Is most definitely transportation. Let's be real.
In Northern Virginia, the fact that DC is right there means terrible traffic for everyone. (whether you're actually going to DC or just an unfortunate fellow caught in the midst.) Elsewhere, the woeful lack of public transportation means that you basically need a car to get everywhere and anywhere. Not all people can afford cars, which, with matienance and gas tends to be a little expensive if you don't have a steady source of income.
Unlike extremely urban areas, like NYC (where it's quite common for people to not be licensed) the state of Virginia has little transportation, which means usually, you have to drive at least 5 miles to get anywhere.
Though the DC Metro Rail might help out a little bit, it is colossal it terms of cost, and will only be beneficial to those who regularly go to DC and places around it. And let us keep in mind that most people will have to drive to the metro stations in order to actually use them.
Transportation in Virginia is both woeful and incompetent. Hopefully in the near future, steps will be taken to remedy it, but that it doubtful considering the lack of funding, and the less than willing tax payers in support of it.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Current Event #4: U.S. Knowledge of Prison Abuse in Afghanistan
So apparently, the U.S, had some idea of the severe torture than Afghan prison officials subjected their prisoners to, and yet, they still transferred several detainees to Afghan intelligence agency detention centers.
Though American officials never actually partook in these tortures, they were warned repeatedly about the abuse that was happening at these Afghan facilities; and even when other countries stopped sending prisoners to these prisons, the U.S. still continued to do so. When the UN brought attention to this matter to General John Allen (the top military commander) he immediately stopped sending prisoners and basically tried to cover up by making a program to monitor those facilities and conduct investigations on the interrogators.
Now the U.S. gov't is getting a lot of heat for this issue, but they're attempting to side-step it the best that they can.
For me, I am not all that surprised that this happened. It is precisely these kinds of things that sows mistrust between the U.S. gov't and it's people--or the U.S. gov't and the rest of the world. Our gov't doing things like this is sneaky, unethical, and basically everything anyone with an apathetic view towards the gov't would think of them.
Not to mention, this might hurt Obama's chances for reelection, as this happened under his watch, so responsibility will most likely be shifted to him.
for more reading: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/us-had-advance-warning-of-abuse-at-afghan-prisons-officials-say/2011/10/21/gIQA7Dg2VM_story.html
Though American officials never actually partook in these tortures, they were warned repeatedly about the abuse that was happening at these Afghan facilities; and even when other countries stopped sending prisoners to these prisons, the U.S. still continued to do so. When the UN brought attention to this matter to General John Allen (the top military commander) he immediately stopped sending prisoners and basically tried to cover up by making a program to monitor those facilities and conduct investigations on the interrogators.
Now the U.S. gov't is getting a lot of heat for this issue, but they're attempting to side-step it the best that they can.
For me, I am not all that surprised that this happened. It is precisely these kinds of things that sows mistrust between the U.S. gov't and it's people--or the U.S. gov't and the rest of the world. Our gov't doing things like this is sneaky, unethical, and basically everything anyone with an apathetic view towards the gov't would think of them.
Not to mention, this might hurt Obama's chances for reelection, as this happened under his watch, so responsibility will most likely be shifted to him.
for more reading: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/us-had-advance-warning-of-abuse-at-afghan-prisons-officials-say/2011/10/21/gIQA7Dg2VM_story.html
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Question of the Week #3: OBAMACARD
Health Care: A. Obama made healthcare a top priority when he was elected to office, and I do approve of his healthcare program, the public option. I find it to be beneficial to the American people, and though many disagree with it, I support it, and find his efforts both successful and admirable.
Dealing with the Economic Downturn: B. Truly, Obama could deal with our economic troubles a little bit better (as the Wallstreet protests so clearly illustrate) but considering the fact that Europe is in shaky economic waters (which is in turn, threatening the U.S.) and the fact that the U.S has so many other issues to deal with, he's handling it better than expected, with his multiple attempts at creating jobs and tax relief.
War On Terror: B+. War isn't exactly an easy thing to end quickly, but Obama began pulling troops out of Iraq in a smart and timely manner. He then focused on Afghanistan, a smart decision considering that it did require the U.S's attention.
