The Problem With Education

In the article Education In The U.S , written by my fellow classmate Justin Straub, a very important argument is being made. He discusses the topic of todays extremely high tuition costs and the problems that its causing.

First he starts out his article saying, "A strong school system is a top priority in the U.S.  However, school isn't always cheap, especially not college."  He then makes the argument that affordable colleges should be accessible in the U.S.  There is little possiblility to attend a college and gain a degree without having an overload of debt.  He explains how tuition costs have increased significantly over the years, and even though there our opportunities for financial aid assistance and scholarships, it is still extremely difficult to attend a University without obtaining a massive pile of student debt along the way.  A problem with this situation is that because of the high cost of attending a university, our culture will eventually become less educated.

I highly agree with this article.  The cost of going to College these days is outrageous.  Affordable colleges should be accessible here in the United States. Taking out student loans will still leave you with a big load of debt to pay off in the end.  In an article posted by the Huffington Post, it states that the "soaring tuition and shrinking incomes are making college less accessible."   Also, in another article known as, College Costs Out Of Control, it talks about how education is the "equalizer" in this country. That it's "the facilitator of the American Dream."  How are we supposed to pursue the american dream if we cannot afford to do it?  The price of Universities today is out of reach for most Americans.  It's higher than our other needs of food, transportation, housing, and medical care.  Something needs to be done.  Attending a University and gaining a college degree needs to be made more accessible to those who want it.  We need education in this country so that we can stay competitive in the global economy.

Enforce GMO Labeling!

Advocates of requiring labels of genetically modified ingredients in food have unfortunately been defeated time and time again.  Opposing sides such as companies like Monsanto, have been pressing Congress for a federal law that will confiscate states efforts. In 2013 President Barack Obama signed the HR 933 spending bill. This bill restrains federal courts from stopping the sale as well as halting the seeds being planted of GMO's.  This means that if someday we find out GMO's are extremely hazardous, there is nothing they can really do.  Labels that show whether certian foods contain GMO's should be required. In order to understand why labels should be required first we must understand what GMO's really are.

A Genetically Modified Orgasim, (GMO) is a plant or meat product that has had its DNA artificially altered by other plants or animals to produce foreign compounds. GMO's are generally used for resistance to herbicides and pesticides.  For example, you plant a crop containing GMO's, and weeds and certain bugs will be resistant to it.  They also can increase the production of certain valuable goods such as crops, by allowing the crops to thrive in environmental conditions that it's not used to, or outside of its species. This genetic alteration is experimental and cannot occur naturally. According to the Non GMO Project, 80% of conventional processed foods contain GMO's. Does this mean we should be worried?

Although there are some benefits with using GMO's, there are many risks.  Unfortunately, there has been no long term studies on the safety and effects of the genetically altered foods on humans. There have been some ideas floating around that they can cause allergies and even have negative impacts on the digestive tract.  The effects on human health is virtually unknown. There are also environmental hazards associated with the use of GMO's. According to an article written by Deborah B. Whitman, a study has shown that the pollen from B.t corn has caused high mortality rates for monarch butterfly
caterpillars. This is just one example that GMO's can be harmful to the preservation of certain species.

 Another concern to be made is the cross breeding of different species.  If a genetically modified crop that's engineered for herbicide resistance cross breeds with weeds, the transfer between the genes can result in unwanted super weeds that would then contain herbicide tolerance. GMO's also raise a big concern for farmers, especially if they aren't labeled, because the buyer will be unaware of which product actually contains GMO's.

What needs to happen, is the labeling of all products containing GMO's. Why? First of all, because we need to know. Just like the nutrition facts labeled on the back of products, we need a line that tells us whether the products contain GMO's.

It is our right to know what is being put into our bodies.  GMO's have not been proven safe, and the long term health risks are unknown.  Labeling GMO's will support local agriculure by allowing the consumers to make informed choices on the products they wish to buy.  Most of the world already requires the labeling of GMO's.  In an article written by Niraj Choskshi, it explains how Oregan will only be the second state to have GMO label laws.  As you can see in the figure below, most of the world requires this law.  We need to wake up! It is time for our country to enforce the labeling of GMO's on our products. It is our right to know.

 

Will Raising Minimum Wage Really Help Our Society?

On Friday, October 31, 2014 Ariel Tellez posted an article to her blog called Minimum Wage:  Why can't I live comfortably too? A topic that is often put into question,  she discusses it from her own point of view.

Her first argument mentioned is that everyone should be able to support themselves.  Then she goes into further detail by explaining her own experience of how living off of less than eight dollars an hour will not support you while paying rent, and how extremely hard it is.  Later on she presents an argument from the other point of view stating that many people think the starting minimum wage is only for high-school students who just started working and how that's not the case.  She gives a statistic that 80% of these people are twenty or older.  She argues that this topic is often put down, and now is the time to start discussing this problem.

