Just recently, there have been two major incidents - one in the NBA, one in the NFL - involving coaches pulling some interesting tricks to attempt to help their teams win the game. Jason Kidd, the head coach of the New Jersey Nets, intentionally made one of his players run into him in order to spill a cup of soda on the court to buy time to draw up a play for his team to run to try to win the game with a little under ten seconds left. The other incident was with the Pittsburgh Steelers' head coach Mike Tomlin, who is accused of intentionally standing on the field in the path of a Baltimore Ravens player who was running back a kickoff. Tomlin has called his situation an "inexcusable error", according to ESPN, while Kidd has admitted to intentionally spilling the drink, and has said he was "just trying to win."
Also recently, I read an article from ESPN on a former NBA coach who said that the trick pulled by Kidd was an old trick used by many coaches, as well as himself, and that there is no rule against spilling a drink, and that Kidd should not have been fined, especially the large amount he was fined ($50,000).
As far as the Kidd incident goes, I am not 100% sure how I feel about it. Part of me thinks it was a great strategy to get another timeout. The other part thinks that it is a very hard argument to make to say that it is okay to do such a thing. It is a difficult situation, and I credit him for having the courage to pull such a move.
In looking at the Tomlin situation, which occurred after the Kidd fiasco, I find it difficult to believe that it was on purpose. He is not an idiot, and he must have seen the fine that was given to Kidd for such an action. Also, if it were on purpose I feel that it is definitely not the same way of interfering with the game as Kidd. The Tomlin situation would be much more direct in impacting the game. Where Kidd was merely buying another timeout, Tomlin would be basically tackling the runner had he not jumped out of the way. A fine has not yet been placed on him, and he maintains his innocence regarding the situation.
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Justin Bieber
Musically, I have never been a huge fan of Justin Bieber. I just don't take much pleasure from his songs. They're definitely aimed at early teen girls. Because of his huge superstar status, nearly everyone loves him or hates him. This tends to happen to nearly everyone who is able to reach the level that Bieber has. I think it would be fascinating to take a deeper look into that. Why is it that humans always adopt such strong opinions on people of high popularity without knowing much at all about the person themselves? I, myself, am not entirely sure, but Bieber is surely an example of this occurrence.
As far as the Anne Frank controversy goes, I am not too sure how I feel about it. I can sympathize with the second article on the controversy. However, as Dr. Herron told us, there is a contradiction between the two articles so who knows at this point. We might have to take a field trip to Anne Frank's house to figure out if Anne Frank idolized the biggest stars of her time for ourselves. Honestly, if she did and Bieber was this popular in her time, then I would most likely bet money that a young girl would have his picture on her wall, just as so many do now.
At the same time, however, I can see Bieber's ego within the situation. He didn't really have to make the visit about him. This is where you see the problems that develop with someone getting so much popularity at such a young age. I don't imagine that he always thought of himself so highly, but when the whole world is telling you that you're the best thing since sliced bread then you may start to believe them. At the end of the day though, I believe that personal responsibility is very important so it is his job to be level headed and humble. I do not believe the situation is as crazy as many have made it out to be, however.
The piece on Bieber's early life was very interesting to me. I never knew about his mother and his upbringing. It makes me happy to see that his mother made the best of her situation and turned her life around. God really does work in mysterious ways.
As far as the Anne Frank controversy goes, I am not too sure how I feel about it. I can sympathize with the second article on the controversy. However, as Dr. Herron told us, there is a contradiction between the two articles so who knows at this point. We might have to take a field trip to Anne Frank's house to figure out if Anne Frank idolized the biggest stars of her time for ourselves. Honestly, if she did and Bieber was this popular in her time, then I would most likely bet money that a young girl would have his picture on her wall, just as so many do now.
At the same time, however, I can see Bieber's ego within the situation. He didn't really have to make the visit about him. This is where you see the problems that develop with someone getting so much popularity at such a young age. I don't imagine that he always thought of himself so highly, but when the whole world is telling you that you're the best thing since sliced bread then you may start to believe them. At the end of the day though, I believe that personal responsibility is very important so it is his job to be level headed and humble. I do not believe the situation is as crazy as many have made it out to be, however.
The piece on Bieber's early life was very interesting to me. I never knew about his mother and his upbringing. It makes me happy to see that his mother made the best of her situation and turned her life around. God really does work in mysterious ways.
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Johnson & Johnson Settlement
When I first heard about this incident, it seemed as if those who make baby products got busted for running drugs through them. I thought to myself, "Wow, that is pretty interesting." However, now I'm not so sure just how interesting it is. It seems as if Johnson & Johnson has illegally promoted one of their drugs (in a separate branch of their company) to young children and the elderly, and just like every other time a large company has done something that they aren't supposed to do, they are going to get away with it by paying their way out.
