I do not understand something.
The last time oil prices per gallon were at 104-106. Gasoline costed $2.80 Now, that it is back again to 104-106. We are paying 3.45-3.60.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Last Stage
It has been a fun semester with you, thanks for everything.
I read a classmates post today about Bush, and spying on American people. She did not add a link to the source from which she wrote this article. I do not like how she attacks the President personally, instead of the "US Gov" all together. It is not just one person who is doing some things that everyone in America may like or dislike. Every President that we have had, and that we will have; Americans will catch every little thing. The citizens of the U.S. have been losing more and more liberties for years now. Do you guys not see that? So you not see that?
Even if the U.S. government (not the President) is spying on Americans via the internet and phone lines without court approval, who cares anyways? What does it matter to you that they are trying to keep you safe. Obviously they aren't going to be "spying" on people like you and me. Even if the U.S. government was spying on me, I wouldn't care less. What do I have to hide? Personal stuff? Everybody has personal stuff.
I haven't even heard about any of this, I wish I could see the article. I think everyone takes things for granted. Not many people in the U.S. have it hard. We are more better off than anyone in the world. We have nothing to complain about. When my classmate talks about "how far are we going to let him go" this confuses me. The American citizens and politicians voted for him. Better yet, the American citizens have been voting for people just like him for centuries. The Presidents we have had aren't really that different from each other. As time passes, things are interpreted differently.
http://sarasworldofpolitics.blogspot.com/
I read a classmates post today about Bush, and spying on American people. She did not add a link to the source from which she wrote this article. I do not like how she attacks the President personally, instead of the "US Gov" all together. It is not just one person who is doing some things that everyone in America may like or dislike. Every President that we have had, and that we will have; Americans will catch every little thing. The citizens of the U.S. have been losing more and more liberties for years now. Do you guys not see that? So you not see that?
Even if the U.S. government (not the President) is spying on Americans via the internet and phone lines without court approval, who cares anyways? What does it matter to you that they are trying to keep you safe. Obviously they aren't going to be "spying" on people like you and me. Even if the U.S. government was spying on me, I wouldn't care less. What do I have to hide? Personal stuff? Everybody has personal stuff.
I haven't even heard about any of this, I wish I could see the article. I think everyone takes things for granted. Not many people in the U.S. have it hard. We are more better off than anyone in the world. We have nothing to complain about. When my classmate talks about "how far are we going to let him go" this confuses me. The American citizens and politicians voted for him. Better yet, the American citizens have been voting for people just like him for centuries. The Presidents we have had aren't really that different from each other. As time passes, things are interpreted differently.
http://sarasworldofpolitics.blogspot.com/
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Stage Seven
Today, I gave a brief presentation in government class about the Clinton campaign in Iowa yesterday. Both Iowa and New Hampshire are big campaign states that both the Democratic and Republican parties wish to win. The source from which I got the information provided in my presentation was The New York Times. An article written by: PATRICK HEALY, titled, “Bill Clinton Flatly Asserts He Opposed War at Start”. From the title you already get a good feel for what is going on, if you have been paying attention in political USA. During the campaign swing for his wife, Bill flatly opposed of the war in Iraq, “from the beginning”.
Before our troops were sent over to Iraq, Bill did not precisely declare that he opposed the war. A week before military action began, however, he did say that he preferred to give weapons inspections more time and that an invasion was not necessary to topple Saddam Hussein. Bill said several times that he would not have attacked Iraq in the manner that President Bush had done. Reporters in Iowa accused Bill of fuzzing the historical record to make the Clintons appear more antiwar than they actually were at the time. The funny thing is, Hillary voted in FAVOR of a Senate resolution authorizing military action against Iraq in 2002. Then had the nerve of saying she was misled by Mr. Bush.
