A friend and I got into a discussion recently about the idea of taxes. Me, being a liberal, argued that the rich should pay higher taxes because they already have more money than they'll ever need to survive, and those who barely have anything should at least have enough money to survive. But he made a very interesting counterargument that sparked some thought in me.
In his eyes, we are entitled to what we own. Yes, taxes are necessary to an extent, but does government have the right to take away what is rightfully ours? We have private property, and we have the right to own that property without government taking away what we were either born with, or possibly worked to own. In other words, his argument is that taxes should not be based on social class, because it does not promote individual movement and private property, two rights and ideologies very imbedded into American culture. What do you think?
In my personal opinion, I disagree. Though the idea of everyone owning everything they've worked for is ideal, but unfortunately so is the idea of equality among communism. There needs to be balance. I believe people have the right to be rich and lead glamorous lives, but they should not own enough to lead two or three lives. To me, slightly higher taxes for higher income families is not a punishment of any kind. It is simply logical for those with more money to have to sacrifice for the greater good of the country. That money goes to things like infrastructure, which paves our roads and keeps our country up to check, and unemployment, which keeps those looking for work up and about so when that employer needs workers they are able to have a career with them. So not only do their higher taxes help those in dire need of help, but it helps those in the upper classes as well.
But now I turn the question to you. What is your opinion on America's current economic state? In general, how do you think money should be divided? Leave your responses in the comments below.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Friday, December 14, 2012
Why I Don't Say The Pledge of Alleigance in the Morning
At my school, it is custom to start out the morning with the pledge of alleigance before class starts every morning. Basically, after the bell rings, an announcer gets on the speaker, says the pledge, and then it's over. All four years when experiencing this, I've seen the same results: the kids around me stand up lazily, stare at the flag, don't say a word, and then sit back down. Maybe a few every here and there will put their hand on their heart or mutter a bit of it, but mostly, it's just awkward standing out of fear of a lecture from the teacher or being that one man out who doesn't stand, I don't know which.
I used to be that kid who'd put their hand on their heart and speak the words to the best of my ability. But a few months ago, I had an epiphany. This pledge doesn't raise nationalism or pride, it waters it down. By having students say the pledge on a daily basis, the words of the pledge become repetetive, lose their meaning. Not only that, but the pledge almost forces us to be proud. And when you force someone to feel a certain way, it takes away the choice. And when you take away choice, people lose enthusiasm for the task at hand. Just ask any 10 year old whos mom made them join band when they didn't want to.
So, I decided to stop standing with the crowd. Don't get me wrong, I'm very proud to be an American. Just the fact I'm American means I can make this blog post without having to worry about FBI agents swarming into my house and throwing me into some secret prison in Antartica. That's a gift I respect. But the pledge takes away the meaning of America. It takes away the meaning of being proud.
What bugs me is the implication that goes behind not saying the pledge. "What? Are you not proud to be an American? You're being silly." Our country isn't perfect. We have screwed up economics, corruption in government, still face discrimination, and continue to destroy the land we come from. We have some work to do. I acknowledge the progress we've made, fighting for freedom, gaining women's rights, losing school segregation, growing acknoledgement of global warming, and continuing to try to raise standards of living for everyone. But we have work to do. And that's fine. But forcing nationalism doesn't do anything. I love my country. I really do. But if even our pledge still says we're "under God" when we're in country that shold be promoting diversity amoung religions, there are still things that need to be changed.
As always, now I open the question to you. Do you think saying the pledge is smart or silly? What is your opinion on our country's nationalism (which, by the way seems to be taking a satirical turn, with new pictures such as this becoming norm on the internet)? What do you think of good ol' 'murica, whether you are from this country or not? Feel free to leave your thoughts in the comments below.
I used to be that kid who'd put their hand on their heart and speak the words to the best of my ability. But a few months ago, I had an epiphany. This pledge doesn't raise nationalism or pride, it waters it down. By having students say the pledge on a daily basis, the words of the pledge become repetetive, lose their meaning. Not only that, but the pledge almost forces us to be proud. And when you force someone to feel a certain way, it takes away the choice. And when you take away choice, people lose enthusiasm for the task at hand. Just ask any 10 year old whos mom made them join band when they didn't want to.
