What's Going to Happen Now
Finally, the presidential election is over. Our president for the next four years will again be Barrack Obama. As I gauged people's reaction's, I noticed that the difference between a democrat and a republican isn't very much about a difference in opinion but a difference more in just color. Neither side knows how to really compromise or work together well enough to get anything done. I think this election was very scary for people who really paid attention because you were either very disappointed or relieved. I was stuck right in the middle. Generally, I was upset, but I would have been either way. Hopefully, I wasn't the only one. Any unbiased opinion would know there is definitely no right and wrong side in this election or most of the elections leading up to this one. The truth is the U.S. government has been manipulated and abused. Democracy no longer means the same thing anymore. Our "system" seems to have been corrupted. I like to think of American government as a person and its citizens are the parents. The government is just as easily molded a child's brain, but now its misbehaving just as we've taught it to. Our government needs some serious reconstruction to bring it back into balance. I am expecting and hoping that we when this happens (because pattern and history shows that it eventually will), it will be for the better, and Americans will have the patriotism needed for democracy to work in the system properly.
Friday, November 30, 2012
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Bringing Hope Back to the People
Reading Where There's A Will There's A Way really opened my eyes to a more optimistic point of view on our government. I have said before that the future of our government is in the hands of the people. From what I've seen, people are becoming less concerned with making changes in the world of politics and government, but knowing that some people are making the effort to vote gives me hope. Maybe this is only a small percent of the larger that could be voting, but at least it is something. I have covered up my pessimism by calling it "being realistic" while others like Ms. Kutch are being more optimistic and actually trying to make a small, and seemingly insignificant, change by voting when her biggest contribution to society is her hope. The idea of somebody still believing in democracy is hard today, in my opinion. So, if her hope for democracy's capability of helping the people is genuine, I believe people like her could make a difference in the government where it is really needed. I firmly believe that knowledge is power and knowing how our government works is one of the first steps in being an effective part in a democratic society. My hopes (being more positive than realistic) are that the American people are able to get smart and "change our conversation" as Ms. Kutch would say, in order to bring back the real meaning of being an American. Our country lacks patriotism, even from me at most times, and it is something our country direly needs.
Reading Where There's A Will There's A Way really opened my eyes to a more optimistic point of view on our government. I have said before that the future of our government is in the hands of the people. From what I've seen, people are becoming less concerned with making changes in the world of politics and government, but knowing that some people are making the effort to vote gives me hope. Maybe this is only a small percent of the larger that could be voting, but at least it is something. I have covered up my pessimism by calling it "being realistic" while others like Ms. Kutch are being more optimistic and actually trying to make a small, and seemingly insignificant, change by voting when her biggest contribution to society is her hope. The idea of somebody still believing in democracy is hard today, in my opinion. So, if her hope for democracy's capability of helping the people is genuine, I believe people like her could make a difference in the government where it is really needed. I firmly believe that knowledge is power and knowing how our government works is one of the first steps in being an effective part in a democratic society. My hopes (being more positive than realistic) are that the American people are able to get smart and "change our conversation" as Ms. Kutch would say, in order to bring back the real meaning of being an American. Our country lacks patriotism, even from me at most times, and it is something our country direly needs.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Seriously America?
The U.S. national government has been called many things. Some think it is very complicated while some say it is actually quite simple. Even if someone were able to describe our government, would they be right? Would they be truthful? Would you agree? The truth is I'm not sure any of us can or could describe are government.
Once, American government was thought of as strong and trusted by its citizens. As time passes, people seem to be getting more and more angry and disappointed with our government though. I tend to be one of those people,yet I am not angry at our government. I'm upset with the person sitting beside me watching the news with me because they are the ones to blame. The system was set up by our founding fathers to be flexible and adapt to change, but the only changes people are making lately are not necessarily for the better.
As a minor, I am unable to vote in order to make the changes I want, but I still try to do my part by being politically knowledgeable as often as I can, and often, more than most. I also try to encourage people around me to do the same and vote. Unfortunately, most of them tend to vote in favor of a certain party because of their parent's influence on them and not because of their own opinions. The idea of these people lacking independent thoughts is frustrating, but I cannot be angry with them because they are at least taking the initiative and making a difference. This is how our government works now and it is the fault of many American citizens.
I wish I could brag about how happy I am to live in America, but I am quite disappointed. I am not disappointed in the U.S. government: I am disappointed in the American citizens. The government is working just how it was meant to, and the people who really care are making it work for them. Those people may not be the best for America, but why should anyone really care? No one seems to be paying any attention to them anyway.
The U.S. national government has been called many things. Some think it is very complicated while some say it is actually quite simple. Even if someone were able to describe our government, would they be right? Would they be truthful? Would you agree? The truth is I'm not sure any of us can or could describe are government.
Once, American government was thought of as strong and trusted by its citizens. As time passes, people seem to be getting more and more angry and disappointed with our government though. I tend to be one of those people,yet I am not angry at our government. I'm upset with the person sitting beside me watching the news with me because they are the ones to blame. The system was set up by our founding fathers to be flexible and adapt to change, but the only changes people are making lately are not necessarily for the better.
As a minor, I am unable to vote in order to make the changes I want, but I still try to do my part by being politically knowledgeable as often as I can, and often, more than most. I also try to encourage people around me to do the same and vote. Unfortunately, most of them tend to vote in favor of a certain party because of their parent's influence on them and not because of their own opinions. The idea of these people lacking independent thoughts is frustrating, but I cannot be angry with them because they are at least taking the initiative and making a difference. This is how our government works now and it is the fault of many American citizens.
I wish I could brag about how happy I am to live in America, but I am quite disappointed. I am not disappointed in the U.S. government: I am disappointed in the American citizens. The government is working just how it was meant to, and the people who really care are making it work for them. Those people may not be the best for America, but why should anyone really care? No one seems to be paying any attention to them anyway.
