Thursday, January 17, 2013
What is your American Dream?
The American Dream is not, nor should it be, something that is easily obtained. The American Dream can only be achieved through a great amount of hard work and perseverance. For me, that dream is to achieve happiness in all aspects of my life, both at home and at work.
In my American Dream, I have a job that I not only earn a decent amount of money from, but I also can derive some sort of joy from while performing my day-to-day duties. I would like to earn enough money so that I never have to worry about how I am to put food on the table every night or how I am to pay the next house payment. I dream to make enough money to never worry about how much I have. I wish to have a job that allows me to be happy while I work. I do not wish to be yet another person who dreads waking up in the morning to go to their job that they hate and be around people they cannot stand. I may not know what this dream job is yet, but I plan to continue searching until I someday discover that perfect job.
In my American Dream, I return from my job to a nice home and a loving family. I hope to acquire a house that will allow my family and me to live comfortably and without squalor. I do not want a giant mansion that occupies enough space for ten families, but I do want a house that is spacious enough to not feel cramped. I wish to live with a kind, happy family that I can support. I hope to provide what they need to lead successful lives. I do not know where this perfect home or who this perfect family is yet, but I hope to one day find them.
I understand that my American Dream is not achievable by all, even if they work their absolute hardest to get there. My American Dream may not even be achievable by me, but I plan to try my best to get there, nonetheless.
Sunday, January 13, 2013
CC1: Trillion-Dollar Coin
Matthew Larotonda, a writer for Yahoo! News, states in his article, "Trillion-Dollar Coin? WH Says No Way," that the White House has shot down the idea of minting a trillion-dollar coin to attempt to solve the National Debt problem.
In the article, Matthew Larotonda states, "The Obama administration has killed any notion of minting trillion-dollar platinum coins to solve the nation's debt ceiling woes." Obama does not want to try to use underhanded and potentially dangerous means to solve the National Debt Crisis. He wants to solve the problem by actually fixing it rather than by making it worse in the long run.
Also stated by Larotonda in the article, "In a written statement released Saturday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney says there are only "two options" to deal with the looming need for the U.S. government to pay creditors for federal funding it has already spent." The White House knows that the idea of using the coin to pay off the debt is ridiculous. They know that, in order for the debt to be paid off, the budget must be balanced, otherwise, the problem will return.
Larotonda also states in the article, "While there are laws in place to regulate how much paper, gold, silver or copper currency can be circulated by the government, there is nothing so clearly stated when it comes to platinum." Obama knows that circumventing our own laws would look very bad on our part. This would be damaging to the reputation of the U.S. in the rest of the world and would set a very bad example for other governments follow.
This reminds me of kids in school cheating to get better grades. Rather than doing the right thing and working to do better and fix a problem that they caused themselves, they choose to use underhanded tactics to make their grade better.
The idea of disregarding our own laws and regulations and paying off our debt in such a silly way is a bit of a joke. Even if it wouldn't cause serious inflation and damage to the economy, doing so would be hypocritical of the U.S. government, since they have rules and regulations against it.
In the article, Matthew Larotonda states, "The Obama administration has killed any notion of minting trillion-dollar platinum coins to solve the nation's debt ceiling woes." Obama does not want to try to use underhanded and potentially dangerous means to solve the National Debt Crisis. He wants to solve the problem by actually fixing it rather than by making it worse in the long run.
Also stated by Larotonda in the article, "In a written statement released Saturday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney says there are only "two options" to deal with the looming need for the U.S. government to pay creditors for federal funding it has already spent." The White House knows that the idea of using the coin to pay off the debt is ridiculous. They know that, in order for the debt to be paid off, the budget must be balanced, otherwise, the problem will return.
Larotonda also states in the article, "While there are laws in place to regulate how much paper, gold, silver or copper currency can be circulated by the government, there is nothing so clearly stated when it comes to platinum." Obama knows that circumventing our own laws would look very bad on our part. This would be damaging to the reputation of the U.S. in the rest of the world and would set a very bad example for other governments follow.
This reminds me of kids in school cheating to get better grades. Rather than doing the right thing and working to do better and fix a problem that they caused themselves, they choose to use underhanded tactics to make their grade better.
The idea of disregarding our own laws and regulations and paying off our debt in such a silly way is a bit of a joke. Even if it wouldn't cause serious inflation and damage to the economy, doing so would be hypocritical of the U.S. government, since they have rules and regulations against it.