At $2.2 billion, this is the third largest pharmaceutical settlement in the history of the US, according to The New York Times. This seems like a very large sum of money, and to most people it is, but not to Johnson & Johnson, who, according to The New York Times, in one year, brought in $3.1 billion in revenue just off of the drug in question alone! And to make this number seem even smaller to them, this was only five percent of their total revenue for that year.
Now, I am not one who believes that people with money are evil, nor do I believe that they should have it stuck to them anytime that society gets the chance. However, I do believe that people should be held responsible for their actions, and that people should each be treated fairly under the law. I am not an expert on this exact case, it actually seems pretty confusing to me, but the article brings to mind all of the times I have heard of big companies throwing money at people in lawsuits and having them run away. I do not think that this is the best way to go about handling this. Someone should be held accountable personally, not a settlement that involves the handing over of a large sum of money. If we were to hold those at the top, as well as those who call the shots in the company, responsible for their actions, then I do not believe that we would see as much as this. These people tend to feel somewhat invincible or indestructible due to their status at the top. At the very least, Johnson & Johnson should've fired someone for this.
At $2.2 billion, this is the third largest pharmaceutical settlement in the history of the US, according to The New York Times. This seems like a very large sum of money, and to most people it is, but not to Johnson & Johnson, who, according to The New York Times, in one year, brought in $3.1 billion in revenue just off of the drug in question alone! And to make this number seem even smaller to them, this was only five percent of their total revenue for that year.
Now, I am not one who believes that people with money are evil, nor do I believe that they should have it stuck to them anytime that society gets the chance. However, I do believe that people should be held responsible for their actions, and that people should each be treated fairly under the law. I am not an expert on this exact case, it actually seems pretty confusing to me, but the article brings to mind all of the times I have heard of big companies throwing money at people in lawsuits and having them run away. I do not think that this is the best way to go about handling this. Someone should be held accountable personally, not a settlement that involves the handing over of a large sum of money. If we were to hold those at the top, as well as those who call the shots in the company, responsible for their actions, then I do not believe that we would see as much as this. These people tend to feel somewhat invincible or indestructible due to their status at the top. At the very least, Johnson & Johnson should've fired someone for this.
Monday, November 4, 2013
Tobacco in New York City
Just recently, New York City passed legislation to change the age that it is legal to purchase tobacco from 18 to 21. This is a victory for health enthusiasts across the country. New York City has also tried to limit soft drink sizes in the past. Mayor Michael Bloomberg has definitely been a big activist in the health area, so there is no question as to whether or not he intends to sign this bill into law.
Personally, I see no problem at all in trying to live healthier. I try to not eat too many things that are bad for me in order to be healthy. I also enjoy working out and playing football and basketball in order to be fit. However, I do not think that it is the government's place to force it upon us. This is an example of a lack of personal responsibility on account of the smokers themselves. I would support public leaders encouraging healthier lifestyle choices and a sense of respect for those around you who do not want to get second hand smoke, but I do not support them taking away the freedom of the people to make their own decisions.
Of course smoking is bad for you. I watched my grandma die of lung cancer from being a lifetime smoker when I was pretty young. That is why I, personally, don't do it, but the government is foolish to think that it will actually stop people from doing something that they really want to do. It is very easy to buy alcohol if you are under 21. Plus, in this case, it will be even easier because they will be allowed to possess it, just not purchase it. In over ninety percent of states, marijuana is still illegal for anyone to possess, much less purchase, however, in my experience, just about as many young people smoke marijuana as they do cigarettes.
The argument for this bill was, according to The New York Times, "that raising the age to buy cigarettes would discourage people from becoming addicted in the first place." I would argue that the first cigarette smoked by most is not one that they purchased on their own. People begin purchasing cigarettes after they have tried it a few times before. So now the only difference is going to be that these people must have someone else buy cigarettes for them when they want to smoke, or they will just obtain a fake ID and do it themselves.
Personally, I see no problem at all in trying to live healthier. I try to not eat too many things that are bad for me in order to be healthy. I also enjoy working out and playing football and basketball in order to be fit. However, I do not think that it is the government's place to force it upon us. This is an example of a lack of personal responsibility on account of the smokers themselves. I would support public leaders encouraging healthier lifestyle choices and a sense of respect for those around you who do not want to get second hand smoke, but I do not support them taking away the freedom of the people to make their own decisions.