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Debates Making History?
https://acconline.austincc.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_639726_1%26url%3D
The biggest argument in this article seems to be that there is a greater significance to these presidential debates than the last because of how revealing they have been. In this case, I would have to disagree. Peggy Noonan offers many good opinions from a obviously subjective point of view, but with no substantial evidence to suggest that these debates are any more historic than the last. The biggest difference in this debate, I believe, is that both candidates have "revealed" how easy it can be to point out the other's mistakes. It has become very apparent that both candidates are playing dirty in the debates and in the media. This kind of behavior isn't new in an election; it's simply exploited more in this debate.
Noonan also comments by saying that Obama "doesn't seem to be winning the post debate" though numbers have shown that the second debate has benefited Obama just as much as the first debate hurt him. She also says that Obama's comments towards Romney about being "a good man" were "pro forma" and "hollow", though Romney has also given the president compliments that some people may agree were also "hollow" and not genuine. This article was far too opinionated for its lack of evidence and support. This election will be marked down in history like all the others. At the end of her article she leaves the reader (most likely a republican) by asking "Everything... depends on one thing:American wealth... If we are wealthy, we can be strong. If we are not wealthy, we will not be strong for so long... True or not true?" The idea that wealth is power is, in my opinion, false. I'm not ignorant to the fact that in order to be a prosperous nation we do require a strong, productive economy that makes money, but we have been successful many times in the past without wealth. The American Revolution and World War II are examples of how successful we've been without "wealth".
https://acconline.austincc.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_639726_1%26url%3D
The biggest argument in this article seems to be that there is a greater significance to these presidential debates than the last because of how revealing they have been. In this case, I would have to disagree. Peggy Noonan offers many good opinions from a obviously subjective point of view, but with no substantial evidence to suggest that these debates are any more historic than the last. The biggest difference in this debate, I believe, is that both candidates have "revealed" how easy it can be to point out the other's mistakes. It has become very apparent that both candidates are playing dirty in the debates and in the media. This kind of behavior isn't new in an election; it's simply exploited more in this debate.
Noonan also comments by saying that Obama "doesn't seem to be winning the post debate" though numbers have shown that the second debate has benefited Obama just as much as the first debate hurt him. She also says that Obama's comments towards Romney about being "a good man" were "pro forma" and "hollow", though Romney has also given the president compliments that some people may agree were also "hollow" and not genuine. This article was far too opinionated for its lack of evidence and support. This election will be marked down in history like all the others. At the end of her article she leaves the reader (most likely a republican) by asking "Everything... depends on one thing:American wealth... If we are wealthy, we can be strong. If we are not wealthy, we will not be strong for so long... True or not true?" The idea that wealth is power is, in my opinion, false. I'm not ignorant to the fact that in order to be a prosperous nation we do require a strong, productive economy that makes money, but we have been successful many times in the past without wealth. The American Revolution and World War II are examples of how successful we've been without "wealth".
Saturday, October 6, 2012
Long Presidential Race Vs. Short Presidential Race
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-a-long-presidential-race-is-good-for-democracy/2012/10/05/520a1f16-0d6e-11e2-bd1a-b868e65d57eb_story.html
In a Washington Post article written by Frank Partnoy, he argues that a longer presidential race would be more beneficial for our nation because it would give voters more time to decide on which candidate they should vote for. In his article, he points out that people have been proven to make better decisions when given more time, and they tend to make quick judgments based on appearance without taking time to look at more important characteristics. Although I agree with him that people do need more time to make a well thought out vote, their vote should not be made only by witnessing candidates "perform" over a longer period of time.
The time before elections consists of back and forth banter on which of the candidates is worse than the other and a giant charade thought out by advisers to convince the public that their candidate genuinely cares about their needs. Extending this time frame will only allow candidates to make mistakes, impressions and argue. The only way for citizens to vote is by making an informed decision. Their decision should not be based on a couple of weeks of argument: it should be based on the actions of the candidate not only during elections but preceding the elections as well. The real problem with electing officials is the lack of informed voters. Shortening the time frame in which voters have to make their decisions should only encourage them to get more information about their candidates previous to the elections. For example, when teams elect captains they have the previous year(s) to evaluate the team members and elect the best candidate. They do not give you weeks to decide which team member can bribe the rest the best. Improving this country can only happen when actions speak louder than words: actions over years, not weeks.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-a-long-presidential-race-is-good-for-democracy/2012/10/05/520a1f16-0d6e-11e2-bd1a-b868e65d57eb_story.html
In a Washington Post article written by Frank Partnoy, he argues that a longer presidential race would be more beneficial for our nation because it would give voters more time to decide on which candidate they should vote for. In his article, he points out that people have been proven to make better decisions when given more time, and they tend to make quick judgments based on appearance without taking time to look at more important characteristics. Although I agree with him that people do need more time to make a well thought out vote, their vote should not be made only by witnessing candidates "perform" over a longer period of time.
The time before elections consists of back and forth banter on which of the candidates is worse than the other and a giant charade thought out by advisers to convince the public that their candidate genuinely cares about their needs. Extending this time frame will only allow candidates to make mistakes, impressions and argue. The only way for citizens to vote is by making an informed decision. Their decision should not be based on a couple of weeks of argument: it should be based on the actions of the candidate not only during elections but preceding the elections as well. The real problem with electing officials is the lack of informed voters. Shortening the time frame in which voters have to make their decisions should only encourage them to get more information about their candidates previous to the elections. For example, when teams elect captains they have the previous year(s) to evaluate the team members and elect the best candidate. They do not give you weeks to decide which team member can bribe the rest the best. Improving this country can only happen when actions speak louder than words: actions over years, not weeks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)