead he avoided the policy issues all together. Obama tried to retaliate and made fun of the Republicans stating: “It’s like Republicans take pride in being ignorant.” Congratulations Obama, I am not a Republican and you still may have just lost my vote. Obama is very charismatic and a pleasure to listen to which makes him a widely followed candidate, however, he needs to find out what type of campaign he wants to run and he needs to choose fast. If Obama is going to make a mockery of the opposing candidate he is likely going to lose a lot of support particularly among the moderate swing voters who are key to win the election. Obama may lose the hard-line Republicans regardless, but McCain has a maverick appeal that may give him added support among moderates. These are the votes Obama needs to fight for, not simply joke around with some buddies who are going to vote for you anyway. You do that and you may have just lose the key to the White House.
Obama must begin to mention his specific goals as opposed to his general goals. We all know the generics, but how exactly is he going to change America? As of now Obama seems little more than a big mouth. As the old adage goes, “you can talk the talk, but can you walk the walk?” This is the ultimate question that most people would like to at least get some indication of before going to the polling booths.
A few weeks ago somebody asked Obama what individuals can do to help the oil crisis and Obama mentioned that people can inflate their tires to the appropriate dimensions and immediately the McCain campaign made a mockery of such a thing. McCain and his followers decided to pass out air gauges that said “Obama’s Energy Policy.” Once Obama caught word of this, Obama tried to do a two for one: he denied that his energy policy was to inflate tires as well as defended inflating tires. This approach may have actually worked if he actually detailed in his speech what his energy policy consisted of, but instead he avoided the policy issues all together. Obama tried to retaliate and made fun of the Republicans stating: “It’s like Republicans take pride in being ignorant.” Congratulations Obama, I am not a Republican and you still may have just lost my vote. Obama is very charismatic and a pleasure to listen to which makes him a widely followed candidate, however, he needs to find out what type of campaign he wants to run and he needs to choose fast. If Obama is going to make a mockery of the opposing candidate he is likely going to lose a lot of support particularly among the moderate swing voters who are key to win the election. Obama may lose the hard-line Republicans regardless, but McCain has a maverick appeal that may give him added support among moderates. These are the votes Obama needs to fight for, not simply joke around with some buddies who are going to vote for you anyway. You do that and you may have just lose the key to the White House.
Obama must begin to mention his specific goals as opposed to his general goals. We all know the generics, but how exactly is he going to change America? As of now Obama seems little more than a big mouth. As the old adage goes, “you can talk the talk, but can you walk the walk?” This is the ultimate question that most people would like to at least get some indication of before going to the polling booths.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
The Biofuel Question
I have done tons of research on biofuel and have encountered some very interesting information. No matter how much research I conduct, I will not be awarded any fancy PhD or anything; however, I definitely feel very informed in this subject. Heck, I have even composed a file of roughly seventy pages that outline different areas of biofuel technology.
A biofuel is a form of alternative energy that is grown from crops and can be used in place of fossil fuels. Because biofuels are essentially grown from the ground, they are considered to be a renewable resource. The United States federal government currently provides several incentives for industries to produce biofuels. In fact, the diesel fuel at your typical gas station is a blend of both petroleum diesel and biodiesel. Biodiesel is a biofuel because it is made from vegetable oil that goes through a transestrification process. But it is not just diesel engines that use biofuel. Unleaded gasoline is typically mixed with ethanol. These blends some of which have been governmentally mandated, have tried to reduce our oil dependency; however, they nearly scrape the surface of the problem.
For one, straight vegetable oil as a biofuel has been prohibited by the federal government. The Environmental Protection Agency through the Clean Air Act has established standards that make it illegal to fuel your vehicle off straight vegetable oil (SVO). However, many Americans use SVO illegally and several citizens from other countries have used SVO quite successfully. Several tests have been conducted in Japan which indicate that Straight Vegetable Oil is a environmentally healthy form of fuel…and what’s more it is practically free. Restaurants dump millions of gallons of vegetable oil into landfills which can further harm the environment. When vegetable oil is discarded, it is often referred to as waste vegetable oil. As a result, most restaurants will happily give you their waste vegetable oil free of charge.