Of course smoking is bad for you. I watched my grandma die of lung cancer from being a lifetime smoker when I was pretty young. That is why I, personally, don't do it, but the government is foolish to think that it will actually stop people from doing something that they really want to do. It is very easy to buy alcohol if you are under 21. Plus, in this case, it will be even easier because they will be allowed to possess it, just not purchase it. In over ninety percent of states, marijuana is still illegal for anyone to possess, much less purchase, however, in my experience, just about as many young people smoke marijuana as they do cigarettes.
The argument for this bill was, according to The New York Times, "that raising the age to buy cigarettes would discourage people from becoming addicted in the first place." I would argue that the first cigarette smoked by most is not one that they purchased on their own. People begin purchasing cigarettes after they have tried it a few times before. So now the only difference is going to be that these people must have someone else buy cigarettes for them when they want to smoke, or they will just obtain a fake ID and do it themselves.
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Pirates
Whenever I think of pirates, I typically think of the movie Pirates of the Caribbean featuring Johnny Depp as Captain Jack Sparrow. Although it has been a while since I have seen that movie, and I do not remember much of the plot, I still associate the type of attire they wore in that movie and old wooden ships, as well as, gross, very mild zombielike people with the stereotype of a pirate. Buried treasure and the search for it also comes to mind when thinking about pirates.
The type of pirates mentioned above must be the old-school version, because the first time I ever heard of pirates in real life (and found out that they really exist) was when the Somalian pirates took over Captain Phillips's ship. If I'm not mistaken, that is what the new movie featuring Tom Hanks is about. Prior to the Somalian pirate incident, I did not realize that piracy (other than the technological meaning) was a real problem in the world. According to the New York Times article, Somali piracy is currently at a seven year low. This is good news for the east coast of Africa. However, on the west coast of Africa, particularly Nigeria, there is a different story. This is where, just a week ago, two Americans were abducted by Nigerian pirates off a US oil vessel.
In my opinion, the new-school pirates are not as cool as the old-school ones. The new pirates (or real ones) do not wear eyepatches, fight using cannons, pistols, and swords, and travel the seas in a wooden ship with a skull and crossbones flag in search of buried treasure, but rather wear raggedy shirts, carry assault rifles, abduct innocent people from ships, and hold them for ransom. This could, however, have been how pirates have always been, but the legends of the pirates of the past have twisted this truth into something completely different and much more interesting, rather than just savage-like and inhumane.
The type of pirates mentioned above must be the old-school version, because the first time I ever heard of pirates in real life (and found out that they really exist) was when the Somalian pirates took over Captain Phillips's ship. If I'm not mistaken, that is what the new movie featuring Tom Hanks is about. Prior to the Somalian pirate incident, I did not realize that piracy (other than the technological meaning) was a real problem in the world. According to the New York Times article, Somali piracy is currently at a seven year low. This is good news for the east coast of Africa. However, on the west coast of Africa, particularly Nigeria, there is a different story. This is where, just a week ago, two Americans were abducted by Nigerian pirates off a US oil vessel.
In my opinion, the new-school pirates are not as cool as the old-school ones. The new pirates (or real ones) do not wear eyepatches, fight using cannons, pistols, and swords, and travel the seas in a wooden ship with a skull and crossbones flag in search of buried treasure, but rather wear raggedy shirts, carry assault rifles, abduct innocent people from ships, and hold them for ransom. This could, however, have been how pirates have always been, but the legends of the pirates of the past have twisted this truth into something completely different and much more interesting, rather than just savage-like and inhumane.
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Government Shutdown and Debt Ceiling
The recent battle over the government shutdown and the debt ceiling serves as a wonderful illustration of where our country stands politically right now. Nearly every vote was split on party lines, and the ever-intensifying split in the GOP was seen throughout, not necessarily by vote, but by each side's words and attitudes toward one another. The cry for a third party is definitely getting louder amongst the Tea Party and Libertarians, as each favor much smaller government, are from the grassroots (which makes them more relatable to the people), and share many of the same views regarding liberty and freedom.
The cry for a third party, to me, is a healthy sign, as a third party would offer another option for Americans, strengthening democracy. One thing that is not so healthy, however, is something I read from the guardian article that we read on the shutdown. The Guardian wrote...
One thing I have heard through most media outlets, including ESPN last night, is that it is the Republicans fault for shutting down the government because they failed to compromise. I can empathize with that view of the situation because it could certainly seem like that, (I also know that I may be a little biased, since I do consider myself a conservative at the end of the day) but I do not think that the Republicans were the ones refusing to compromise. Democrats, including the president, got everything they wanted out of the shutdown. Also, every bill written up by Republicans in the house was put down by Democrats in the senate. In addition to this, it was said many times that the president did not want to negotiate with Republicans. So Republicans were not the ones who were unwilling to negotiate, and ended up getting little to nothing (except for blame) out of the bill that finally ended the government shutdown and extended the debt ceiling.
