Alternative thinking as far as this "Change-Hungry" President goes

In response to: Obama Criticism

I agree people out there are giving way too much unsupported criticism on Obama. I understand his plans but for as much as he pushed this 'Change' campaign went, I really haven't seen too much change. One of my teachers said that you really can't see what a president has done until after his term, but can we really afford to trust that rule right now?

I think that, like Kennedy, Obama's charm won the presidency, not him. People wanted to change history so badly that they gave in to the charm that Obama gave in all of his speeches and even in his appearance. He's got a beautiful, (African-) American family that sold his followers. He almost gave a commercial-like presence with him & his family where the undertones said, "If you vote for me, your family can be like this again, back to the good ol' days!"

Even though he's promised big, doesn't mean that he's going to come through big.

Hello Mr.Governor....errr..President

In my history classes it's really never made a lot of sense to me why our states dont have more power. Governors would be more suited to deal with their state's problems, because they do after all live in their state. But reading different arguments on this idea, I have realized that the state governors have gotten entirely too accustomed to having the federal government "fix" their problems for them. This generation's set of government wouldn't be cut out for more power like we would like for them to be. I think that the problem might be is that the people that are running for presidency are more ready to take on more power for their states & not necessarily taking on a whole country. I think that if the governors got used to more power and the President had less internal problems to worry about, the powers would even out a little more & put less pressure on every one.

"Just Say No."

Going to public school all my life, i can honestly say that I've encountered illegal drugs a few times. I think most of the american population has, even with out knowing. They are everywhere. The "War on Drugs" didn't come about until the 1980's when Regan was in office. That meant more money, more time and more worry for something we already have laws for.

What I dont understand is why we're spending all this extra effort for something thats always going to be around? People are always going to want drugs. In a recent artical I read, "In 2008, President Bush signed the Mérida Initiative, which would provide $1.4 billion to Mexico and other countries over three years to help combat drug smuggling and violence." And do we still have people using, and killing for drugs? Yes, yes we do.

Why do we get to use alcohol at a certain age but people don't get to use drugs with similar regulations? Some people would say, it's because it's harmful to your body. I say, so is half the things we serve in fast food chains everyday. What does it matter to the government if I'm harming my body or not? Is it against the law to practically send millions of troops on a death mission to Iraq? I didn't think so.

People are going to want what they cant have. Theoretically if you legalized drugs it would get rid of this problem, right? No, I still believe that people are going to still want drugs. those people can still live separate lives if they want. I do believe however, that it would get rid of the "blood" that all drugs supposedly have on them, because since it's legal no one has to get killed for those drugs anymore. More lives (not only deaths, but livelihoods as well), time and, money would be saved if we worried less about "The War on Drugs" and more about issues that require immediate attention.

In Response to:the Electorial College Needs To GO!

The Electoral College Needs To GO!

I'd like to start by saying that this is a thought that should scare you. If there wasn't an Electoral College, the smaller, less populated states would more than likely lose their voice. No on would care for them. Major politicians wouldn't give a hoot about the 'little people' in the small states because they wouldn't really need their votes in the end.

There would also be a chance that our nation's leader could be chosen by one person. It could be anyone, and it would more than likely be some one that's not as smart as the next person because the smarter people have already gone & given their vote. So the next president could be chosen by that crazy guy next door that talks to his cats. Then there would be a whole issue on whether people that are diagnosed with mental disabilities should be able to vote, with the chance that the votes are tied & it relies on one person & that person ends up being crazy.

The Bush/Gore election was also mentioned. You want to know how may times that has happened in the more than two-hundred years that this country has been alive has the popular vote not won. Twice, and that just means our system is working. In American Idol ( I think I am required as a teenager to make at least one pop culture reference) there was a situation where by some error an untalented singer was chosen and people got together and kept voting for him in spite for the show. Who says America wouldn't do the same in the situation where the people were given the power to tip the polls like that? It is after all American Idol. I think it's somewhat of a naive thought to think that something like that wouldn't happen under those circumstances.

To conclude, I think that if we got rid of the electoral college it would do harm to the people, future & government.