Before I go any further it must be said that straight vegetable oil is not the easiest of biofuels to use. While any diesel engine can technically use vegetable oil, it is strongly discouraged. Unlike biodiesel, vegetable oil risks gumming up engines causing permanent corrosive damage when placed directly into engines. However, there is a way around this. Diesel engines can be equipped with a separate engine such as a greasecar kit that allows diesel vehicles to successfully run of straight vegetable oil. These kits are typically not very expensive and prevent any problems of losing engine life.
Probably the biggest advantage of vegetable oil is that vegetable oil reduces global warming because they run off of the closed carbon cycle. This means that the vegetable oils will emit simply what has already been absorbed by the plants. On the other hand, fossil fuels emit dormant carbon dioxide causing a net gain in carbon dioxide.
After looking at both the numerous advantages as well as the disadvantages of biofuels, I have come to the conclusion that biofuels provide an excellent source of energy for America.
Is biofuel a silver bullet to solve the energy crisis? Probably not. Nonetheless, if biofuel can at least minimize the burden Americans place on fossil fuels, why should we neglect to pursue additional biofuels?
A biofuel is a form of alternative energy that is grown from crops and can be used in place of fossil fuels. Because biofuels are essentially grown from the ground, they are considered to be a renewable resource. The United States federal government currently provides several incentives for industries to produce biofuels. In fact, the diesel fuel at your typical gas station is a blend of both petroleum diesel and biodiesel. Biodiesel is a biofuel because it is made from vegetable oil that goes through a transestrification process. But it is not just diesel engines that use biofuel. Unleaded gasoline is typically mixed with ethanol. These blends some of which have been governmentally mandated, have tried to reduce our oil dependency; however, they nearly scrape the surface of the problem.
For one, straight vegetable oil as a biofuel has been prohibited by the federal government. The Environmental Protection Agency through the Clean Air Act has established standards that make it illegal to fuel your vehicle off straight vegetable oil (SVO). However, many Americans use SVO illegally and several citizens from other countries have used SVO quite successfully. Several tests have been conducted in Japan which indicate that Straight Vegetable Oil is a environmentally healthy form of fuel…and what’s more it is practically free. Restaurants dump millions of gallons of vegetable oil into landfills which can further harm the environment. When vegetable oil is discarded, it is often referred to as waste vegetable oil. As a result, most restaurants will happily give you their waste vegetable oil free of charge.
Before I go any further it must be said that straight vegetable oil is not the easiest of biofuels to use. While any diesel engine can technically use vegetable oil, it is strongly discouraged. Unlike biodiesel, vegetable oil risks gumming up engines causing permanent corrosive damage when placed directly into engines. However, there is a way around this. Diesel engines can be equipped with a separate engine such as a greasecar kit that allows diesel vehicles to successfully run of straight vegetable oil. These kits are typically not very expensive and prevent any problems of losing engine life.
Probably the biggest advantage of vegetable oil is that vegetable oil reduces global warming because they run off of the closed carbon cycle. This means that the vegetable oils will emit simply what has already been absorbed by the plants. On the other hand, fossil fuels emit dormant carbon dioxide causing a net gain in carbon dioxide.
After looking at both the numerous advantages as well as the disadvantages of biofuels, I have come to the conclusion that biofuels provide an excellent source of energy for America.
Is biofuel a silver bullet to solve the energy crisis? Probably not. Nonetheless, if biofuel can at least minimize the burden Americans place on fossil fuels, why should we neglect to pursue additional biofuels?
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
The Absence of College Dating
Just yesterday I was discussing how college dating doesn't exist. I mean for people who are in college or recently graduated from a university will likely agree. People do not date in college like they might have used to. Many people are shocked regarding the lack of dating in college, for me, this isn't very shocking at all.
First of all, dating as a whole has been taken into a new dimension. Dating has transformed in general. This does not just hold true for the younger, college-age generation but the older folks as well. With dating websites such as eHarmony and Match.com (along with the myriad of other similar sites), older people no longer find themselves in the dilemma of how to possibly meet people. Now this may seem strange for some people who haven't gone through the online dating process, but if you think about it, it really isn't.