As for the debt ceiling, it should not have been raised. The U.S. national debt is currently over $17,000,000,000,000. That is more than our current GDP. The current debt per citizen is nearly $54,000 and the current debt per taxpayer is nearly $149,000. The national debt is growing as we speak and it must be paid off eventually. It is time our government takes responsibility and only spends what they bring in. They must be held accountable now because the future is going to be rough with this debt hanging over for generations-to-come.
The cry for a third party, to me, is a healthy sign, as a third party would offer another option for Americans, strengthening democracy. One thing that is not so healthy, however, is something I read from the guardian article that we read on the shutdown. The Guardian wrote...
"Another Chinese tourist, on the National Mall with his fiancée, said he had not followed the politics of the fiscal crisis closely. "But this is what happens when you have two parties," he quipped. "One party is better.”"This is a scary idea to me. A one party system may get things done much faster because there is no opposition, however, it is practically a dictatorship. The system of checks and balances may stop the government from operating at its full potential, but that is the way of a democracy. I find this very interesting, as I am learning about different political and government structures, as well as, democracy versus dictatorships in my world politics class.
One thing I have heard through most media outlets, including ESPN last night, is that it is the Republicans fault for shutting down the government because they failed to compromise. I can empathize with that view of the situation because it could certainly seem like that, (I also know that I may be a little biased, since I do consider myself a conservative at the end of the day) but I do not think that the Republicans were the ones refusing to compromise. Democrats, including the president, got everything they wanted out of the shutdown. Also, every bill written up by Republicans in the house was put down by Democrats in the senate. In addition to this, it was said many times that the president did not want to negotiate with Republicans. So Republicans were not the ones who were unwilling to negotiate, and ended up getting little to nothing (except for blame) out of the bill that finally ended the government shutdown and extended the debt ceiling.
As for the debt ceiling, it should not have been raised. The U.S. national debt is currently over $17,000,000,000,000. That is more than our current GDP. The current debt per citizen is nearly $54,000 and the current debt per taxpayer is nearly $149,000. The national debt is growing as we speak and it must be paid off eventually. It is time our government takes responsibility and only spends what they bring in. They must be held accountable now because the future is going to be rough with this debt hanging over for generations-to-come.
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
New York Biker Incident
The incident that occurred in New York including a family in a Range Rover versus a mass of bikers (NOT a biker gang, as explained in the article) is very interesting to me because I do not know how I feel, nor do I know how I should feel about the situation. In my eyes, the altercation can be described as a series of blame shifts from one party to the other, broken down like so:
- Initially, the bikers are to blame due to their disobedience of road laws, performing stunts and traveling at illegal speeds, as well as their plain lack of respect for other users of the road, gathering in masses that leave little to no room for other drivers.
- Next, the driver takes the blame when he bumps into the back of a motorcyclist.
- Then, the bikers regain blame when they surround the car, and intimidate the driver, who then is allowed to flee, since he feels threatened.
- After this, the driver takes back the blame in dramatic fashion, running over a biker who was helping the initially injured motorcyclist, and then speeding off.
- Finally, the bikers steal the blame back once and for all by chasing the man down, and, eventually, beating him up.
The second article was somewhat confusing to me. It seems as if the NYPD officer they are speaking of, may have been involved with the biker group and contributed to the beating of the man. I am not 100% if that is correct though, possibly he was investigating the situation crookedly? I am not sure, as the article spoke more of his ties to infiltration of the Occupy Wall Street movement by the NYPD and his specific involvement.
Occupy Wall Street is an interesting topic in itself. Described as an anti-capitalist movement, I am definitely far away from them ideologically, however, I can relate with their anger at the power and special treatments given to big corporations by government. In my opinion, this is what occurs when the establishment types in Washington are continued to be elected to their seats for so long, that they forget who they are actually there for, and begin to work for special interests, rather than the general public, as Adam Smith may say. This causes "Wall Street Giants" who are often kept afloat by government bailouts, and are not allowed to fail when practicing poor business techniques, as any small business would. This interferes with the "invisible hand", and does not allow the economy to regulate itself. The way I see it, this is a very crooked form of capitalism (if capitalism at all) and not a true free market economy.
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
The Golden Age of Television?