I completely understand the argument that is displayed here.  It is most definitely hard to live off of minimum wage...  Especially when your trying to support a family or while you're in college paying tuition and rent.  But the real question here is how can this be solved?  I don't think raising the minimum wage will benefit the way our economy works in a positive way.  I believe the outcomes could be worse than the problems we are facing now.  I understand that living off of minimum wage can be extremely difficult, but I don't think raising it will help.  It could help certain people individually, but if you look at the big picture, it can be frightening.

To understand this, first you must look at the solutions to solving minimum wage.  There are ideas on tightening our borders and restricting immigration.  This will give us the opportunity to raise minimum wage, unfortunately our country wouldn't exactly be known for being the free country where people can come in, work hard, and live freely.  Instead we would be blocking people from
coming who are escaping life threatening situations, and poverty that no one here in America can truly understand.  Some people  believe that we should simply just raise the minimum wage and that it will have a positive outcome.  According to an article by Andrew F. Puzder, that is not the case.  Puzder explains that by raising the minimum wage, significantly, millions of Americans will experience the loss of job opportunities.  By raising minimum wage large business corporations may have to start laying off more people.

Later on she mentions, "It's near impossible to get a good paying job without a degree or some sort of earned trade."  According to George Leef the benefits of going to college is not as Valuable in today's time.  I do believe that everyone should try and get get a degree, it would be false to say that there aren't any benefits of going to college.  In another mindset, there are people who become extremely successful who don't obtain a degree.  In fact when you go back to what Puzder was saying, most people who have a degree, still get paid the minimum wage.  I believe there are so many problems with this issue.

Unfortunately, I don't see how this problem can be fixed in a way that will truly be beneficial.  By the facts I've gathered, I'm going to have to be against the idea of raising the minimum wage.  In my opinion, it could cause more harm than good.  Despite my opinions I am very interested in new solutions to solving this issue, but I have not come across one that will benefit our economy that does not degrade it.

Gun Control

Throughout history we see that the use of firearms is imperative for the safe keeping of U.S citizens.  I believe any law-abiding citizen should not be deprived of the ownership of a gun, and am truly against enforcing gun control laws on U.S citizens.



First of all the Second Amendment of the Constitution protects our rights to acquire guns stating, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  Enforcing laws that that take away our rights to bear arms is therefore a violation of the Constitution.  Enforcing gun control laws simply deprives us from our rights and invades our privacy.  Law abiding citizens should have the right to own a gun in order to protect family as well as property and for self-defense.  If our own defense is taken away, our own rights are taken away.

No matter how hard we try to remove weapons of any kind, it won't stop criminals from getting them.  Getting rid of guns does not get rid of violence.  Different types of weapons have emerged throughout history.  We started with spears then moved on to darts and knives, guns, bombs, and on and on.  Society is advancing and new guns and weapons have emerged. The point is, a gun is just another weapon, and gun control will not stop a criminal from obtaining a gun or committing a crime.  Think back on the issue of alcoholism and before it was legalized in 1933; the fact that it was illegal didn't stop people from drinking. And even today with illegal drugs and the like, people that choose to defy these laws will obtain them whether they are legalized or not.  It's time to stop looking at the guns themselves but the people behind the guns.

Ann Coulter wrote an article that argued how guns don't kill people, the mentally ill do.  Coulter gives two examples such as Loughner and Lanza's shootings, stating that anyone who can shoot an innocent child is obviously not all there. Coulter gives facts that these two men had already shown signs of mental illness before committing their crimes, and maybe if the people who noticed this had worked in mental health institutions or spread awareness concerning these two men then there is a possibility that lives wouldn't have been taken. But of course, being psychotic is a civil right.  What about our civil right to bear arms?

Enforcing gun control laws cannot and will not work. There will always be weapons whether it is guns or knives. The concern should be with the person pulling the trigger, not the gun itself. Guns can provides us with the means of defense. We have a right to defend ourselves, and that right should not be taken away. 

Travel Ban?

Concern has inevitably been raised involving the new Ebola crisis, that was recently brought to Dallas Texas.  Questions have been arising over the topic of travel bans, and what can be done to stop this epidemic.  Recently, Andrew Sullivan posted a new article called “ The Grave Risks Of A Travel Ban,” on his blog known as The Dish.  Sullivan is a British author, editor and blogger, resident in the U.S.  Born and raised in England, his conservatism was established in his British Catholic background.  Sullivan expresses the issues and concerns of enforcing a travel ban by interpreting health officials including, the thoughts of Dr. Frieden on the subject.  Sullivan intends for his audience to be us, readers of the blog, to inform the people of the issues that are being debated on this topic.  Sullivan mainly speaks on the opinions of health officials and house speakers.