So, I decided to stop standing with the crowd. Don't get me wrong, I'm very proud to be an American. Just the fact I'm American means I can make this blog post without having to worry about FBI agents swarming into my house and throwing me into some secret prison in Antartica. That's a gift I respect. But the pledge takes away the meaning of America. It takes away the meaning of being proud.
What bugs me is the implication that goes behind not saying the pledge. "What? Are you not proud to be an American? You're being silly." Our country isn't perfect. We have screwed up economics, corruption in government, still face discrimination, and continue to destroy the land we come from. We have some work to do. I acknowledge the progress we've made, fighting for freedom, gaining women's rights, losing school segregation, growing acknoledgement of global warming, and continuing to try to raise standards of living for everyone. But we have work to do. And that's fine. But forcing nationalism doesn't do anything. I love my country. I really do. But if even our pledge still says we're "under God" when we're in country that shold be promoting diversity amoung religions, there are still things that need to be changed.
As always, now I open the question to you. Do you think saying the pledge is smart or silly? What is your opinion on our country's nationalism (which, by the way seems to be taking a satirical turn, with new pictures such as this becoming norm on the internet)? What do you think of good ol' 'murica, whether you are from this country or not? Feel free to leave your thoughts in the comments below.
Monday, December 3, 2012
A Patriotic Duty
So recently, I read this article discussing some measures being taken by Greece to help with it's continually growing debt crisis. One strategy they discussed is "buying back" bonds to help Greece pay off it's loans. To do this, Athens is telling banks that it is their "patriotic duty" to help make sure this debt can be paid off. To some, this buy back of loans may be the only way to save Greece from this economic pit.
Though this analogy is a stretch, this idea sort of reminds me of back during WWII when our government worked hard to boost nationalistic moral so soldiers would enlist for the US Army, people back home would be willing to help out economically, and, generally speaking, the public would support this war that's taking place all the way in Europe.
To me, this raises a question: is propoganda, or even just the idea of saying something is a "patriotic duty", an acceptable way for government to get something done if, in the end, it is to benefit the people?
In other words, if the only way government can get a task necessary for the improvement of the country is to convince everyone, even through stretching the truth, guilt, or flat out lies, that they need to do a certain thing? Or should government remain honest at all times, even if that means having to deal with some hard issues, such as economic downfalls and extrenuous wars?
I believe this is a complex question with no one straight up answer. Obviously, a scenario when there is only one way to fix any issue is rare, but if this were to happen, I'd argue that yes, government has the right to lie if and only if it is the only way to solve the issue at hand. It's sort of like when a child doesn't want to brush their teeth, and the only way for the mother to get the child to brush is to say that the tooth fairy only gives money to those that brush. Again, this is an exaggeration, and Greece's situation is one that is also more complex than simply straight up lies or deceit by government. But if the only way to save the country is by jumping through a few hoops, I believe it is fair in the long run.
Now I open the question up to you. Do you believe government has the right to lie, if it is to benefit the country? What is your opinion on Greece's situation? What is your opinion of usage of War Propaganda in WWII? Was that necessary? Feel free to answer below.
For more information, check out the link above.
Though this analogy is a stretch, this idea sort of reminds me of back during WWII when our government worked hard to boost nationalistic moral so soldiers would enlist for the US Army, people back home would be willing to help out economically, and, generally speaking, the public would support this war that's taking place all the way in Europe.
To me, this raises a question: is propoganda, or even just the idea of saying something is a "patriotic duty", an acceptable way for government to get something done if, in the end, it is to benefit the people?
In other words, if the only way government can get a task necessary for the improvement of the country is to convince everyone, even through stretching the truth, guilt, or flat out lies, that they need to do a certain thing? Or should government remain honest at all times, even if that means having to deal with some hard issues, such as economic downfalls and extrenuous wars?