Say you just retired from work, you are in your mid 50s and you recently had a divorce. Most likely you are going to want to find someone else to spend the rest of your life with. However, being in such a position, finding someone poses quite a problem. While there are millions of single like-aged people interested in finding a mate, there are very few avenues to find any if you take online dating out of the equation. Online dating allows people to immediately search hundreds of profiles of potential matches at the comfort of one's home. My parents have been through this process and while you are unlikely to find who you are looking for on your first try, online dating allows people to experience dates with several different people.
College students tend to have the attitude that online dating is a copout and there is no reason to find someone online when they are immersed in an environment with thousands of single students. Unfortunately, the way the college environment is structured, dating has been a challenge.
In college, there are three main ways to meet someone else:
1. Someone you know from class.
2. Someone from a club or activity.
3. Friend or a friend of a friend
4. Someone you meet at a party
The top three tend to be awkward whereas the fourth, finding someone you meet at a party is a no risk issue.
Let's analyze #1 Someone From Class
Say you meet someone from a class and start dating him or her, class is probably going to be a little awkward on your initial dates. Are you going to sit by him/her? Are you going to try and participate more/less? Moreover these questions are only the tip of the iceberg. While going out with someone from class may change classroom dynamics there is one far more important issue that should be kept in mind...the break-up. While anyone who initially dates someone else hopes that it will last, the chances are it won't. If you break-up with someone you met from a class while still in that same class, it is going to be both painful and awkward to go to that same class for the next few days.
Let's analyze #2 Club or Activity
This one I think is more doable than the other options when it comes to dating specifically. However, meeting someone from a club or activity also poses some risks. Often times it can create drama with the entire activity knowing and talking about it, but then again...if you are serious about dating, you could probably care less. More importantly this also involves an issue where tensions in such a relationship often can cause one or both members to leave the club/activity. Many people do not want to run this risk if the activity in question is one they absolutely love.
Let's analyze #3 Friend or Friend of a Friend
This one regardless is virtually guaranteed to create a lot of drama and probably cause a huge change in group dynamics. I have friends who have dated other friends of mine, and I got to say, it can get pretty awkward. For friends who have friends in a relationship, they will notice changes right of the bat. The biggest one being how their friends (who are now a couple) treat each other.
Finally we look at the #4 situation - The Party
Almost every college is infested with parties, which is the primary way campus life gets shaped outside of the classroom. I say that parties are zero-risk situations because often times people who meet and get together at parties are people who know very little about each other going in. College students have managed to eliminate the awkward nervousness entailed when asking someone out on a date by finding someone at a party. At parties, students tend to have their inhibitions reduced and are willing to be more upfront on who they are willing to be with. Parties also provide the avenue for people to meet someone without much cost. This has created the hook-up culture where students can hook-up and then leave it as if it never happened. Why, because it was supposedly fun while it happened. Even if a legitimate relationship is formed from a party, breaking-up poses very little of an issue. After all, you will probably rarely even see that person again considering you may have hardly if at all none the person you were with prior to the party. Dating has no longer becomes a necessity for many college students (both guys and girls believe it or not) when many people take temporary pleasure in hooking up with someone if they feel that they don't necessarily have the obligation to stay with him or her.
Over the long haul, most college students would still prefer a greater dating scene take place in college. The hook-up culture has created an artificial form of relationships where physical actions and words mean far less than they should.
First of all, dating as a whole has been taken into a new dimension. Dating has transformed in general. This does not just hold true for the younger, college-age generation but the older folks as well. With dating websites such as eHarmony and Match.com (along with the myriad of other similar sites), older people no longer find themselves in the dilemma of how to possibly meet people. Now this may seem strange for some people who haven't gone through the online dating process, but if you think about it, it really isn't.
Say you just retired from work, you are in your mid 50s and you recently had a divorce. Most likely you are going to want to find someone else to spend the rest of your life with. However, being in such a position, finding someone poses quite a problem. While there are millions of single like-aged people interested in finding a mate, there are very few avenues to find any if you take online dating out of the equation. Online dating allows people to immediately search hundreds of profiles of potential matches at the comfort of one's home. My parents have been through this process and while you are unlikely to find who you are looking for on your first try, online dating allows people to experience dates with several different people.