Sunday, December 16, 2012
The Fellowship of the Ring Book Review
The Lord of the Rings books were once the most popular books for men.They are about a hobbit, Frodo, who must take the one ring, an evil power made to rule others, to a volcano to destroy the ring. J.R.R Tolkien's The Fellowship of the Ring bored me with its dry writing.
One theme of the book is how power corrupts. The book shows that power or the chance of it can turn even good people into evil people that are obsessed with power. First, Isildur had a chance to destroy the ring, but he wanted the power the ring had so he took the ring for himself. Then, Smeagol killed his friend because he wanted the power of the ring for himself. Last, Boromir attempted to take the ring from Frodo because he wanted the power that the ring had.
This book connects with the real world in multiple ways. One way is the theme of the book, power corrupts, holds true to the real world. Any one of a number of corrupt politicians is a good example of this. The Lord of the Rings books also show the decline of power that is inevitable for every nation. The Elves decline in power and must leave Middle-Earth. In the real world, the Roman empire was once a powerful nation, but it declined and ceased to exist.
The setting of the book is in an imaginary place called "Middle-Earth." There is an evil power that is building up there and the previously peaceful governments will soon be thrown into a war with Sauron. One way this affects the conflict of the novel is that people are no longer as trusting with strangers as they were before. This makes it difficult for Frodo to get help from strangers when he is in need of assistance. A second way this affects the conflict is that the wilderness is always dangerous. The Enemy has his servants running around all over Middle-Earth. A third way this affects the conflict is the challenges that the characters face from the weather and environment often dictate their route through Middle-Earth.
Despite its dry writing, I would recommend this book to be read.
One theme of the book is how power corrupts. The book shows that power or the chance of it can turn even good people into evil people that are obsessed with power. First, Isildur had a chance to destroy the ring, but he wanted the power the ring had so he took the ring for himself. Then, Smeagol killed his friend because he wanted the power of the ring for himself. Last, Boromir attempted to take the ring from Frodo because he wanted the power that the ring had.
This book connects with the real world in multiple ways. One way is the theme of the book, power corrupts, holds true to the real world. Any one of a number of corrupt politicians is a good example of this. The Lord of the Rings books also show the decline of power that is inevitable for every nation. The Elves decline in power and must leave Middle-Earth. In the real world, the Roman empire was once a powerful nation, but it declined and ceased to exist.
The setting of the book is in an imaginary place called "Middle-Earth." There is an evil power that is building up there and the previously peaceful governments will soon be thrown into a war with Sauron. One way this affects the conflict of the novel is that people are no longer as trusting with strangers as they were before. This makes it difficult for Frodo to get help from strangers when he is in need of assistance. A second way this affects the conflict is that the wilderness is always dangerous. The Enemy has his servants running around all over Middle-Earth. A third way this affects the conflict is the challenges that the characters face from the weather and environment often dictate their route through Middle-Earth.
Despite its dry writing, I would recommend this book to be read.
Monday, December 3, 2012
Current Connection #5
Foster Klug, a writer for Yahoo! News, states in his article, "NKorea says it will launch long-range rocket soon," that North Korea is continuing to launch missiles in spite of U.S. and South Korean pressure to stop.
In the article, Foster Klug states, "North Korea announced Saturday that it would attempt to launch a long-range rocket in mid-December, a defiant move just eight months after a failed April bid was widely condemned as a violation of a U.N. ban against developing its nuclear and missile programs." North Korea has decided to continues to go against The United Nations yet again by continuing its illegal programs. This can only serve to worsen political relations between North Korea and the rest of the world.
Foster Klug also states in the article, "The planned launch window — Dec 10 - 22 — comes as President Barack Obama prepares for his second term and as South Korea holds presidential elections Dec. 19." It is possible that North Korea feels that they can more easily get away with causing trouble since Obama is president again as he will not react as strongly as a more conservative president. It is also possible that North Korea is trying to influence the South Korean election by causing political trouble.
The article by Foster Klug also states, "It would be North Korea's second launch attempt under leader Kim Jong Un, who took power following his father Kim Jong Il's death nearly a year ago."Just like his father and grandfather, Kim Jong Un seems to have no intentions to ever work with other countries. This seems to be a family of leaders bent on causing mayhem and starving their people.
This sort of reminds me of elementary school bullies. They do whatever they want with no real consequences because they're just little kids. The little punishment put upon them doesn't really bother them so they just keep antagonizing everyone.
North Korea has been bothering the world with their missile and nuclear programs for quite a while now. They are a danger and an annoyance to the rest of the countries of the world and if it wasn't for China it is unlikely that North Korea could even continue to exist.