I believe this is a complex question with no one straight up answer. Obviously, a scenario when there is only one way to fix any issue is rare, but if this were to happen, I'd argue that yes, government has the right to lie if and only if it is the only way to solve the issue at hand. It's sort of like when a child doesn't want to brush their teeth, and the only way for the mother to get the child to brush is to say that the tooth fairy only gives money to those that brush. Again, this is an exaggeration, and Greece's situation is one that is also more complex than simply straight up lies or deceit by government. But if the only way to save the country is by jumping through a few hoops, I believe it is fair in the long run.
Now I open the question up to you. Do you believe government has the right to lie, if it is to benefit the country? What is your opinion on Greece's situation? What is your opinion of usage of War Propaganda in WWII? Was that necessary? Feel free to answer below.
For more information, check out the link above.
Friday, November 23, 2012
Why AP Classes Don't Work
As a student of a very competitive high school, I'm one of those kids who loves to fill herself up with AP, or Advanced Placement classes. Not only do they look great on a college resume and have the potential to give me some college credit, but they could allow me to stimulate my mind like never before, to experience a new level of thinking.
At first, I was very excited for this mind stimulation. Don't get me wrong, I learned a lot, and the classes were definitely a challenge. But then I learned the structure of these classes. They're based on a single AP test taken on the end of the year, that combines multiple choice questions and a few written essays.In fact, a large amount of class time is dedicated to preparing for this test, learning how the essays are structured, taking practice tests, etc. When learning the material, we are taught it in the same fashion as it will appear on the AP test, so we best know how to succeed on the test.
Long story short: we are not learning about the subject at hand, we are learning how to take a test.
I strongly disagree with this ideology. I take AP classes in hopes to get a broader understanding of history, language, and the social sciences. But I instead find myself wasting precious class time writing practice essays. Yes, I feel that writing essays is important, but the amount of time spent learning how to write these essays and other bits and pieces for the test is unequal to the benefits they provide in the long run for learning the subject. Plus, the fact our entire score is based on an assortment of a few essays, and multiple choice questions is completely unfair. One test does not accurately measure one's ability.
A class for higher learning shouldn't be based on a single test. Credit for that class shouldn't be based on a single test(especially one that costs money, which puts lower income families at a disadvantage). A better way to structure AP classes would be to base college applicability on an average grade from both semesters. For example, if a student managed to get an average As for both semesters in the class, they should be awarded with a 5. An average of Bs would earn a student a 4, Cs a 3, etc. That way, a student can earn credit for performing well in the class itself.
Now I open up the question to you. What do you think of the way AP classes are currently structured? If you've had any prior experience with AP tests, what did you think of them? Which idea for structure do you think would work better, how it is now or with the "in class score" option? Let me know in the comments below!
At first, I was very excited for this mind stimulation. Don't get me wrong, I learned a lot, and the classes were definitely a challenge. But then I learned the structure of these classes. They're based on a single AP test taken on the end of the year, that combines multiple choice questions and a few written essays.In fact, a large amount of class time is dedicated to preparing for this test, learning how the essays are structured, taking practice tests, etc. When learning the material, we are taught it in the same fashion as it will appear on the AP test, so we best know how to succeed on the test.
Long story short: we are not learning about the subject at hand, we are learning how to take a test.
I strongly disagree with this ideology. I take AP classes in hopes to get a broader understanding of history, language, and the social sciences. But I instead find myself wasting precious class time writing practice essays. Yes, I feel that writing essays is important, but the amount of time spent learning how to write these essays and other bits and pieces for the test is unequal to the benefits they provide in the long run for learning the subject. Plus, the fact our entire score is based on an assortment of a few essays, and multiple choice questions is completely unfair. One test does not accurately measure one's ability.
A class for higher learning shouldn't be based on a single test. Credit for that class shouldn't be based on a single test(especially one that costs money, which puts lower income families at a disadvantage). A better way to structure AP classes would be to base college applicability on an average grade from both semesters. For example, if a student managed to get an average As for both semesters in the class, they should be awarded with a 5. An average of Bs would earn a student a 4, Cs a 3, etc. That way, a student can earn credit for performing well in the class itself.
Now I open up the question to you. What do you think of the way AP classes are currently structured? If you've had any prior experience with AP tests, what did you think of them? Which idea for structure do you think would work better, how it is now or with the "in class score" option? Let me know in the comments below!