Reelection Bid: B-. Honestly, though I would like to see Obama be reelected, with a lack of jobs and economic uncertainty, it seems a little dubious that he will be reelected. The American people tend to like to change leaders in times like these, and though Obama has pushed through immense amounts of legislation and made progress during his administration, he's going to need to start winning back the support quickly of the voters.
Dealing with the Economic Downturn: B. Truly, Obama could deal with our economic troubles a little bit better (as the Wallstreet protests so clearly illustrate) but considering the fact that Europe is in shaky economic waters (which is in turn, threatening the U.S.) and the fact that the U.S has so many other issues to deal with, he's handling it better than expected, with his multiple attempts at creating jobs and tax relief.
War On Terror: B+. War isn't exactly an easy thing to end quickly, but Obama began pulling troops out of Iraq in a smart and timely manner. He then focused on Afghanistan, a smart decision considering that it did require the U.S's attention.
Reelection Bid: B-. Honestly, though I would like to see Obama be reelected, with a lack of jobs and economic uncertainty, it seems a little dubious that he will be reelected. The American people tend to like to change leaders in times like these, and though Obama has pushed through immense amounts of legislation and made progress during his administration, he's going to need to start winning back the support quickly of the voters.
Current Event #3: Herman Cain and his 9-9-9 Plan
Currently the top-picked Republican flavor of the week, Herman Cain has been turning heads with his signature 9-9-9 plan: a temporary federal tax code that will consist of a 9% sales tax, a 9% income tax, and a 9% business transactions tax. By the way, the sales tax would be in ADDITION to the state's sales tax.
But first, Cain would cut individual and corporate tax rates from 35 percent down to 25%. And then finally, all the taxes (even the 999) would be replaced by a national sales tax, aka "A Fair Tax."
Personally, though I'm for a new tax plan, this isn't the right solution to me. First off, America has a pretty big debt already, and this plan wouldn't cover all of our needed revenue. (We'd be off by about, oh, only $200 billion dollars or so.) Plus, this plan would basically suck the middle/lower classes dry between the national and state taxes. (These two classes are shown to spend more of their money on purchases rather than savings.) And while Cain is promising tax cuts, the cuts will only really affect the rich, and leave more to be desired to the not so rich.
to educate yourself about this plan: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/herman-cains-misleading-pitch-for-the-999-plan/2011/10/12/gIQAHszPgL_blog.html
But first, Cain would cut individual and corporate tax rates from 35 percent down to 25%. And then finally, all the taxes (even the 999) would be replaced by a national sales tax, aka "A Fair Tax."
Personally, though I'm for a new tax plan, this isn't the right solution to me. First off, America has a pretty big debt already, and this plan wouldn't cover all of our needed revenue. (We'd be off by about, oh, only $200 billion dollars or so.) Plus, this plan would basically suck the middle/lower classes dry between the national and state taxes. (These two classes are shown to spend more of their money on purchases rather than savings.) And while Cain is promising tax cuts, the cuts will only really affect the rich, and leave more to be desired to the not so rich.
to educate yourself about this plan: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/herman-cains-misleading-pitch-for-the-999-plan/2011/10/12/gIQAHszPgL_blog.html
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Question of the Week, #2: One Political Issue that Interests Me
There's nothing that gets the hot-blooded feminist in me more riled up than the issue of abortion, and whether or not it should be made illegal.
As you might've deduced, I am a pro-choice advocate.
For me, a woman should be able to choose whether or not she wants to have a baby. Having a child is possibly one of THE most life-changing things that can happen to you (even if you don't keep the child) and as such, no woman should have to be forced into that.
If a woman were forced to have a child, and kept it, what would that mean for said baby? Cases of domestic abuse and neglect are all too common nowadays. Plus, the woman having the baby would have to completely change her life. So whether she was just some teen who made a mistake, or a woman with a career, having a child would have negative consequences for their extra commitments. (i.e.- school, careers, etc.)
And if the woman decided to give up the baby to an adoption agency, what would that mean for the child? Not all children get adopted. And life at the local orphanage isn't as bright and sunny as most people picture it.
And not to sound crude, but let's be practical. The world is also pretty overpopulated. Let's not add to that.
