I think that poverty is one of the saddest global problems in the world right now. Poverty has been heightened due to the worldwide economic struggles. People loss their jobs and can't continue to pay their bills and before they know it, they're being evicted and forced to live out of their car - or worse, on the streets. The working class adults are not the only victims of the global recession; their children suffer everyday that their parents go a day without work. These children are forced to give up a normal children because their parents are unable to afford the basic costs of living.
The sad thing is that the most unhappy child could have all the video games and electronics that exist and more money than all the homeless people in the world combined, but yet, he or she isn't happy. And the happiest child could be found where you least except - for example, living out of a car with their family, barely having enough to eat.
This is the case for a sister and a brother that were on an episode of 60 minutes I just saw. This story really hit home for me because I know their must be some kids at Newark who get by just barely with the little money they make. The family on 60 minutes not only was happy, they were determined to do well in school and make use of their education the best they possibly could. The sister wanted to one day be a children's defense lawyer.
She seemed so happy and proud to just make it through each day. It surprised me how positive she was despite the fact that her mom had died not too long ago and that she was living in a small truck eating nothing but canned food. She wasn't thinking about her current living situation, she was focused on her future and how happy she was to just be healthy and have a loving dad.
Kids just like her go to schools around the world everyday unnoticed that they are truly homeless. What do you think schools/communities could do about this global problem? It is not fair for these children to have to live on the streets because of the lack of money thereof that their family has. Something needs to be done!
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Monday, January 16, 2012
Nigerian Fuel Subsidy: Strike Suspended
Poverty stricken Nigerians came together to strike oil prices rising from $0.40/liter to $0.86/liter after subsidies were removed. These Nigerians could not afford the new price of oil after the subsidies were removed. The IMF initially encouraged Nigerian President Jonathan for a long time to remove the fuel subsidy and when he finally did the poor Nigerians formulated a strike against the high fuel prices.
After weeks of tireless protesting, President Jonathan, made a promise that most people would think he couldn't keep - to lower fuel prices. But so far he is succeeding on his promise. Fuel prices recently have been seen at $0.60/liter, which is obviously good enough to stop the protesting.
To put it in perspective, $0.60/liter is about $2.27/gallon, which in the US right now would be AMAZING. But when you're barely making $20 in a week paying $0.60/liter is out of the question for poverty stricken Nigerians.
In the BBC article it gave few details on how the cost of fuel went down at all, because if it is really something in a President's power why hasn't Obama done anything? I know it is a good thing that fuel prices are high because it encourages more people to not drive as much but I'm just curious.. I don't know all that much about fuel, etc.
Comment pretty pretty please :-)
Republicans Dropping Like Flies
Just today, Huntsman announced he was quitting the race for the Republican nomination after getting third in New Hampshire and running out of funds. Huntsman hoped to get more votes from Independent voters to at least secure second and be considered as an alternative to Romney, but his low placing on the polls have really affected his popularity in towns. For example he just gave up in Iowa and left early..
Huntsman main agenda was to 1) get rid of President Obama and 2) to create a bold conservation presidency, similar to the Reagan administration. This views line up almost exactly with Romney, who Huntsman now endorses. In my opinion I think the race is over and Romney is the Republican Nominee. I'm not thrilled, but it could be worse... right? It could be Michelle Bachmann or Herman Cain - Oh god..
Do you think that if Huntsman had had sufficient funds to continue running, he would have had a chance of receiving the nomination??
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/huntsman-says-hes-quitting-g-o-p-race/?hp
Another G.O.P candidate that has dropped out is fortunately Michelle Bachmann. She, after a oh so close race in Iowa.... not .... she got 6th place. This 6th place obviously discouraged herself and her advisers enough that she quit. The real question is why weren't her advisers discouraged before.... ???
Here's a youtube video of Bachmann: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0povtLK4vS8
The cute little boy says "My mommy is gay and doesn't need any fixing" and then Bachmann prompty says, "Bye bye".
What do you think Bachmann's advisers were thinking when they helped Bachmann running for the Republication nomination? This is a serious question.
Huntsman main agenda was to 1) get rid of President Obama and 2) to create a bold conservation presidency, similar to the Reagan administration. This views line up almost exactly with Romney, who Huntsman now endorses. In my opinion I think the race is over and Romney is the Republican Nominee. I'm not thrilled, but it could be worse... right? It could be Michelle Bachmann or Herman Cain - Oh god..
Do you think that if Huntsman had had sufficient funds to continue running, he would have had a chance of receiving the nomination??
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/huntsman-says-hes-quitting-g-o-p-race/?hp
Another G.O.P candidate that has dropped out is fortunately Michelle Bachmann. She, after a oh so close race in Iowa.... not .... she got 6th place. This 6th place obviously discouraged herself and her advisers enough that she quit. The real question is why weren't her advisers discouraged before.... ???
Here's a youtube video of Bachmann: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0povtLK4vS8
The cute little boy says "My mommy is gay and doesn't need any fixing" and then Bachmann prompty says, "Bye bye".