To start my commentary on this article, I would like to first say that this is hilarious. How can you vote along side with Bush, and then say you were misled to a state that disagrees to win votes? Do candidates do this because it works? The answer is probably yes because no one cares to know, or find out. The next thing we will hear is Hillary saying the exact opposite to another state, and she will get away with it because the American people are ignorant. If it weren’t for this government class of mine, I wouldn’t even know. I do not like how a former impeached President goes to his wife’s campaign, and disagrees with what the President is doing. After he says it, he claims he would have said something sooner, but didn’t think it was right for him to tell Bush he’s making the wrong decisions right when he gets in office. Saying it now doesn’t make it any better Bill. He needs to let his wife run her own campaign, and not bud in and make himself look bad. Hillary is not going to win the election, partially because of little things such as this incident. Here is a link to the article if interested…
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/us/politics/28clinton.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
Before our troops were sent over to Iraq, Bill did not precisely declare that he opposed the war. A week before military action began, however, he did say that he preferred to give weapons inspections more time and that an invasion was not necessary to topple Saddam Hussein. Bill said several times that he would not have attacked Iraq in the manner that President Bush had done. Reporters in Iowa accused Bill of fuzzing the historical record to make the Clintons appear more antiwar than they actually were at the time. The funny thing is, Hillary voted in FAVOR of a Senate resolution authorizing military action against Iraq in 2002. Then had the nerve of saying she was misled by Mr. Bush.
To start my commentary on this article, I would like to first say that this is hilarious. How can you vote along side with Bush, and then say you were misled to a state that disagrees to win votes? Do candidates do this because it works? The answer is probably yes because no one cares to know, or find out. The next thing we will hear is Hillary saying the exact opposite to another state, and she will get away with it because the American people are ignorant. If it weren’t for this government class of mine, I wouldn’t even know. I do not like how a former impeached President goes to his wife’s campaign, and disagrees with what the President is doing. After he says it, he claims he would have said something sooner, but didn’t think it was right for him to tell Bush he’s making the wrong decisions right when he gets in office. Saying it now doesn’t make it any better Bill. He needs to let his wife run her own campaign, and not bud in and make himself look bad. Hillary is not going to win the election, partially because of little things such as this incident. Here is a link to the article if interested…
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/us/politics/28clinton.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Stage Six
After scimming through a couple of my classmates blogs, I found one that concerned college tuitions. Since this is the reason why I am in a community college rather than UT right now, I figured I would like to make my commentary on this post, from Fahad's blog.
Fahad offer's data in his post, which is very valuable, that I would like to include in my comment,
"The cost of colleges is increasing every year. Comparing with last year tuition and fees for colleges, this year costs have:
6.6% increase at public four-year colleges,
6.3% increase at private four-year colleges, and
4.2% increase at public two-year institutions."
This is rediculous. I was accepted to the University of Texas when I graduated high school, and was very excited about it. I paid my enrollment depost, and housing deposit. When it came down to paying my first tuition, I came to find that my parents could not help me with that much money. I wasn't able to go, because of how darn expensive it was. Fahad also includes a quote from a Senior Policy Analyst from the College Board that talks about how the prize for college tuition is rising faster than any other economic price index. I agree with Fahad, that this is just amazing, and someone should do something about it. However; when you look at it on the split side, why should anyone do anything about it if people keep paying for it? College is not a product like you buy in the store, it is an education that everyone should be apart of. College Education should be available to everyone. I agree that the government should do something about education motivation. This country is not motivated at ALL, to do anything besides play video games, and hang out and do nothing. While the rest of the world is getting smarter, and making more and more money, we are doing the exact opposite. Something needs to change. Great article Fahad!!!
here is a link to his blog...
http://fahad-blog.blogspot.com/
Fahad offer's data in his post, which is very valuable, that I would like to include in my comment,
"The cost of colleges is increasing every year. Comparing with last year tuition and fees for colleges, this year costs have:
6.6% increase at public four-year colleges,
6.3% increase at private four-year colleges, and
4.2% increase at public two-year institutions."