College students tend to have the attitude that online dating is a copout and there is no reason to find someone online when they are immersed in an environment with thousands of single students. Unfortunately, the way the college environment is structured, dating has been a challenge.
In college, there are three main ways to meet someone else:
1. Someone you know from class.
2. Someone from a club or activity.
3. Friend or a friend of a friend
4. Someone you meet at a party
The top three tend to be awkward whereas the fourth, finding someone you meet at a party is a no risk issue.
Let's analyze #1 Someone From Class
Say you meet someone from a class and start dating him or her, class is probably going to be a little awkward on your initial dates. Are you going to sit by him/her? Are you going to try and participate more/less? Moreover these questions are only the tip of the iceberg. While going out with someone from class may change classroom dynamics there is one far more important issue that should be kept in mind...the break-up. While anyone who initially dates someone else hopes that it will last, the chances are it won't. If you break-up with someone you met from a class while still in that same class, it is going to be both painful and awkward to go to that same class for the next few days.
Let's analyze #2 Club or Activity
This one I think is more doable than the other options when it comes to dating specifically. However, meeting someone from a club or activity also poses some risks. Often times it can create drama with the entire activity knowing and talking about it, but then again...if you are serious about dating, you could probably care less. More importantly this also involves an issue where tensions in such a relationship often can cause one or both members to leave the club/activity. Many people do not want to run this risk if the activity in question is one they absolutely love.
Let's analyze #3 Friend or Friend of a Friend
This one regardless is virtually guaranteed to create a lot of drama and probably cause a huge change in group dynamics. I have friends who have dated other friends of mine, and I got to say, it can get pretty awkward. For friends who have friends in a relationship, they will notice changes right of the bat. The biggest one being how their friends (who are now a couple) treat each other.
Finally we look at the #4 situation - The Party
Almost every college is infested with parties, which is the primary way campus life gets shaped outside of the classroom. I say that parties are zero-risk situations because often times people who meet and get together at parties are people who know very little about each other going in. College students have managed to eliminate the awkward nervousness entailed when asking someone out on a date by finding someone at a party. At parties, students tend to have their inhibitions reduced and are willing to be more upfront on who they are willing to be with. Parties also provide the avenue for people to meet someone without much cost. This has created the hook-up culture where students can hook-up and then leave it as if it never happened. Why, because it was supposedly fun while it happened. Even if a legitimate relationship is formed from a party, breaking-up poses very little of an issue. After all, you will probably rarely even see that person again considering you may have hardly if at all none the person you were with prior to the party. Dating has no longer becomes a necessity for many college students (both guys and girls believe it or not) when many people take temporary pleasure in hooking up with someone if they feel that they don't necessarily have the obligation to stay with him or her.
Over the long haul, most college students would still prefer a greater dating scene take place in college. The hook-up culture has created an artificial form of relationships where physical actions and words mean far less than they should.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
The Confederate Flag: It May Seem Passive, but Should Be Avoided
In the United States, Flag Day celebrates the adoption of the first American flag in 1777. However, about a century later some people would commemorate a new type of flag day: Confederate Flag Day. Confederate Flag Day typically refers to commemorating the adoption of the Confederate Flag. The controversy around Confederate Flag Day revolves around what the Confederacy and the Confederate flag itself stand for. Many people who display the Confederate flag argue that slavery was a past wrong and dreadful part of United States history and display the flag as a representation of their Southern heritage. Others are offended because one of the reasons Confederacy originally existed was to uphold the institution of slavery especially in newly acquired territories.
I realize I am at a risk taking a side this issue, but I feel that I must express my own views on this controversy in order to delve deeper into the issue. While I know people who are comfortable with proudly displaying this icon, and do not intend any harm, I feel that people in favor of displaying this flag refuse to acknowledge what the Confederacy stood for in the late 19th Century. The Civil War broke out in the first place because the Confederacy was in favor of expanding slavery in the territories whereas the Union opposed it. The war took place between the slave states (members of the Confederacy) and the free states (members of the Union). As long as it is conceivable that the flag of the Confederacy can represent a battle to maintain slavery, then people should refuse to display their flags. I feel that this is more than conceivable. The Confederate flag is a symbol of the Confederacy and had the Confederacy won the Civil War, slavery would have lasted longer.