I've been watching TV ever since I can remember. From children's shows like Rugrats and movies like Tarzan, Toy Story, and Bug's Life to TV MA shows like South Park and Beavis and Butthead and movies with Will Ferrell and Jim Carrey to sitcoms like The Fresh Prince, Full House, and Roseanne, I watched everything from a young age. This was because my dad is awesome, and let my brother and I watch what ever he was watching, as much as my mom or grandma didn't approve. I think we turned out alright though, so there was nothing to worry about in the end. All it gave my brother and I was a great sense of humor, almost too good at times. We have joked before on how it seems hard to find certain things, that many people find funny, to be funny because we have been blessed with seeing such funnier things.
I was informed in class last week that we are living in the golden age of television programs. My initial reaction was, "No way!", but then I started thinking, "Wait, this could very well be true." In my experience watching old TV shows with my dad, I have learned that shows used to be pretty corny with bad acting. Nowadays, the acting is wonderful, the sets and props look very real and are high quality, and the plots have people obsessed with the shows. This is seen in shows like Breaking Bad, TV drama series that end nearly every episode with cliffhangers that have you counting down the days to the next one. I think that in the TV Drama department, we are definitely living in the golden age.
Another department that I feel we are doing well in TV wise is the spin on "America's funniest home videos" department. With shows like Tosh.0 and Ridiculousness, I feel this is a great time for these types of shows. Not to mention, the help of the internet with the creation of this new take on an old classic.
There is a couple places, however, where I feel we are really lacking compared to the late 1980s to early 2000s in TV. The first is the children's chow category. All of the shows I have seen my younger cousins watching are ridiculous and stupid. They leave out the moral to the story that is supposed to come at the end of every children's show. Instead, they all end with a bunch of odd looking creatures dancing to some dumb song because they got what they wanted. What type of message is that sending? It is isn't even teaching kids to win with some integrity, just dance around like an idiot whenever you get what you wanted. In life you hardly ever get what you want, but that is something I learned from a young age because I was taught by my cartoons (and my parents, of course, I have, after all, spent a lot of my life in a recession). Another place, for the moral reason and because the new ones just aren't funny, is the situation comedy department. There just aren't any good sitcoms on TV, anymore. Where are the Fresh Prince of Bel-Airs, the Full Houses, the Roseannes, and the Home Improvements in today's TV? These were all situated around a family who, at the end of the day, always had a good message to send, and many people could relate to and/or learn from them. All of these shows had good values in them that reinforced or echoed, so to speak, the same things being taught by your parents at home. There isn't anything like these shows today and it really saddens me.
Overall, I think the quality of TV produced by high definition TVs and HD cameras and such, has really catapulted the production of any show to have much greater potential than it did years ago. The plot writing by those in the TV drama department, along with this, has really caused that TV sector to boom, in my opinion. However, the sitcoms I loved are still missing from the modern TV guide. I guess you can't get the best of both at the same time (and that is a lesson you won't learn by watching any modern sitcom or children's show and that is what is wrong with them).
I was informed in class last week that we are living in the golden age of television programs. My initial reaction was, "No way!", but then I started thinking, "Wait, this could very well be true." In my experience watching old TV shows with my dad, I have learned that shows used to be pretty corny with bad acting. Nowadays, the acting is wonderful, the sets and props look very real and are high quality, and the plots have people obsessed with the shows. This is seen in shows like Breaking Bad, TV drama series that end nearly every episode with cliffhangers that have you counting down the days to the next one. I think that in the TV Drama department, we are definitely living in the golden age.
Another department that I feel we are doing well in TV wise is the spin on "America's funniest home videos" department. With shows like Tosh.0 and Ridiculousness, I feel this is a great time for these types of shows. Not to mention, the help of the internet with the creation of this new take on an old classic.
There is a couple places, however, where I feel we are really lacking compared to the late 1980s to early 2000s in TV. The first is the children's chow category. All of the shows I have seen my younger cousins watching are ridiculous and stupid. They leave out the moral to the story that is supposed to come at the end of every children's show. Instead, they all end with a bunch of odd looking creatures dancing to some dumb song because they got what they wanted. What type of message is that sending? It is isn't even teaching kids to win with some integrity, just dance around like an idiot whenever you get what you wanted. In life you hardly ever get what you want, but that is something I learned from a young age because I was taught by my cartoons (and my parents, of course, I have, after all, spent a lot of my life in a recession). Another place, for the moral reason and because the new ones just aren't funny, is the situation comedy department. There just aren't any good sitcoms on TV, anymore. Where are the Fresh Prince of Bel-Airs, the Full Houses, the Roseannes, and the Home Improvements in today's TV? These were all situated around a family who, at the end of the day, always had a good message to send, and many people could relate to and/or learn from them. All of these shows had good values in them that reinforced or echoed, so to speak, the same things being taught by your parents at home. There isn't anything like these shows today and it really saddens me.