And need I even get into cases of rape or incest? If abortion were made illegal, then women who have suffered serious trauma and just want to forget about it, would be forced to suffer for an additional nine months. And if they kept the child, then it would always somehow represent that trauma that most people would so desperately want to forget about.
And is it just me, or does this totally degrade women as well? Telling women that they MUST have this child seems something that mainly men would do. It's just wrong.
This issue interests me because hardly any other issue makes me as angry or passionate as this. As such, whenever cases involving abortion comes up, it grabs my attention right away, and you can guarantee a snappy argument coming from me as well.
As you might've deduced, I am a pro-choice advocate.
For me, a woman should be able to choose whether or not she wants to have a baby. Having a child is possibly one of THE most life-changing things that can happen to you (even if you don't keep the child) and as such, no woman should have to be forced into that.
If a woman were forced to have a child, and kept it, what would that mean for said baby? Cases of domestic abuse and neglect are all too common nowadays. Plus, the woman having the baby would have to completely change her life. So whether she was just some teen who made a mistake, or a woman with a career, having a child would have negative consequences for their extra commitments. (i.e.- school, careers, etc.)
And if the woman decided to give up the baby to an adoption agency, what would that mean for the child? Not all children get adopted. And life at the local orphanage isn't as bright and sunny as most people picture it.
And not to sound crude, but let's be practical. The world is also pretty overpopulated. Let's not add to that.
And need I even get into cases of rape or incest? If abortion were made illegal, then women who have suffered serious trauma and just want to forget about it, would be forced to suffer for an additional nine months. And if they kept the child, then it would always somehow represent that trauma that most people would so desperately want to forget about.
And is it just me, or does this totally degrade women as well? Telling women that they MUST have this child seems something that mainly men would do. It's just wrong.
This issue interests me because hardly any other issue makes me as angry or passionate as this. As such, whenever cases involving abortion comes up, it grabs my attention right away, and you can guarantee a snappy argument coming from me as well.
Current Event #2: Alabama Law Targets Illegal Immigrants
Alabama recently passed a law which prevents anyone from knowingly employing illegal immigrants and requiring schools/police to verify immigrants legal statuses.
This new state law is considered one of the strictest immigration laws yet, and has been able to withstand federal action, unlike so many others.
As one can imagine, this state law is forcing many illegal immigrants (estimated around 150,000) who have already established lives in Alabama to flee to other states, in some cases, taking their children who are already U.S. citizens out of school and forcing them to relocate.
Personally, though I think the U.S. gov't should have a little but more control over immigration, targeting immigrants who have already established themselves and contributing to the economy is just ridiculous. This is almost persecution in a sense, and is having a negative chain effect as many businesses are losing their minority employees as they flee from Alabama.
In addition, isn't this law just pushing Alabama's illegal immigrants over to other states? Most of the illegal immigrants will flee to other states, rather than return to their home country. As such, it just creates trouble for everyone: the illegal immigrants who are forced to move, Alabama's economy, and other states as they suddenly have an influx of fleeing immigrants.
This isn't smart, nor will it solve the problem of illegal immigration in Alabama. I find it to be persecution of people who for the most part, pay their taxes and are generally causing no harm.
to read the full article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/a-tough-new-alabama-law-targets-illegal-immigrants-and-sends-families-fleeing/2011/10/07/gIQAtZuPWL_story.html
This new state law is considered one of the strictest immigration laws yet, and has been able to withstand federal action, unlike so many others.
As one can imagine, this state law is forcing many illegal immigrants (estimated around 150,000) who have already established lives in Alabama to flee to other states, in some cases, taking their children who are already U.S. citizens out of school and forcing them to relocate.
Personally, though I think the U.S. gov't should have a little but more control over immigration, targeting immigrants who have already established themselves and contributing to the economy is just ridiculous. This is almost persecution in a sense, and is having a negative chain effect as many businesses are losing their minority employees as they flee from Alabama.
In addition, isn't this law just pushing Alabama's illegal immigrants over to other states? Most of the illegal immigrants will flee to other states, rather than return to their home country. As such, it just creates trouble for everyone: the illegal immigrants who are forced to move, Alabama's economy, and other states as they suddenly have an influx of fleeing immigrants.