Sullivan starts off his article with the opinions of several health officials who want to enforce a travel ban between the U.S and West African countries.  Officials have spoken on how this Ebola issue needs to be resolved in Africa but until it is they are raising concern on whether of not we should allow these people in.  Dr. Frieden suggests that providing material support to the affected regions and securing the outbreak at its source is the main need that should be met at the moment. Sullivan’s article explains the needs that actually need to be met right now.  Panicking over the outbreak will most likely cause more harm than the disease itself in this instance.

I think that Sullivan presents these ideas in a good manner. As stated in the article our worries should not be focused on how this disease can get into the U.S, instead it should be on the fact that this disease could get into the larger portions of West Africa, where they don’t have the health facilities and quarantine set-ups that we have.  If we ban travel how are we supposed to help these people who are dying from the disease? My hope is that we can all be mature on the subject and act upon the needs of the people who are really facing the Ebola crisis.

Is it Really a Question of Inequality?

Does the gap between the rich and the poor affecting our society either in a positive or negative way? On September 28, 2014 Paul Krugman posted an article called Our Invisible Rich.  Krugman joined the New York Times in 1999 as a columnist, and continues as a professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University. He writes this article with the opinion that today it’s not the poor who are invisible, but the rich.  He intends for this article to reach out among American voters, claiming that our ignorance is the reason for the uncertainty of what our society is really like and why this affects our realization of inequality.

           

Krugman starts off his article saying, “I don’t think the poor are invisible today; instead, these days it’s the rich who are invisible.”  After this statement Krugman answers the question of our TV Programming, saying that it’s just celebrity culture, and doesn’t mean the public can properly understand the gap between the rich and the poor.  To back up these statement Krugmen describes a survey that was taken, with the results that the median respondent believed executives of major companies make about thirty times as much as the workers.  Instead they actually earn about three hundred times as much.  Krugmen suggests that the reasons for people being unaware of these developments are because the rich are simply removed from ordinary people’s lives.  Krugman states, “We don’t see what they have.”  Krugman believes the exceptions are celebrities, who live their lives publicly.

In the conclusion of this article, Krugman asks a logical question, whether the invisibility of the rich actually matter.  Krugman’s answer is that that politically, it does matter. The reason voters don’t care about inequality is because they don’t understand the extremity of it.  There is overwhelming support for higher minimum wages and so on.  Krugman also states “Today’s political balance rests on a foundation of ignorance.”

I personally disagree with Krugman in the article.  I don’t believe our society could be better off if the public was more aware of the extremity of the wealthy.  I understand that we often clump the rich into one category, and that there is actually a subcategory with an extraordinary income, which makes celebrities look poor.  On the other hand, we are not completely blind of this subcategory. American voters have tons of access through the media and are constantly bombarded with social networking sites.  By the survey Krugman mentioned, its true that the majority of Americans are unaware of how wealthy the super-rich really are.   It’s true, we are ignorant; but would our society really change if we knew these things?

By researching more about this topic I found that many people have very strong opinions about the gap between the rich and the poor, or even just the middle class. I don’t think that voters don’t care about inequality.  There is overwhelming support for higher minimum wages and higher taxes to be laid upon the rich.  This support will most likely increase if society is more aware of the sub category of the rich.  If this does happen, then these large business cooperation’s may start laying off more people, which will only end in less jobs for us Americans. In my opinion, anyone can be successful by hard work and discipline.  It’s not necessarily a question of inequality. In order for this to happen though, people have to try. What happened to the American dream that enables the patrons a chance to prosper?  Blaming our difficulties on the rich cannot be tolerated.  Babying Americans will only cause the government to grow.  This will result in our own personal rights to be taken away, and eventually we will not have the freedom to prosper.

Obama: Vote shows U.S is united against ISIS

With this recurring news on the terrorist organization known as “ISIS,” CBS News published a new article, written by Rebecca Kaplan, stating that on Thursday the Senate approved to arm and train Syrian rebels in the fight against this Islamic State.  Republicans and Democrats have aroused many concerns about this plan. Senator Rand Paul says that we are again wading into a civil war. Senator Mark Begich is not in favor of arming Syrian rebels. Debates on whether President Obamas plan is serious have caused many different opinions. Can the Syrian rebels step up and fight?  Will they instead use these weapons in their own war against Syria? Despite the questions of whether or not the Syrian rebels are capable of destroying this terrorist organization, The President has repeatedly stated that the American forces will not have a combat mission on the ground in Iraq. The President does not want to have another ground war.  But the question is will the Syrian rebels step up to the plate?  Another ground war might be necessary.  This article is worth reading, because it presents different opinions on how to destroy this threat, and explains the newest plan that our country is coming up with.  It’s important to know the facts about what is happening now in our country.  Who knows what could happen in the future.