Overall, I think the quality of TV produced by high definition TVs and HD cameras and such, has really catapulted the production of any show to have much greater potential than it did years ago. The plot writing by those in the TV drama department, along with this, has really caused that TV sector to boom, in my opinion. However, the sitcoms I loved are still missing from the modern TV guide. I guess you can't get the best of both at the same time (and that is a lesson you won't learn by watching any modern sitcom or children's show and that is what is wrong with them).
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
Pet Videos and Memes
If someone were to ask me what I thought college would challenge me with academically, never would I have said, "Probably writing blogs on cat and dog memes and videos for a grade." Yet, here I am a month in to my first year and that is exactly what I'm up against.
There aren't too many people in the world that can deny the cuteness of a little kitten getting tickled with its paws spread or a puppy with big eyes who looks more like a beanie baby than a real creature. However, why have we as a society developed an obsession and, in some cases, an addiction to watching, sharing, searching, and/or creating memes and videos of these pets of ours? What I see being the answer to this question came to me when doing the assigned reading for this topic. I didn't extract it from the text, but (somehow) when applying cats and dogs to history and economic ideas, the answer just came to me.
One thing I learned from my tenth grade AP world history course is that all throughout history, whenever a society is doing well economically, there is a mass increase in leisure time and leisure activities. I feel that watching pet videos and viewing pet memes would be considered a leisure time activity (except for in this case, which is academic, of course). As we all know, the United States of America has been, and still is, a powerhouse of a country at a global level. Many of the less fortunate in our country are well off from the perspective of someone in other countries around the world. However, what we also know is that our economy isn't performing at a level that it used to, and the "general public", as Smith may say, has definitely felt a mighty blow. Oddly though, dog and cat memes and videos are not a privilege reserved exclusively for the rich. This is very much due to the invention of the internet and all of the free entertainment within it. Just think about how this would've been back prior to the 20th century. The wealthy and ruling classes of society would be the only ones to have the privilege of live shows of dogs and cats being cute and performing funny acts. Luckily, for us, this isn't the case now.
Or are we really so lucky? The rich in society can afford to waste time watching pet videos and such, however, the general public does not have this kind of time to waste. I don't know about you, but I know that when I get on youtube to watch a video, it never EVER stops with just one. Very frequently actually, it turns into 30 minutes to an hour of time wasted that I will never get back. Granted not all of these videos are on pets, it is easy to start with one focus and bounce from one topic to another. But imagine if you had all the time you ever wasted watching pet videos or searching for pet memes back? Or if you had all of the time you ever wasted watching the videos or memes that these videos and memes triggered you to watch or see back? You'd have a lot of time on your hands to do something very productive...or you could just use it to watch more pet videos.
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Navy Yard Shooting
On Monday, September 16, 2013, a shooter by the name of Aaron Alexis entered Building 197 of the Navy Yard in Washington D.C. He was armed with a sawed off shotgun and took the lives of 12 people working in the building on that day. My prayers go out to those who lost loved ones on that day. This is a horrible tragedy that could've been prevented had someone picked up on his history of mental problems, mischief, and run ins with the law.
Works Cited:
The two most notable instances, in my mind, were other shootings that took place in Fort Worth, Texas and Seattle, Washington. It was in Fort Worth, where Aaron Alexis shot a hole in his roof. This shows a lack of regard for the safety of others as firing stray bullets for no apparent reason in one's own home can be dangerous. In Seattle, an even more serious incident occurred. This was where Alexis fired shots at a car's tires causing them to go flat. Alexis, himself, called this incident "an anger-fueled blackout", according to the New York Times, in this article.
Now, the question that we are all left asking ourselves is, "How?" How did this man gain access to the Navy Yard in the first place? This was due to a breakdown in the system, as well as many missed signs of outrageous behavior, including those two shootings I spoke of, but also instances of insomnia where Alexis claimed to be hearing voices and a bar fight he was involved in, yet another example of violent tendencies.
It is all of this that I will point to when somebody tries to point the finger at a lack of gun control being the cause for this awful tragedy. This, along with the fact that the person behind the gun is ultimately responsible for their own actions, not the gun itself. Even if guns were outlawed, bad guys would still have them in the same way that drugs are easily accessible to anybody willing to put out the effort to get some. The only difference here would be that the good guys could not protect themselves from the bad, and would have to wait for the police to arrive, and by that time it will likely be too late.