This is rediculous. I was accepted to the University of Texas when I graduated high school, and was very excited about it. I paid my enrollment depost, and housing deposit. When it came down to paying my first tuition, I came to find that my parents could not help me with that much money. I wasn't able to go, because of how darn expensive it was. Fahad also includes a quote from a Senior Policy Analyst from the College Board that talks about how the prize for college tuition is rising faster than any other economic price index. I agree with Fahad, that this is just amazing, and someone should do something about it. However; when you look at it on the split side, why should anyone do anything about it if people keep paying for it? College is not a product like you buy in the store, it is an education that everyone should be apart of. College Education should be available to everyone. I agree that the government should do something about education motivation. This country is not motivated at ALL, to do anything besides play video games, and hang out and do nothing. While the rest of the world is getting smarter, and making more and more money, we are doing the exact opposite. Something needs to change. Great article Fahad!!!
here is a link to his blog...
http://fahad-blog.blogspot.com/
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Stage Five
Ok, so it is Halloween again, another year, another round. Tonight is going to be pretty nuts for the some; hopefully it won’t get to rowdy in my neck of the woods. Before this glorious night must come, I would like to tell you folks about an article I found today on the Drudge Report concerning Hilary Clinton, and what she had to say concerning the war in her debate on Tuesday. This great article titled, “Obama criticizes Clinton” by: Amy Lorentzen concludes to me, that Clinton is far from being close to the “office”.
In Tuesday’s debate, when Clinton was asked several questions concerning the war, her answers were very vague, and left everyone guessing where she stood. This article is mainly Obama’s point of view on how Clinton responded to these questions, and he is quite concerned for the American people that she is perhaps misleading. According to the article, Obama was especially concerned when Hilary was asked about her papers from her years as first Lady. He was concerned because Hilary is running on her record as first lady, just as much as her record as Senator; but how are the people to judge that record if documents are kept locked away? This debate was not good for Hilary, because up to this point she was gaining in the polls. This debate could very well leave her out of the election.
Obama pointing out all of these less-than-straightforward answers from Hilary caused a response from the Clinton campaign. It said that, “Obama is abandoning his pledge to run a positive campaign, or as he described it, the politics of hope. The campaign also posted a Web video arguing that her rivals had been piling on.” Obama responded with, “The politics of hope does not mean hoping that your opponents aren't going to point out the differences between you and them.” Obama continued to draw clear differences between himself and Hilary. Obama feels very confident that he will be elected over Hilary because, “he has put forward probably the toughest set of ethics rules for how an Obama administration would operate compared to any other candidate.”
I was at work during this debate, therefore I did not get to see it, but from what I have heard, and read, Hilary did not make herself look like President Material. Here is a direct link to this article for your enjoyment..
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071031/D8SKF5M81.html
In Tuesday’s debate, when Clinton was asked several questions concerning the war, her answers were very vague, and left everyone guessing where she stood. This article is mainly Obama’s point of view on how Clinton responded to these questions, and he is quite concerned for the American people that she is perhaps misleading. According to the article, Obama was especially concerned when Hilary was asked about her papers from her years as first Lady. He was concerned because Hilary is running on her record as first lady, just as much as her record as Senator; but how are the people to judge that record if documents are kept locked away? This debate was not good for Hilary, because up to this point she was gaining in the polls. This debate could very well leave her out of the election.
Obama pointing out all of these less-than-straightforward answers from Hilary caused a response from the Clinton campaign. It said that, “Obama is abandoning his pledge to run a positive campaign, or as he described it, the politics of hope. The campaign also posted a Web video arguing that her rivals had been piling on.” Obama responded with, “The politics of hope does not mean hoping that your opponents aren't going to point out the differences between you and them.” Obama continued to draw clear differences between himself and Hilary. Obama feels very confident that he will be elected over Hilary because, “he has put forward probably the toughest set of ethics rules for how an Obama administration would operate compared to any other candidate.”
I was at work during this debate, therefore I did not get to see it, but from what I have heard, and read, Hilary did not make herself look like President Material. Here is a direct link to this article for your enjoyment..