Friday, November 16, 2012
The Logic of the Facebook Dislike Button
So a common question and Facebook "issue" that has been discussed is how it still lacks the much desired "dislike" button. In fact, the page that calls for a dislike button currently holds over 3,000,000 people, or roughly 4% of the total population of France. That's a pretty big number. Arguments that are pro-dislike button range anywhere from arguing it would discourage pointless posts to the logic that websites like Youtube have both a "thumbs up" and "thumbs down", so why not Facebook? And, logically speaking, since social media is arguably for it's users, why won't Facebook staff change it's formatting to meet their desires? (Especially with how quickly it changes it's formatting, anyway).
There are two main answers to this question: The first has more to do with business. Since many company's use this "like" button as a means of seeing who "likes" their product, they can promote their company through use of social media. If Facebook were to add a dislike button, people would also use this button for these company's pages, which would look bad on the company's part, and does damage to their business. Even if Facebook reformatted it's website so these businesses don't have a dislike button, it would probably draw complaints from the users, since this may come off as trying too hard to promote certain companies, not allowing for people to express their real opinion of them, etc. And Facebook programmers know that, to keep the website going, they need these company advertisements, so in order to keep them from going away, the dislike button has not been added. Also, part of it is the fear of it promoting bullying. People could easily use the dislike button to dislike statuses of people they don't like, and it could hurt self-esteem of those who receive many of these dislikes. With the idea of "trolling" and cyberbullying becoming a bigger issue in today's society, it's no wonder this fear has come about.
Now, to keep this blog post less complex, I'd mostly like to focus on the bullying-ideology of the "dislike" button. (Though I may do a future post on the more involved relations of social media/business). This idea raises one main questions: Does America try too hard to "filter" everything into a nice culture? Yes, Facebook itself is internationally used, but the company itself is based and created in America, thus the company runs on American ideas. Do we have the right to be rude? Does taking measures to reduce acts of bullying reduce rates of bullying or only cover up the problem?
It's a tricky question. In my opinion, I personally believe not installing a "dislike" button is a smart choice. I feel like it will serve nothing more than to make people feel anxious and self-conscious about their statuses and posts, and feel less comfortable expressing themselves online. Trolling does exist, I don't deny that, but when you actually create a button that tells people to be rude to others, that's enforcing this rudeness. This isn't desensitizing: it's avoiding an issue that's really unnecessary to bring about in the first place.For me, I personally dislike the idea of a dislike button.
Also, in terms of the Youtube argument, I feel it's more acceptable to allow a dislike button. Most people on Youtube use it not to interact with friends, but to post videos about, well, just about everything. Since many of these videos come from actual film-makers or people hoping to get more viewers to their videos, knowing what people like from your video can help you achieve this goal.
And now I open up the question to all of you. Do you think the dislike button is a good idea? Do you think America tries too hard to "filter" what is good and bad? What do you think of concepts such as "trolling" and cyber bullying? Are these issues or overreactions? Also, just interesting, since Youtube allows dislikes and Facebook does not, do you think this speaks to the idea of it being easier to insult those we don't know as well? Let me know in the comments below.
For more interesting articles on the logic of the dislike button, check out the links below (there are also plenty more if you type in "why there is no Facebook dislike button" onto Google):
http://live.wsj.com/video/why-doesnt-facebook-have-a-dislike-button/11AB2B22-D8BA-4725-A0C2-4A47D16C910C.html#!11AB2B22-D8BA-4725-A0C2-4A47D16C910C
http://thenextweb.com/socialmedia/2010/10/10/facebook-dislike-button-why-it-will-never-happen/
There are two main answers to this question: The first has more to do with business. Since many company's use this "like" button as a means of seeing who "likes" their product, they can promote their company through use of social media. If Facebook were to add a dislike button, people would also use this button for these company's pages, which would look bad on the company's part, and does damage to their business. Even if Facebook reformatted it's website so these businesses don't have a dislike button, it would probably draw complaints from the users, since this may come off as trying too hard to promote certain companies, not allowing for people to express their real opinion of them, etc. And Facebook programmers know that, to keep the website going, they need these company advertisements, so in order to keep them from going away, the dislike button has not been added. Also, part of it is the fear of it promoting bullying. People could easily use the dislike button to dislike statuses of people they don't like, and it could hurt self-esteem of those who receive many of these dislikes. With the idea of "trolling" and cyberbullying becoming a bigger issue in today's society, it's no wonder this fear has come about.