In conclusion, I would just like to, again, acknowledge the tragedy that occurred, and send my prayers out to those who were killed and those who lost loved ones at the hands of this deranged man. I am very sorry for their loss.
Gabriel, Trip, Joseph Goldstein, and Michael Schmidt. "Suspect's Past Fell Just Short of Raising Alarm." New York Times. The New York Times Company, 17 Sept. 2013. Web. 24 Sept. 2013.
19, Richard A. Serrano September. "Navy Yard Shooter Attacked 'calmly,' FBI Chief Says." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 19 Sept. 2013. Web. 24 Sept. 2013.
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Syria: To Intervene Or Not To Intervene?
The hottest topic within the media for the last month has been Syria and what our reaction should be as the United States of America. This topic is very interesting to me because it is one of the few political debates where you don't already know where each particular congressman, or congresswoman, will side just based on their political affiliation with either the GOP or the Democratic Party. This debate represents, to me, at least, the increasingly larger debate between, not just the right versus the left, but the establishment types versus the growing grassroots, libertarian minded leaders in Washington. We saw it with drone strikes, the NSA, and now we are seeing it take place with foreign policy. Quite frankly, I love it.
Woods, Thomas. "Liberty Classroom." Liberty Classroom. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Sept. 2013.
Washington, George. "Farewell Address." George Washington's 1796 Farewell Address. 18 Sept. 2013. Address
Over the past year I have taken quite the interest in politics. The more I have looked into it, the more I see that our government has become very corrupt over the years, with both sides catering to special interest groups while nearly entirely abandoning the common man. Something must be done to fix it. So when I see what looks to be people in Congress actually working for the good of the common man and preserving our civil liberties, rather than working for interest groups or to further their own power within the government, it puts a smile on my face.
So now you may be wondering what civil liberties and the power of government have to do with the crisis in Syria, and whether our government should take action there or not. First, let's take a look at the actual declaration of war by the president. Under the constitution, the president does not have power to go to war without the consent of Congress. Yes, other presidents have violated this clause, however, it does not make it okay for another president to interpret the constitution in this dangerous way of doing so. The founders of our nation wanted it this way for a reason. It was a form of checks and balances. Also, they wanted Congress to decide with a majority decision, insinuating that it would then be the wants of the general public. NOT one man in Washington. When the president has this capability to declare war, he also has the greatest ability to expand the power of government because war expands the government's power at a greater rate than anything else. Throughout our history, war has been used to put regulations on free speech and, more recently, has infringed upon our fourth amendment search and seizure rights.
War, also, is a great regulator of our economy. War is very expensive, and the money to fund it must be printed in mass quantities, causing inflation of our dollar, making every dollar in our pockets worth less than before. I know what is being talked about now is being called an "unbelievably small" attack by John Kerry, but when was the last time, aside from budget cuts, we have ever seen anything "unbelievably small" come from our government? Our debt is far from small, and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were some causes of that debt. President Obama has promised us on TV that soldiers won't be on the ground, but how can he be so sure that Syria or their allies aren't going to retaliate in any way? Then are we just going to sit there and not do anything? The bottom line is we cannot afford another war.
A non interventionist foreign policy is what is best for the people of the United States of America. That should be the government's number one priority. After all, the Syrian people do not pay their salaries. I understand the moral outcries of this, but it is not the United States of America's job to be the police of the world. That ship has sailed, and we should look forward to the future in promoting peace with our foreign policy and setting a good example to those around the world. The interventionist foreign policy of the last decade has had far too many unattended consequences for the worse. It is time we listen to what our founders tried to tell us all those years ago.
Sources:
Paul, Ron. The Revolution: A Manifesto. New York, NY: Grand Central Pub., 2009. Print.
War, also, is a great regulator of our economy. War is very expensive, and the money to fund it must be printed in mass quantities, causing inflation of our dollar, making every dollar in our pockets worth less than before. I know what is being talked about now is being called an "unbelievably small" attack by John Kerry, but when was the last time, aside from budget cuts, we have ever seen anything "unbelievably small" come from our government? Our debt is far from small, and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were some causes of that debt. President Obama has promised us on TV that soldiers won't be on the ground, but how can he be so sure that Syria or their allies aren't going to retaliate in any way? Then are we just going to sit there and not do anything? The bottom line is we cannot afford another war.
A non interventionist foreign policy is what is best for the people of the United States of America. That should be the government's number one priority. After all, the Syrian people do not pay their salaries. I understand the moral outcries of this, but it is not the United States of America's job to be the police of the world. That ship has sailed, and we should look forward to the future in promoting peace with our foreign policy and setting a good example to those around the world. The interventionist foreign policy of the last decade has had far too many unattended consequences for the worse. It is time we listen to what our founders tried to tell us all those years ago.