In the article, Foster Klug states, "North Korea announced Saturday that it would attempt to launch a long-range rocket in mid-December, a defiant move just eight months after a failed April bid was widely condemned as a violation of a U.N. ban against developing its nuclear and missile programs." North Korea has decided to continues to go against The United Nations yet again by continuing its illegal programs. This can only serve to worsen political relations between North Korea and the rest of the world.
Foster Klug also states in the article, "The planned launch window — Dec 10 - 22 — comes as President Barack Obama prepares for his second term and as South Korea holds presidential elections Dec. 19." It is possible that North Korea feels that they can more easily get away with causing trouble since Obama is president again as he will not react as strongly as a more conservative president. It is also possible that North Korea is trying to influence the South Korean election by causing political trouble.
The article by Foster Klug also states, "It would be North Korea's second launch attempt under leader Kim Jong Un, who took power following his father Kim Jong Il's death nearly a year ago."Just like his father and grandfather, Kim Jong Un seems to have no intentions to ever work with other countries. This seems to be a family of leaders bent on causing mayhem and starving their people.
This sort of reminds me of elementary school bullies. They do whatever they want with no real consequences because they're just little kids. The little punishment put upon them doesn't really bother them so they just keep antagonizing everyone.
North Korea has been bothering the world with their missile and nuclear programs for quite a while now. They are a danger and an annoyance to the rest of the countries of the world and if it wasn't for China it is unlikely that North Korea could even continue to exist.
Monday, November 19, 2012
Current Connection #4
Ibrahim Barzak and Karin Laub, a pair of writers for Yahoo! News, state in their article, "Palestinian civilian toll climbs in Gaza," that as Israeli strikes against Hamas rocket launching stations and Hamas military leaders, Palestinian civilians continue to get killed in the crossfire.
In the article Ibrahim Barzak and Karin Laub state, "Israeli aircraft struck crowded areas in the Gaza Strip on Monday, driving up the Palestinian death toll to 94 and devastating several homes belonging to one clan as Israel broadened its targets in the 6-day-old offensive meant to quell Hamas rocket fire on Israel." As Israel attacks targets in Gaza to stop the rocket fire, they also accidentally kill many Palestinian civilians. Understandably, the Palestinians aren't happy about this.
Barzak and Laub also state, "Escalating its bombing campaign, Israel on Sunday began attacking homes of activists in Hamas, the Islamic militant group that rules Gaza." The activists often have several people living in their homes or are living in the homes of other people. This cowering behind civilians is the cause of many civilian casualties.
Also stated in the article, "Hamas fighters, meanwhile, have fired hundreds of rockets into Israel in the current round of fighting, including 75 on Monday, among them one that hit an empty school." The murder of civilians is not a crime committed exclusively by Israel. Hamas continues its unjustified assault on Israel with rocket fire, encouraging even more action from Israel to stop the rocket fire.
This reminds me of the beginning of many wars throughout history. One country does something little and (often unintentionally) provokes a response from the other. The other country then responds negatively and the original country responds negatively back. This cycle gets worse and worse until a full-scale war begins, causing massive damage to both countries as well as destroying the lives of many innocent people. Thus the saying, "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind," was born.
Though Israel is not specifically targeting civilians, Israel is killing them and that is making Hamas and the rest of the world more and more unhappy with them. It may be wise for Israel, a widely hated country, to discontinue its attacks on Hamas leaders, even if those attacks are completely justified.
In the article Ibrahim Barzak and Karin Laub state, "Israeli aircraft struck crowded areas in the Gaza Strip on Monday, driving up the Palestinian death toll to 94 and devastating several homes belonging to one clan as Israel broadened its targets in the 6-day-old offensive meant to quell Hamas rocket fire on Israel." As Israel attacks targets in Gaza to stop the rocket fire, they also accidentally kill many Palestinian civilians. Understandably, the Palestinians aren't happy about this.
Barzak and Laub also state, "Escalating its bombing campaign, Israel on Sunday began attacking homes of activists in Hamas, the Islamic militant group that rules Gaza." The activists often have several people living in their homes or are living in the homes of other people. This cowering behind civilians is the cause of many civilian casualties.
Also stated in the article, "Hamas fighters, meanwhile, have fired hundreds of rockets into Israel in the current round of fighting, including 75 on Monday, among them one that hit an empty school." The murder of civilians is not a crime committed exclusively by Israel. Hamas continues its unjustified assault on Israel with rocket fire, encouraging even more action from Israel to stop the rocket fire.
This reminds me of the beginning of many wars throughout history. One country does something little and (often unintentionally) provokes a response from the other. The other country then responds negatively and the original country responds negatively back. This cycle gets worse and worse until a full-scale war begins, causing massive damage to both countries as well as destroying the lives of many innocent people. Thus the saying, "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind," was born.