If you are still not convinced consider another controversial icon - the swastika. If you think it is fine for someone who has Southern heritage to display the Confederate flag, are you comfortable with someone of German heritage displaying the swastika? Most people would say no because the swastika was the icon of the Nazis during the holocaust. Although there is far less controversy behind the swastika in that the vast majority of American believes that people should not display the swastika, I do not see the Confederate flag as much different.
As a result, I do not see why Americans who are proud of their Southern heritage would choose to display the Confederate flag, which has been known to create tension. We have made great progress over the years, we are now one nation united. Why display a symbol that divides us instead of Old Glory, the United States flag?
Saturday, June 14, 2008
The Bluff Game: Why the US and Israel will not attack Iran
For the past few years, the relationship between the United States Iran Iran Iran Israel Iran Iran
Simply by looking at the immediate aftermath of a war with
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Time to Consult Nader!
The elections are coming up sooner than ever and in addition to Obama and McCain a third candidate is getting some weight, Ralph Nader. Most people have essentially waved Ralph Nader off as joke candidate. While he may or may not be a joke as a candidate, some of his views are of huge importance. In fact, I would argue that Ralph Nader is someone that the United States should seriously consider consulting. Ralph Nader is an experienced lawyer and has already run for President four times before making him a prominent political figure. His view would be vital in areas where he has had strong stances on especially involving environmental issues. Consulting Nader could help convince conservative hardliners to moderate their stances or at least compromise on some issues that the United States federal government has been trying to pass, but failed due to right-wing opposition. One issue of paramount importance involves alternative energy incentives. The federal government should start consulting Nader over domestic policies to provide a fresh perspective on issues that can only be found outside of Washington.
Now more than ever the federal government must seriously consider the views of Green Party/Independent activist Ralph Nader. The energy crisis is something that can be postponed no longer. We have seen the concerns and predictions that Nader has been heralding all along become a reality. We look outside the car window and notice that the gas station is charging us over four dollars for a gallon of unleaded gas! To say that this is a crisis that should continue to go unnoticed is absurd. Hybrid vehicles that combine standard gasoline with other fuels have helped reduce our oil dependency, but it does not go far enough. It is clear that the United States federal government should adopt greater incentives for consumers using alternative energies. Who better to consult over capitalizing such ideals into policy than Ralph Nader? He has been extremely adamant about the need for establishing a new diversified energy policy.
Don’t get my wrong, I by no means plan on voting for Nader in 2008; however, he has some important views on issues and if I had the opportunity to sit down and talk to him on environmental issues I would do so in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, I do not have such a luxury, whereas the United States federal government does. Yet lawmakers, who have the potential to make serious change in United States energy policy refuse to even listen to Nader. Members of both the Democrat and Republican parties should realize the problem associated with depleting non-renewable natural resources. If people of power are not going to ignore how vital this issue is, then hopefully Nader once consulted could at least convince a few more heads to turn in the right direction.
This may seem absurd for the most powerful political body in the United States to consult someone like Nader, but let’s not forget that it has been done before. While normally someone such as the President consults his Cabinet or other prominent advisers in Washington, it is not too unusual to see people or organizations outside of Washington to be consulted over policy issues. In fact, consultations with Nader are nothing new. Jimmy Carter consulted Nader over assigning advisers when discussing the makeup of the Executive. The consultations I propose are not nearly to that extreme. The make-up of Washington is fine as it is, but could use a word of advice and Nader might be just the one to do it.
If the United States federal government were to consult him, it would certainly legitimize him in the political arena. This may in turn give him some additional support in the November 2008 election. It is unclear, however, whether he will gain enough support to steal a victory from Obama. Nonetheless, it is still a concern that should be considered.