Mi-17...what?

At first, I was glad when I found this, what I'm going to call "piece", because I myself think about some of these problems on a daily basis. In The Smirking Chimp, Tom Engelhart talks about how the U.S. military has strange ways of spending and training. When I started reading it, my thoughts were that he shares my wonder in why America insists on carelessly spending when we can barley afford teachers in public schools and policemen in our towns. When continued reading, it felt like more of a rant with useless jargon that I have no time nor interest to brush up on. I understand that most of what a blog is for is to journal your feelings for an online audience, but when you're writing for a reasonably larger audience, you should really take in consideration how long your post is and how you explain things, which he did a poor job of at both. I don't think he has many excuses either. He has written a published book, so he should know how it is to write for an audience. I guess the difference is that when he's writing a book, people are going to pay money for his work instead of browse over it online. Regardless, I think that he should spend less time ranting and trying to prove he knows what he's talking about and more time trying to get the point across.

Would You Like Some Cheese With That Whine?

In USA Today, Caroll Culler writes (article here) about her life living in a border town next to Piedras Negras, Mexico. She 'explains' the effect the drug wars has had on her hometown and her favorite restaurant. Being from a border town myself, I cand understand the loss of leisure to walk right across the border and go shopping, of have lunch. But, I do feel that she talked more about how it has effected her personally, and I understand that she's trying to speak as the everyday citizen she claims to be, but in my opinion, she focused too much on her self & her home town. "A few months ago, El Restaurante Moderno in Piedras, known locally as 'Modernos,' closed its doors," Culler writes, "another victim of Mexico's raging drug wars. Its quirky elegance and four-star menu had served four generations of luminaries and film stars." I think that the drug wars are something that effects this country in general, and if shes worried about just her hometown, she isn't taking the time to really look at the big picture. She complains that the white house isn't doing enough and didn't jump on this issue quick enough, but she isn't trying to convince any of her audience how its effecting the people in say, Kentucky, instead of just on the border towns. She talks about how some of the local politicians gathered for lunch in a mexican restaurant and an innocent lady got shot on the way to her car, "In December, local officials...were toasting one another in a restaurant in Piedras when it was sprayed with bullets. One of the diners, a woman who had gone out to her car for something trivial, was killed." Remind me what they were doing in the next country? I agree that the white house hasn't done a reasonable amount to "fix" the drug wars that bleed in to our country, but THERE IS STILL A WAR GOING ON HALF WAY AROUND THE WORLD. I'm sorry, Caroll Culler, there is no magic wand that Obama can wave around to get your favorite restaurant back.

Whats the use of biting your tounge, when the FCC does it for you?

Over the years we as American citizens have grown particularly accustomed to having public media and entertainment censored significantly. Sure, there are your everyday protesters that just need to be mad about something, but for the most part we all pretty much just live with having the 'F-bomb' replaced with bleeps. Who's responsible for those protesters' problem of the week, you ask? The FCC, or The Federal Communications Commission, they are responsible for giving liberal protesters something to complain about since Bush is out of office, and deciding what gets bleeped, cut or dubbed out of radio, television, wire, satellite and cable.

I read in a recent blog post (in MediaMatters), how Bush's FCC was trying to rewrite the books on whats considered profane and indecent. Nothing was changed as far as 'redefining' indecency goes and the 'F-word' remained profane in any context, thanks to the Court of Appeals, but several conservative politicians fought for it to be changed even though it was deemed unconstitutional.

I think this would be a good issue to talk about because we all are effected by the FCC's determination to protect our delicate naive minds from the harm of "bad" words and images on radio and television. In this day in age we rarely rely on public television for entertainment, we have more choices in what we watch and listen to, and we dont have to be looking for these choices either. I dont think there should have been a big deal made out if Bono using the word, "fucking," in exclamation at a live broadcasted event. You hear about this politicians do that are worse and dirtier than that an the Bush's FCC never makes a big deal about that. There are medical shows that get broadcasted that make more people uncomfortable than the f-word being shouted in exclamation.