Though Israel is not specifically targeting civilians, Israel is killing them and that is making Hamas and the rest of the world more and more unhappy with them. It may be wise for Israel, a widely hated country, to discontinue its attacks on Hamas leaders, even if those attacks are completely justified.
3 Participials
Supporting the freedom of thought, I think that there are not many times when it is acceptable for one to turn to violence to "defend" their ideals. Some people, becoming angry with others, turn to violence rather than being content with being allowed to have their ideals and tolerating the ideals of others. When someone does turn to violence because of their lack of tolerance towards others, I believe they should be jailed, saving the lives of others.
Monday, November 5, 2012
Current Connection #3
Kwala Mandel, a writer for Yahoo! News, states in her article, "Heckler interrupts Romney rally in Virginia," that someone interrupted the Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, to encourage action about the environment when Romney was speaking at a rally.
In the article, Kwala Mandel states, "Mitt Romney was interrupted at a rally Thursday in Virginia Beach, Va. A rowdy audience member took advantage of a pause during the Republican presidential nominee's speech and shouted 'climate change caused Sandy!'" The heckler interrupted Romney to try to encourage an emotional reaction from the crowd, and, at that, he was successful. He blamed the recent storm, Sandy, on climate change and, by extension, the U.S. government and people (at least in the crowds eyes).
Kwala Mandel also states, "He then flashed a sign that read 'End Climate Silence.' While Romney seemed to take the heckler in his stride, the crowd (and security) reacted much more strongly." The man's "End Climate Silence" sign was meant to encourage people to start talking about climate change, because climate change really has not been a big topic in this election, though it really probably should be. Romney did not seem to be bothered by the heckler, but the crowd on the other hand, was not pleased.
The article then states, "The man was booed and his sign was pulled away from him. As the heckler was led out of the event, the booing was layered with chants of 'U-S-A!'" The crowd did not react positively to the heckler's seemingly accusatory declaration about Sandy. They probably felt that he was blaming the U.S for the storm, and they felt that they were defending their country (and favorite presidential nominee) from the words of the heckler, an insulting nuisance.
This is yet another article that reminds me of events in the Middle East. The first time I watched the video, the way the crowd started chanting "U.S.A." and booing reminded me of videos I have seen of radicals in the Middle East chanting "Down with U.S.A" and booing. I understand why the crowd was chanting now, but the first time I saw the video, it really took me by surprise.
The heckler may have meant well with his message, but if he wanted a positive reaction (I don't think he did), then he was unwise to go to a presidential rally at this point in the race. Though he was booed out of the rally, he was successful in his mission to get people talking to some extent, as there are over 15,000 comments on the article.
In the article, Kwala Mandel states, "Mitt Romney was interrupted at a rally Thursday in Virginia Beach, Va. A rowdy audience member took advantage of a pause during the Republican presidential nominee's speech and shouted 'climate change caused Sandy!'" The heckler interrupted Romney to try to encourage an emotional reaction from the crowd, and, at that, he was successful. He blamed the recent storm, Sandy, on climate change and, by extension, the U.S. government and people (at least in the crowds eyes).
Kwala Mandel also states, "He then flashed a sign that read 'End Climate Silence.' While Romney seemed to take the heckler in his stride, the crowd (and security) reacted much more strongly." The man's "End Climate Silence" sign was meant to encourage people to start talking about climate change, because climate change really has not been a big topic in this election, though it really probably should be. Romney did not seem to be bothered by the heckler, but the crowd on the other hand, was not pleased.
The article then states, "The man was booed and his sign was pulled away from him. As the heckler was led out of the event, the booing was layered with chants of 'U-S-A!'" The crowd did not react positively to the heckler's seemingly accusatory declaration about Sandy. They probably felt that he was blaming the U.S for the storm, and they felt that they were defending their country (and favorite presidential nominee) from the words of the heckler, an insulting nuisance.
This is yet another article that reminds me of events in the Middle East. The first time I watched the video, the way the crowd started chanting "U.S.A." and booing reminded me of videos I have seen of radicals in the Middle East chanting "Down with U.S.A" and booing. I understand why the crowd was chanting now, but the first time I saw the video, it really took me by surprise.
The heckler may have meant well with his message, but if he wanted a positive reaction (I don't think he did), then he was unwise to go to a presidential rally at this point in the race. Though he was booed out of the rally, he was successful in his mission to get people talking to some extent, as there are over 15,000 comments on the article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)