References:
CNN News, June 6, 2008 http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/06/poll.mccain.obama/index.html?iref=newssearch
“Green Party 2008 Presidential Candidate Questionnaire,” February 3, 2008
Marcello, Patricia Cronin. Ralph Nader: A Biography pg. 82
Saturday, May 31, 2008
The Big Reason McCain Will Lose in 2008
It is almost June and Democrats are still bickering over who should win the Democratic Presidential nomination. This seems to doom the success of the Democrats in November as McCain is able to focus on the general elections and campaign in swing states – wrong. Regardless of who wins the Democratic nomination, which is looking like Obama, the Democratic candidate should be able to have a clear and easy path to the White House. Despite what some people have been saying, the reason for Democratic success has nothing to do with
The economy has been very poor in the past few months as the US dollar is getting weaker and weaker. While in actuality the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy may be partially responsible for a dim economy the public is going to primarily look to one person…the President. With the poor economy, George W. Bush is not only tarnishing his own image before he leaves office, but the whole image of the Republican economy. Come November, many people will see John McCain as a fiscal conservative not much different from Bush who has let the economy get to where it is. When your Party’s President is in office you will have to pay the price of his unpopularity. While McCain is seen as a maverick in the eyes of many he is still a Republican who has been endorsed by Bush. Many likely voters have been hit in some way shape or form by the poor economy and their attitudes will be reflected in the polling booths in November. McCain better keep his fingers crossed that the economy has a massive turnaround if he wants to take the White House.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Anne Coulter Unfair on McCain
An edited version was published in the February 18, 2008 issue of the The Heights.
Politically, I am a registered Democrat but I consider myself to be very moderate. In fact, all of my more liberal friends would consider me to be crazy “right wing” (although I beg to differ). I am someone who does his best to keep up-to-date with politics especially now with the presidential primaries. Today, I would like to comment on something that really hit me hard.
Recently, Anne Coulter, a very conservative columnist, made several unreasonable shots at John McCain. I never particularly liked Anne Coulter, but nothing made me loathe her as much as Thursday’s interview with Fox News claiming that if it is a Clinton-McCain battle, she would not only vote but campaign for Hillary Clinton because McCain is too left-wing. Now it is one thing to support someone that I dislike or even flip-flop, but it is another to lie and make unreasonable attacks on someone. I agree with her that McCain is more left on immigration and detainee rights than your typical neoconservative, but Coulter goes so far as to say that McCain pushes a very liberal agenda on foreign policy particularly the war in Iraq. Far crazier, she says that if Hillary is elected she will have a substantially more conservative foreign policy than McCain. Her basis for this is that McCain was against the Rumsfeld plan on Iraq which most people would now agree was an awful way to approach Iraq. The Rumsfeld plan put troops on the ground that were incredibly under-resourced (and by now virtually everyone but Anne Coulter and a few others would agree that the Rumsfeld plan was an utter disaster). Coulter says that because Hillary did not directly speak out against the Rumsfeld plan as McCain did, Hillary must necessarily be for it. Additionally, she points to Hillary’s original approval for the War in Iraq to indicate she still supports the war. The problem I have is that Coulter has neglected way too many cold hard facts. One of the few clear plans Hillary has provided for America if elected President is this 100 Days plan where she plans to have all troops withdrawn within the first year of her presidency. This stands in stark contract with McCain’s support of the troop surge. Coulter claims that McCain’s support for the surge is a ruse, and she argues McCain only claims to support the surge because he needs the Republican nomination. Wrong, wrong, and wrong. McCain has been in favor of a comprehensive troop surge from the start, in fact, the reason he disapproved of the Rumsfeld plan and criticized the War on Iraq was because of the incredible mismanagement in terms of going in with too few troops who were left to die. Coulter claims that even if McCain is genuine about his support of the troop surge he has no right to claim that he is the only Republican who ran for the nomination to support the surge. Again, Coulter misrepresents what McCain has been claiming. McCain rightly states that he is the only Republican (of the nominees) to oppose the Rumsfeld plan in favor of a troop surge. While other nominees now favor a troop surge, NONE of them originally opposed the Rumsfeld plan.
One more point she made that is worth mentioning is that Coulter chastised McCain for opposing Bush’s tax cuts. She thinks that because he opposed those tax cuts he obviously opposes all tax cuts. Coulter again misses the boat by several nautical miles. McCain soundly claims that he opposed Bush’s original tax cuts because they were not accompanied by spending cuts. Additionally he argues that there were riders on the plan that would be devastating for an already weak economy. Most importantly, however, Bush’s tax cuts were not permanent, which was troubling for McCain. McCain continues to say that he is in favor of permanent tax cuts that are accompanied by spending cuts. Since Bush’s tax cuts were neither permanent nor mandated cuts in spending, it does not seem too hard to understand why McCain voted against Bush’s plan. This is something Coulter conveniently ignores.