Now, to keep this blog post less complex, I'd mostly like to focus on the bullying-ideology of the "dislike" button. (Though I may do a future post on the more involved relations of social media/business). This idea raises one main questions: Does America try too hard to "filter" everything into a nice culture? Yes, Facebook itself is internationally used, but the company itself is based and created in America, thus the company runs on American ideas. Do we have the right to be rude? Does taking measures to reduce acts of bullying reduce rates of bullying or only cover up the problem?
It's a tricky question. In my opinion, I personally believe not installing a "dislike" button is a smart choice. I feel like it will serve nothing more than to make people feel anxious and self-conscious about their statuses and posts, and feel less comfortable expressing themselves online. Trolling does exist, I don't deny that, but when you actually create a button that tells people to be rude to others, that's enforcing this rudeness. This isn't desensitizing: it's avoiding an issue that's really unnecessary to bring about in the first place.For me, I personally dislike the idea of a dislike button.
Also, in terms of the Youtube argument, I feel it's more acceptable to allow a dislike button. Most people on Youtube use it not to interact with friends, but to post videos about, well, just about everything. Since many of these videos come from actual film-makers or people hoping to get more viewers to their videos, knowing what people like from your video can help you achieve this goal.
And now I open up the question to all of you. Do you think the dislike button is a good idea? Do you think America tries too hard to "filter" what is good and bad? What do you think of concepts such as "trolling" and cyber bullying? Are these issues or overreactions? Also, just interesting, since Youtube allows dislikes and Facebook does not, do you think this speaks to the idea of it being easier to insult those we don't know as well? Let me know in the comments below.
For more interesting articles on the logic of the dislike button, check out the links below (there are also plenty more if you type in "why there is no Facebook dislike button" onto Google):
http://live.wsj.com/video/why-doesnt-facebook-have-a-dislike-button/11AB2B22-D8BA-4725-A0C2-4A47D16C910C.html#!11AB2B22-D8BA-4725-A0C2-4A47D16C910C
http://thenextweb.com/socialmedia/2010/10/10/facebook-dislike-button-why-it-will-never-happen/
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Lists of Happiness
So this post is a bit less political, and more on the philisophical end of things.
The other day, I was at TAB meeting for my local library, in which teens assemble to discuss how to improve the teenage literature and social atmosphere of the library. At this first meeting, the coordinator handed out this list of 40 things where, apparently if you can check off at least 20 as being relevant to your life, you have the ability to live a happy life. Some included living in an environment where you have adult friends for influence, a group of friends that influence you for the better, and reading for at least an hour a day. I was astounded at how hard I had to try and find those 20 things. I was almost upset. Does this mean I'm not happy? After a while, of deep, interpersonal thought and twisting the meaning of the sentences, I did manage to check off 20 things, but I realized very quickly how little this satisfied. And that's where my thoughts begin.
What trully defines what our happiness is? There is no one list or secret that tells you what YOU need to make you happy. I'm tired of this idea of a one-fix-everything cure for our problems in life, and as long as you live up to certain standards, you're okay. But that's not how the world works. People can lead perfectly good lives while never picking up a book, never wrting a single sentence on paper, and never speaking to those beyond their own set group of friends. Happiness has no one clear defintion, it comes in many forms, and reforms itself over and over to meet our day to day changes and styles. We as humans love to have answers to our problems, to be able to understand the world we live in, but it's not that simple. To find out what makes us content we must pick the things that get us excited. We must move past the influence of others and decide for ourselves if we are trully happy with where we are right now. No list is going to tell us if we're happy: we do. So what if I don't always have the time to read. Does that mean I'm unhappy?
Never let any form of happiness define you. Never let anyone tell you if you're happy or not. You decide if you're happy.