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071031/D8SKF5M81.html
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Stage Four
I am back in Austin, Texas; and am back to work and school. My second day being back in town I read an article in “The New York Sun” titled, “End of a Movement”, by: Eli Lake. The opening statement in this article is, “The People. United. Can in fact be defeated.” When I first saw this opening sentence, or I should say fragment, I thought about James Madison, and his discussion about factions.
This article is about a faction called, “Code Pink” which is an association of senior citizen women who dress up and shout slogans at Congressional war hearings. Lake tells me that this peace group of women some who has a direct influence on the decisions made by congress. The author also says that a youtube ad was made featuring women in pink jockey outfits riding Democratic leaders of Congress like they were horses. In this ad, the narrator tells the spectator, "With your help we can dominate Congress with peacemakers and finally end this illegal, immoral and unconstitutional occupation." At first, I was very interested thinking that there is possible corruption in our government. Is it possible that factions are not being maintained? Is it possible that factions are actually controlling our nation? I read further into this article to find that this Code Pink organization has not even managed to get any of the big three Democrats running for president to embrace their goal of an immediate withdrawal. When I say immediate withdrawal, I mean the movement that Code Pink is trying to push right now hence why this article was published. Code Pink is trying to end the war by 2008. Another movement arisen also called, “Iraq Summer”, which was an initiative aimed at getting 50 Republicans to break with the president on the war. This goal apparently almost seemed plausible when a chairman of the Senate was threatening to vote with Democrats on withdrawal dates.
My criticism is not with the author of this article since it was mainly just an informing article about a movement attempt by a faction. My criticism is with the politicians that could actually be allowing interests groups influence their decisions on very important issues. I realize that they are influence by someone, or something at all times whether it be the nation as a whole, media, party identification; but, a specific group is frightening. I think I fall into the stereo typed American political ignorance group, however, being apart of this course is causing me to take initiative in political issues. In the short amount of time getting myself into the loop of things, I can come to the conclusion that this Code Pink group, and the influence it has on Congress, and possibly the Senate too, is not good for the United States.
Here is a link to this article if this interests you....http://www.nysun.com/article/65135
This article is about a faction called, “Code Pink” which is an association of senior citizen women who dress up and shout slogans at Congressional war hearings. Lake tells me that this peace group of women some who has a direct influence on the decisions made by congress. The author also says that a youtube ad was made featuring women in pink jockey outfits riding Democratic leaders of Congress like they were horses. In this ad, the narrator tells the spectator, "With your help we can dominate Congress with peacemakers and finally end this illegal, immoral and unconstitutional occupation." At first, I was very interested thinking that there is possible corruption in our government. Is it possible that factions are not being maintained? Is it possible that factions are actually controlling our nation? I read further into this article to find that this Code Pink organization has not even managed to get any of the big three Democrats running for president to embrace their goal of an immediate withdrawal. When I say immediate withdrawal, I mean the movement that Code Pink is trying to push right now hence why this article was published. Code Pink is trying to end the war by 2008. Another movement arisen also called, “Iraq Summer”, which was an initiative aimed at getting 50 Republicans to break with the president on the war. This goal apparently almost seemed plausible when a chairman of the Senate was threatening to vote with Democrats on withdrawal dates.
My criticism is not with the author of this article since it was mainly just an informing article about a movement attempt by a faction. My criticism is with the politicians that could actually be allowing interests groups influence their decisions on very important issues. I realize that they are influence by someone, or something at all times whether it be the nation as a whole, media, party identification; but, a specific group is frightening. I think I fall into the stereo typed American political ignorance group, however, being apart of this course is causing me to take initiative in political issues. In the short amount of time getting myself into the loop of things, I can come to the conclusion that this Code Pink group, and the influence it has on Congress, and possibly the Senate too, is not good for the United States.