What do you think Bachmann's advisers were thinking when they helped Bachmann running for the Republication nomination? This is a serious question.
Saturday, November 26, 2011
Do the Occupiers have a right?
As you all probably know the people who are "occupying" Wall Street are giving people mixed messages on what their true purpose of their protest is. They have no written demands of what they want to get out of the protests or what they want from corporations. One big idea they are advocating is that corporations, instead of claiming a profit, are saying they made no profit by giving huge bonuses to the CEO of the corporation so they don't have to pay any taxes.
Another purpose of their protests is to tell the government to make more jobs. One of their protest locations was to gather on many bridges across the country to send the message to remodel bridges to create more jobs. My opinion on this is that these jobs will be temporary and what will these people do after their job is gone and all the bridges have been remodeled? Plus our nation is already engulfed in massive amounts of debt, so in order to raise money for these projects to create jobs the government would be forced to raise taxes. This is a little counter intuitive because sure you'd have a job (temporarily) but then you'd also have to pay much more in taxes.
Another reason for the protest is to show that they are angry at banks who have money to give out loans but they don't want to take a risk on anyone right now in this time of financial crisis. This is further hindering our nation from recovering from our crisis.
In Constitutional Law we are learning about whether or not the Occupy Wallstreeters have a first amendment right to "occupy" parks with tents and sleeping bags. The first amendment "prohibits the making of any law... abriding the freedom of speech" or "... interfering with the right to peaceably assemble". The occupiers' message of this protest was to occupy where corruption and corporate greed was occuring at the source. Therefore they are not actually camping, they're occupying which is a form of expression and assembly.
Do you think they have a right or do you think the first amendment doesn't cover the right to occupy wallstreet? Is occupying the same thing as camping in this case or is occupying part of their message - therefore part of their constitutional right.
Another purpose of their protests is to tell the government to make more jobs. One of their protest locations was to gather on many bridges across the country to send the message to remodel bridges to create more jobs. My opinion on this is that these jobs will be temporary and what will these people do after their job is gone and all the bridges have been remodeled? Plus our nation is already engulfed in massive amounts of debt, so in order to raise money for these projects to create jobs the government would be forced to raise taxes. This is a little counter intuitive because sure you'd have a job (temporarily) but then you'd also have to pay much more in taxes.
Another reason for the protest is to show that they are angry at banks who have money to give out loans but they don't want to take a risk on anyone right now in this time of financial crisis. This is further hindering our nation from recovering from our crisis.
In Constitutional Law we are learning about whether or not the Occupy Wallstreeters have a first amendment right to "occupy" parks with tents and sleeping bags. The first amendment "prohibits the making of any law... abriding the freedom of speech" or "... interfering with the right to peaceably assemble". The occupiers' message of this protest was to occupy where corruption and corporate greed was occuring at the source. Therefore they are not actually camping, they're occupying which is a form of expression and assembly.
Do you think they have a right or do you think the first amendment doesn't cover the right to occupy wallstreet? Is occupying the same thing as camping in this case or is occupying part of their message - therefore part of their constitutional right.
Monday, November 7, 2011
Herman Cain?
In the news lately there has been a lot of accusations saying that Herman Cain, a Republican hopeful for the presidential nomination, has sexual harassed a few women. Just in one week, four women have come out in saying that Cain groped them harassed them even after they asked him to stop. In this BBC News article Sharon Bialek becomes the first accuser to speak publicly about Cain's inappropriate and un-presidential behavior.
Of the course Cain's campaigners deny everything about this accusations saying that Cain is certainly fit to be our nation's president and has never done such a thing to any women. But what is odd about this firm statement is that the National Restaurant Association (which has strong ties to Cain) made a $45,000 payout to one of the woman who made the accusation, who requested to remain anonymous.
This leads to an important question - Why would the National Restaurant Association make that payout even though Cain said firmly that he did not sexually harass anyone? Do they know something that the press hasn't been told about how honest Cain has been? Another question that arises because of this payout is - Are the other women just trying to get money by accusing Cain after they heard about the $45,000 payout or is there truth in what they're telling the press?
It's hard to tell where the truth lies in this situation, but my guess is that there must be some truth in what the accusers are saying. Bialek said in her statement to the press that Cain reached his hand up her skirt and pushed her head towards his crotch.
I'm sure that even everything these women are saying is false, this scandal has killed Cain's chances of ever becoming president (if he ever had a chance to begin with). Since he wasn't that strong of a candidate before with his under qualifications (in my eyes) I'm almost positive this sleaze bag will never become president due the severity of the accusations. What do you guys think? Do you think this scandal will kill his chances all together? Also do you think this will give Republicans as a whole a bad name and give Obama a better chance of winning his second term?
:-)
Of the course Cain's campaigners deny everything about this accusations saying that Cain is certainly fit to be our nation's president and has never done such a thing to any women. But what is odd about this firm statement is that the National Restaurant Association (which has strong ties to Cain) made a $45,000 payout to one of the woman who made the accusation, who requested to remain anonymous.