The other day, I was at TAB meeting for my local library, in which teens assemble to discuss how to improve the teenage literature and social atmosphere of the library. At this first meeting, the coordinator handed out this list of 40 things where, apparently if you can check off at least 20 as being relevant to your life, you have the ability to live a happy life. Some included living in an environment where you have adult friends for influence, a group of friends that influence you for the better, and reading for at least an hour a day. I was astounded at how hard I had to try and find those 20 things. I was almost upset. Does this mean I'm not happy? After a while, of deep, interpersonal thought and twisting the meaning of the sentences, I did manage to check off 20 things, but I realized very quickly how little this satisfied. And that's where my thoughts begin.
What trully defines what our happiness is? There is no one list or secret that tells you what YOU need to make you happy. I'm tired of this idea of a one-fix-everything cure for our problems in life, and as long as you live up to certain standards, you're okay. But that's not how the world works. People can lead perfectly good lives while never picking up a book, never wrting a single sentence on paper, and never speaking to those beyond their own set group of friends. Happiness has no one clear defintion, it comes in many forms, and reforms itself over and over to meet our day to day changes and styles. We as humans love to have answers to our problems, to be able to understand the world we live in, but it's not that simple. To find out what makes us content we must pick the things that get us excited. We must move past the influence of others and decide for ourselves if we are trully happy with where we are right now. No list is going to tell us if we're happy: we do. So what if I don't always have the time to read. Does that mean I'm unhappy?
Never let any form of happiness define you. Never let anyone tell you if you're happy or not. You decide if you're happy.
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Gay Blood
The article that inspires this blog post a bit outdated, but the content within is still very relevant today. According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), homosexual men are not allowed to donate blood in the United States, for fear of spreading HIV/AIDS. The belief is that since homosexuals have higher rates of HIV, they are more likely to spread the disease. If you ever donate blood, you'll notice one of the boxes to check off with a "yes" or "no" states something along the lines of, "I have had sexual intercourse with a man who has had sexual intercourse with another man", your blood will not be used.
I have many problems with this law. First off, their reasoning is completely false. According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), rates for homosexual couples with AIDS is actually lower than that of heterosexual couples. Yet they seem to have no trouble denying heterosexuals access to donation.
This is beyond simple safety, this is ideology. This law is based off assumptions made back when AIDS was still GRID, or "Gay Related Immune Deficiency". Even if homosexuals did have higher rates of AIDS, the FDA also states that men who have slept with prostitutes, whom also have higher rates of HIV/AIDS, are allowed to donate blood after a year of the encounter.
This is an unnecessary law. If someone wishes to give their blood to save another, this decision shouldn't be based on whom they love. The United State's hospitals already has less blood than they need, and we deny an entire group of people the ability to help this problem? Yes, people can choose to lie when checking off the box asking about their sex-life, but just the fact this rule is in place shows a lack of progress for equality towards all. I firmly believe this law should not be in place: if our country wants to see progress, we have to show it.
But as always, I open up the question to you. Do you feel this law should be in place? Why or why not? How do you think the idea of homosexuality stands in America today? Feel free to give me your opinions below.
For more information, feel free to check out the links above.
I have many problems with this law. First off, their reasoning is completely false. According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), rates for homosexual couples with AIDS is actually lower than that of heterosexual couples. Yet they seem to have no trouble denying heterosexuals access to donation.
This is beyond simple safety, this is ideology. This law is based off assumptions made back when AIDS was still GRID, or "Gay Related Immune Deficiency". Even if homosexuals did have higher rates of AIDS, the FDA also states that men who have slept with prostitutes, whom also have higher rates of HIV/AIDS, are allowed to donate blood after a year of the encounter.
This is an unnecessary law. If someone wishes to give their blood to save another, this decision shouldn't be based on whom they love. The United State's hospitals already has less blood than they need, and we deny an entire group of people the ability to help this problem? Yes, people can choose to lie when checking off the box asking about their sex-life, but just the fact this rule is in place shows a lack of progress for equality towards all. I firmly believe this law should not be in place: if our country wants to see progress, we have to show it.
But as always, I open up the question to you. Do you feel this law should be in place? Why or why not? How do you think the idea of homosexuality stands in America today? Feel free to give me your opinions below.
For more information, feel free to check out the links above.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)