"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities." - George Washington, 1796, Farewell Address
Sources:
Paul, Ron. The Revolution: A Manifesto. New York, NY: Grand Central Pub., 2009. Print.
Woods, Thomas. "Liberty Classroom." Liberty Classroom. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Sept. 2013.
Washington, George. "Farewell Address." George Washington's 1796 Farewell Address. 18 Sept. 2013. Address
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Mandeville vs Hutcheson
So today we took a look at the pessimistic attitude of Mandeville, who really seemed to feel as if everyone is selfish and only takes part in activities that work for their own self interest, versus the writings of Hutcheson, who went about attacking the claims of the selfishness of mankind by Mandeville in, what I felt, was a very odd way.
Hutcheson responds to Mandeville by going on, what was basically, a long, drawn out, 18th century rant about "beauty" and "uniformity". This response was of greater interest to me than that of Adam Smith, who took a more direct approach to combatting Mandeville's attack on the selflessness of mankind, because it was one that I definitely wouldn't have thought of off the top of my head and I only understood after reading the writing for a second time. At least, I believe that I now understand Hutcheson's point.
Toward the end of Hutcheson's piece on beauty, he begins to speak about wisdom, and this is where he (finally) drives the point home for us. He writes, "Wisdom denotes the pursuing of the best Ends by the best Means; and therefore before we can from any Effect prove the Cause to be wise, we must know what is best to the Cause or Agent. Among men who have pleasure in contemplating Uniformity, the Beauty of Effects is an Argument of Wisdom, because this is Good to them; but the same Argument would not hold as to a Being void of this Sense of Beauty. And therefore the Beauty apparent to us in Nature, will not of itself prove Wisdom in the Cause, unless this Cause, or Author of Nature be suppos’d Benevolent; and then indeed the Happiness of Mankind is desirable or Good to the Supreme Cause." In my opinion, Hutcheson's point here is that because "beauty" and "uniformity" bring pleasure to the eye, anyone who creates something of beauty has brought joy to those who will view it in the future, and the act of creating it is, therefore, "benevolent" in its nature.
Hutcheson responds to Mandeville by going on, what was basically, a long, drawn out, 18th century rant about "beauty" and "uniformity". This response was of greater interest to me than that of Adam Smith, who took a more direct approach to combatting Mandeville's attack on the selflessness of mankind, because it was one that I definitely wouldn't have thought of off the top of my head and I only understood after reading the writing for a second time. At least, I believe that I now understand Hutcheson's point.
Toward the end of Hutcheson's piece on beauty, he begins to speak about wisdom, and this is where he (finally) drives the point home for us. He writes, "Wisdom denotes the pursuing of the best Ends by the best Means; and therefore before we can from any Effect prove the Cause to be wise, we must know what is best to the Cause or Agent. Among men who have pleasure in contemplating Uniformity, the Beauty of Effects is an Argument of Wisdom, because this is Good to them; but the same Argument would not hold as to a Being void of this Sense of Beauty. And therefore the Beauty apparent to us in Nature, will not of itself prove Wisdom in the Cause, unless this Cause, or Author of Nature be suppos’d Benevolent; and then indeed the Happiness of Mankind is desirable or Good to the Supreme Cause." In my opinion, Hutcheson's point here is that because "beauty" and "uniformity" bring pleasure to the eye, anyone who creates something of beauty has brought joy to those who will view it in the future, and the act of creating it is, therefore, "benevolent" in its nature.
In this debate of the nature of man being either selfish or selfless, I find myself towards the side of Hutcheson and Smith. This is an optimistic approach, however, I feel that it is a necessary one. The world would be a very dark environment, in my opinion, if Mandeville were correct and everyone is just in it for themselves.
Source:
Francis Hutcheson, An Inquiry into the Original of Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue in Two Treatises, ed. Wolfgang Leidhold (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2004).
Accessed from http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/2462 on 2013-09-11
Monday, September 2, 2013
Plagiarism Exercise
1. IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
2. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its Governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places plains, and the crooked places will be made straight, and before the Lord will be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.
Source: King, Martin L., Jr. ""I Have A Dream"" March on Washington. Lincoln Memorial, Washington, D.C. 28 Aug. 1963. Speech.
3. The New York Times is a daily American newspaper, published continuously in New York City since being founded on September 18, 1851. It has won more Pulitzer Prizes than any other news organization, with 112.
4. I believe that electricity is like a fluid, moving throughout the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)