It made me sick when I heard her mischaracterize issues, and I sure hope that people do not take her seriously. Congratulations Anne Coulter, if you had not done so before, you just lost all your credibility as a legitimate political columnist.
Please forward any comments to maerowit@bc.edu
Politically, I am a registered Democrat but I consider myself to be very moderate. In fact, all of my more liberal friends would consider me to be crazy “right wing” (although I beg to differ). I am someone who does his best to keep up-to-date with politics especially now with the presidential primaries. Today, I would like to comment on something that really hit me hard.
Recently, Anne Coulter, a very conservative columnist, made several unreasonable shots at John McCain. I never particularly liked Anne Coulter, but nothing made me loathe her as much as Thursday’s interview with Fox News claiming that if it is a Clinton-McCain battle, she would not only vote but campaign for Hillary Clinton because McCain is too left-wing. Now it is one thing to support someone that I dislike or even flip-flop, but it is another to lie and make unreasonable attacks on someone. I agree with her that McCain is more left on immigration and detainee rights than your typical neoconservative, but Coulter goes so far as to say that McCain pushes a very liberal agenda on foreign policy particularly the war in Iraq. Far crazier, she says that if Hillary is elected she will have a substantially more conservative foreign policy than McCain. Her basis for this is that McCain was against the Rumsfeld plan on Iraq which most people would now agree was an awful way to approach Iraq. The Rumsfeld plan put troops on the ground that were incredibly under-resourced (and by now virtually everyone but Anne Coulter and a few others would agree that the Rumsfeld plan was an utter disaster). Coulter says that because Hillary did not directly speak out against the Rumsfeld plan as McCain did, Hillary must necessarily be for it. Additionally, she points to Hillary’s original approval for the War in Iraq to indicate she still supports the war. The problem I have is that Coulter has neglected way too many cold hard facts. One of the few clear plans Hillary has provided for America if elected President is this 100 Days plan where she plans to have all troops withdrawn within the first year of her presidency. This stands in stark contract with McCain’s support of the troop surge. Coulter claims that McCain’s support for the surge is a ruse, and she argues McCain only claims to support the surge because he needs the Republican nomination. Wrong, wrong, and wrong. McCain has been in favor of a comprehensive troop surge from the start, in fact, the reason he disapproved of the Rumsfeld plan and criticized the War on Iraq was because of the incredible mismanagement in terms of going in with too few troops who were left to die. Coulter claims that even if McCain is genuine about his support of the troop surge he has no right to claim that he is the only Republican who ran for the nomination to support the surge. Again, Coulter misrepresents what McCain has been claiming. McCain rightly states that he is the only Republican (of the nominees) to oppose the Rumsfeld plan in favor of a troop surge. While other nominees now favor a troop surge, NONE of them originally opposed the Rumsfeld plan.
One more point she made that is worth mentioning is that Coulter chastised McCain for opposing Bush’s tax cuts. She thinks that because he opposed those tax cuts he obviously opposes all tax cuts. Coulter again misses the boat by several nautical miles. McCain soundly claims that he opposed Bush’s original tax cuts because they were not accompanied by spending cuts. Additionally he argues that there were riders on the plan that would be devastating for an already weak economy. Most importantly, however, Bush’s tax cuts were not permanent, which was troubling for McCain. McCain continues to say that he is in favor of permanent tax cuts that are accompanied by spending cuts. Since Bush’s tax cuts were neither permanent nor mandated cuts in spending, it does not seem too hard to understand why McCain voted against Bush’s plan. This is something Coulter conveniently ignores.
It made me sick when I heard her mischaracterize issues, and I sure hope that people do not take her seriously. Congratulations Anne Coulter, if you had not done so before, you just lost all your credibility as a legitimate political columnist.
Please forward any comments to maerowit@bc.edu
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