Here is a link to this article if this interests you....http://www.nysun.com/article/65135
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Stage Three
The article I have just finished reading on the Washington Post by Michael Fletcher, titled, "Bush Vetoes Children's Health Bill" is pretty self explanatory. Hours ago, in Lancaster, Pa, President Bush vetoed a bill that would have renewed and expanded the state-federal health insurance program for low-income children. President Bush’s reasoning behind this was to block a measure he has said is too costly and could lead to excessive government control of the health-care system.
Bush is apparently trying to hold a line on federal spending, and say’s, “the expansion of the program approved by Congress would extend our spending far beyond its original intent of covering poor children.” Bush, being politically isolated in his decision on this bill, in many views, is endangering the party's political prospects in 2008. The veto does not mean the program will end immediately. Bush and Congress have agreed to extend the current program though Nov. 16 while they try to work on a new version. A senator from Massachusetts said, “today we learned that the same president who is willing to throw away a half trillion dollars in Iraq is unwilling to spend a small fraction of that amount to bring health care to American children.” Bush also said in his speech today that he was not going to raise any taxes during the remaining sixteen months of his term.
I cannot say that I disagree with the President’s decision on this veto. I believe we need to edit the bill to where its main focus is enrolling more low-income children. I agree that the bill should be passed. I also believe that it will be passed, but it is not perfect, and there is no reason why we cannot work harder on making it better. I agree that the measure would push millions of children already covered by private health insurance into publicly financed health care. I think that no matter what decision the President would have made, people would still have negative feedback. The best decision was made. Congress will have more time to spend with the bill on improving it, and in time, it will be best for the country. If you recall back in 1996, under President Bill Clintons term, there was a welfare bill that was vetoed twice, and ended up being very successful. This example is actually discussed in the second article link.
I agree with the Presidents argument, and his decision to veto the bill. Like an English teacher, he has simply sent it back for an “edit”. Congress will turn it back into him once they are polishing out the flaws, and it will be passed. Here is a link to the article, so you can come to your own opinion on the matter…
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/03/washington/03cnd-veto.html?hp
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
the second post takes you to the washington post. The article should be titled, "Bush vetoes children's health bill". It would not let me go to the article link after I read it for some reason, hopefully it will work for you after you find it.
Bush is apparently trying to hold a line on federal spending, and say’s, “the expansion of the program approved by Congress would extend our spending far beyond its original intent of covering poor children.” Bush, being politically isolated in his decision on this bill, in many views, is endangering the party's political prospects in 2008. The veto does not mean the program will end immediately. Bush and Congress have agreed to extend the current program though Nov. 16 while they try to work on a new version. A senator from Massachusetts said, “today we learned that the same president who is willing to throw away a half trillion dollars in Iraq is unwilling to spend a small fraction of that amount to bring health care to American children.” Bush also said in his speech today that he was not going to raise any taxes during the remaining sixteen months of his term.
I cannot say that I disagree with the President’s decision on this veto. I believe we need to edit the bill to where its main focus is enrolling more low-income children. I agree that the bill should be passed. I also believe that it will be passed, but it is not perfect, and there is no reason why we cannot work harder on making it better. I agree that the measure would push millions of children already covered by private health insurance into publicly financed health care. I think that no matter what decision the President would have made, people would still have negative feedback. The best decision was made. Congress will have more time to spend with the bill on improving it, and in time, it will be best for the country. If you recall back in 1996, under President Bill Clintons term, there was a welfare bill that was vetoed twice, and ended up being very successful. This example is actually discussed in the second article link.
I agree with the Presidents argument, and his decision to veto the bill. Like an English teacher, he has simply sent it back for an “edit”. Congress will turn it back into him once they are polishing out the flaws, and it will be passed. Here is a link to the article, so you can come to your own opinion on the matter…
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/03/washington/03cnd-veto.html?hp
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
the second post takes you to the washington post. The article should be titled, "Bush vetoes children's health bill". It would not let me go to the article link after I read it for some reason, hopefully it will work for you after you find it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