This leads to an important question - Why would the National Restaurant Association make that payout even though Cain said firmly that he did not sexually harass anyone? Do they know something that the press hasn't been told about how honest Cain has been? Another question that arises because of this payout is - Are the other women just trying to get money by accusing Cain after they heard about the $45,000 payout or is there truth in what they're telling the press?
It's hard to tell where the truth lies in this situation, but my guess is that there must be some truth in what the accusers are saying. Bialek said in her statement to the press that Cain reached his hand up her skirt and pushed her head towards his crotch.
I'm sure that even everything these women are saying is false, this scandal has killed Cain's chances of ever becoming president (if he ever had a chance to begin with). Since he wasn't that strong of a candidate before with his under qualifications (in my eyes) I'm almost positive this sleaze bag will never become president due the severity of the accusations. What do you guys think? Do you think this scandal will kill his chances all together? Also do you think this will give Republicans as a whole a bad name and give Obama a better chance of winning his second term?
:-)
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Iran's Plot to Bomb the Saudi Embassay
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15269348
On September 29th the U.S. arrested Manssor Arbabsiar in the JFK airport in New York under high suspicion of his plot to bomb the Saudi Embassay in Washington DC. For many months now law enforcement and intelligence communities have been working on figuring out what Arbabsiar and his collegue in Iran have been up to. They discovered that they were planning to kill the Saudian Ambassador in DC and quickly arrested Arbabsiar before he entered onto any airplane. Thanks to the efforts of law enforcement what could have been a disastorous event was avoided.
The United States isn't the only country worried and outraged about the threat of bombing from Iran; the UK has also stated that they will back up the US in punishing Iran for its actions 100%. The reason the Iran government, as a whole, is being blamed and not just the two specific bombers involved is because the two men were apart of the Iran's Quad Force and had been given direct orders. This plot, to many other countries, is being seen as "childish acts" on Iran's part.
After his arrest, Arbabsiar confessed his involvement with the plot, but his attorney claims he is planning to plead not guilty when he is officialy indicted. Arbabsiar and other men involved in this plot were said to have contacts with informants in the US Drug Enforcement Agency who lied about their involvement with Mexican Drug Cartels. The US also discovered that the Iranian government were paying the bombers 1.5 milion dollars for the assassination of Adel al-Jubeir (the Saudi ambassador).
Both Arbabsiar and Shakuri (the other bomber not arrested at JFK) have been charged with conspiracy to murder a foreign official, weapons conspiracy, and conspiracy to commit international terrorism charges.With all this evidence and information that intelligence agencies have collected I wonder why Arbabsiar would even bother pleading not guilty? Does the US government have any hard evidence (I couldn't find any information on this)?
After the alleged conspricacy to kill the Saudian Ambassador in Washington, DC was discovered Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton really cracked down on Iran, with the threat of new penalties. Iran already has a series of international sanctions. My question about this, to you, is what do you think an effective penalty could be for Iran and/or Arbabsiar? How can Hilary send out a strong enough message to make sure other countries realize not to mess with us?
:-)
On September 29th the U.S. arrested Manssor Arbabsiar in the JFK airport in New York under high suspicion of his plot to bomb the Saudi Embassay in Washington DC. For many months now law enforcement and intelligence communities have been working on figuring out what Arbabsiar and his collegue in Iran have been up to. They discovered that they were planning to kill the Saudian Ambassador in DC and quickly arrested Arbabsiar before he entered onto any airplane. Thanks to the efforts of law enforcement what could have been a disastorous event was avoided.
The United States isn't the only country worried and outraged about the threat of bombing from Iran; the UK has also stated that they will back up the US in punishing Iran for its actions 100%. The reason the Iran government, as a whole, is being blamed and not just the two specific bombers involved is because the two men were apart of the Iran's Quad Force and had been given direct orders. This plot, to many other countries, is being seen as "childish acts" on Iran's part.
After his arrest, Arbabsiar confessed his involvement with the plot, but his attorney claims he is planning to plead not guilty when he is officialy indicted. Arbabsiar and other men involved in this plot were said to have contacts with informants in the US Drug Enforcement Agency who lied about their involvement with Mexican Drug Cartels. The US also discovered that the Iranian government were paying the bombers 1.5 milion dollars for the assassination of Adel al-Jubeir (the Saudi ambassador).
Both Arbabsiar and Shakuri (the other bomber not arrested at JFK) have been charged with conspiracy to murder a foreign official, weapons conspiracy, and conspiracy to commit international terrorism charges.With all this evidence and information that intelligence agencies have collected I wonder why Arbabsiar would even bother pleading not guilty? Does the US government have any hard evidence (I couldn't find any information on this)?
After the alleged conspricacy to kill the Saudian Ambassador in Washington, DC was discovered Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton really cracked down on Iran, with the threat of new penalties. Iran already has a series of international sanctions. My question about this, to you, is what do you think an effective penalty could be for Iran and/or Arbabsiar? How can Hilary send out a strong enough message to make sure other countries realize not to mess with us?
:-)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)