This isn't smart, nor will it solve the problem of illegal immigration in Alabama. I find it to be persecution of people who for the most part, pay their taxes and are generally causing no harm.
to read the full article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/a-tough-new-alabama-law-targets-illegal-immigrants-and-sends-families-fleeing/2011/10/07/gIQAtZuPWL_story.html
Sunday, October 2, 2011
current event # 1 700 arrested on Wallstreet
Most people know already about the protests on Wallstreet, which have been conducted mostly by college students deep in debt due to student loans. This news has been attracting national attention because of what would be considered peaceful protests are being forcefully and rather harshly put down by the police. In this article, the protesters had formed on the Brooklynn Bridge where 700 of them had been arrested by the police despite them protesting nonviolently. Personally I feel as though, this is showing the United States that people's rights such as freedom of speech and to peaceful protest are not necessarily protected by the legal system. I think that the New York City police shouldve handled the situation better than they did because, by forcefully putting down the protests not only did they look like a whole bunch of communist thugs, but they attracted the negative attention of the American people.http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/wall-street-protest-continues-for-third-day/2011/09/19/gIQAKqbffK_gallery.html?hpid=z1#photo=1
Question of the Week: What Political Party are you most closely aligned with?
Coming from a pretty politically apathetic household (my parents could care less about politics) it had always been up to my siblings (or at least my older sister) to figure out which party we aligned ourselves with. Though my parents were apathetic, they were pretty left-leaning on most issues that I ever asked about. Thus, it was only natural that I considered myself a pretty moderate Democrat.
While taking the political quizzes in gov't class, I honestly thought I would end up as a post-moderate, but ended sweeping the board with solidly liberal scores all around. Which wasn't exactly unwelcome, just a little surprising. Because usually when most people think of hard-core liberals, they think of those people who refuse to shave (men and woman alike) and protest whenever and wherever they can. Or maybe that's just me thinking that.
Anyways, but when I thought about it some more, it actually kind of made sense. I am actually quite lenient on most issues, such as abortion (pro-choice), healthcare (yes), immigration (why not?) and legalizing marijuana. (let's be honest, it's going to happen eventually, whether we like it or not...) I'm open in terms of diversity, and don't exactly see the problem with immigration. For those who cry out against it, for pete's sake! We're all immigrants here! (unless you're a Native American. Then I would have to think of some other witty comeback) Abortion is pro-choice or no choice. And women should be able to choose whether or not they want to have a baby. I could go on and on, but you get the point. I'm open and liberal on the majority (if not all) issues debated about in America today.
However, I don't exactly have a problem with the gov't either, which is why I was a little surprised at my liberal score. They seem to be doing the best that they can, which isn't amazing, but isn't really terrible either. And let's be honest, trying to solve all of our issues isn't going to happen in a week or something.
So, in conclusion, I am a filthy liberal. And if I have to align myself with a particular party, it would be the Democratic party, seeing as they are generally the less conservative of the two main parties.
While taking the political quizzes in gov't class, I honestly thought I would end up as a post-moderate, but ended sweeping the board with solidly liberal scores all around. Which wasn't exactly unwelcome, just a little surprising. Because usually when most people think of hard-core liberals, they think of those people who refuse to shave (men and woman alike) and protest whenever and wherever they can. Or maybe that's just me thinking that.
Anyways, but when I thought about it some more, it actually kind of made sense. I am actually quite lenient on most issues, such as abortion (pro-choice), healthcare (yes), immigration (why not?) and legalizing marijuana. (let's be honest, it's going to happen eventually, whether we like it or not...) I'm open in terms of diversity, and don't exactly see the problem with immigration. For those who cry out against it, for pete's sake! We're all immigrants here! (unless you're a Native American. Then I would have to think of some other witty comeback) Abortion is pro-choice or no choice. And women should be able to choose whether or not they want to have a baby. I could go on and on, but you get the point. I'm open and liberal on the majority (if not all) issues debated about in America today.
However, I don't exactly have a problem with the gov't either, which is why I was a little surprised at my liberal score. They seem to be doing the best that they can, which isn't amazing, but isn't really terrible either. And let's be honest, trying to solve all of our issues isn't going to happen in a week or something.
So, in conclusion, I am a filthy liberal. And if I have to align myself with a particular party, it would be the Democratic party, seeing as they are generally the less conservative of the two main parties.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)