I believe in family dinners; even the kind that give you a headache or make you want to spend time with someone who is not family. The thing about family is they are a lot of who you are because they are your roots; even when you may not like where they try to anchor you. At dinner, you can see yourself in them; your similarities and differences; your good points and your flaws. You can never have enough time with these people. I learned this while sitting in the waiting room of the hospital, frantic, scared to death, and unsure of what would happen. Everything was going well in the life of the fourteen year old me, and without any indicators, it was nearly turned upside down forever. In the longest hours of my life, I learned that I could not stand the sight of an empty chair at the dinner table. For a week, a part of me was missing; until the dinner table was full again. I got a second chance to really appreciate my family and what they do for me. Next time, that second chance might not exist. Do-overs are rare, and you can never really go back to change what you said or did. I believe in making the most of opportunities, for everything. The events that occur in my life are just as much a part of me as the people in my life. I learn from both of them. Sometimes I hate them; like them; love them; but they are still a part of me. I don’t waste opportunities or family dinners because I don’t want to wake up feeling like I wasted the time that I have. Everything can change in a matter of hours, minutes, or even seconds, and life does not come with do-overs.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Another Modest Proposal Based on an essay by Jonathan Swift
A MODEST PROPOSAL
FOR FIXING THE U.S. AUTO INDUSTRY, AND MAKING VEHICLES LESS HARMFUL TO THE PLANET.
It is a depressing fact that Detroit, once the Mecca of auto manufactures, is essentially vacant as factories have closed their doors, and millions of workers have lost their jobs. Around the country, trucks and SUVs from the last model year sit in the parking lots of car dealers as their value decays exponentially, but still no one is willing to buy them. Gas prices rise, and summer starts earlier as the Earth bakes in hydrocarbon emissions, but many refuse to trade in their current gas guzzlers for fuel-efficient vehicles; until recently, we continued to signal to the shrinking giants that we wanted big, bulky, inefficient cars, so they refused to evolve. Now, over 8 billion bailout dollars later, the shrinking giants only need a few billion more to continue down their path towards failure as more Americans lose their jobs and the government creates more debts that will never be repaid.
I think it is agreed by all parties that we have to mend the auto giants because the economy is greatly affected by their downfalls, and the prospects for future generations are very grim as they will be faced with a new host of natural catastrophes based on climate change.
After careful consideration, I believe the U.S.’s first move should be to continue pouring money into private companies. This would protect the assets that they have already invested into each company’s leaking bank account. We should provide this money with no strings attached because government pressure may force executives to make rushed, un-thought out decisions as they try to please a group of people in addition to their buyers. The additional few billion dollars that the government would loan to the auto manufacturers could be used to increase production of the new, GREEN Hummer, Hybrid Yukon, and fuel-efficient Corvette, as activists will support these models after seeing their improvements and consumers will crave to join the Go Green phenomenon. The waiting list for these vehicles will be much shorter than the list for the Prius. Using hybrid engines in our SUVs could increase efficiency by 60%, or at least 5mpg, which would save gasoline.
The state governments should provide rebates of sales tax on SUVs that have already been produced while the federal government should give a one-time income tax rebate for buying a GREEN or hybrid SUV, or extremely aerodynamic and thus efficient American sports car, the ZR1 Corvette. This would encourage consumers to purchase all of the leftover vehicles that are already being offered at discount prices, and the money could be used to help payback some of the debt American automakers have with the federal government.
Europeans have remarked that they do not find the American auto market to be saturated with the same models of cars. They think that consumers enjoy fads and following trends, so it is perfectly logical to have partnered companies producing the same vehicle under a different name. This ensures that there are plenty of each desired model to go around and that the United Auto Workers do not have too little work.
There are no possible ways to solve this problem other than to continue to produce models that fit a trend that has been dying for over a decade. Smart cars will not work because they can barely fit two adult sized people, and they will get run over on interstate highways by tractor trailers. Electric cars are a failure. Do you want to be electrocuted while driving? Which ever Chevy employee thought of the Volt should be fired. Batteries will not work because stores will have trouble finding storage space for the huge rechargeable battery packs that the vehicles require. Driving cars that are practical for a person’s needs? That is absolutely ridiculous! I need my Hummer just in case I fall under sniper fire while driving or decide to drive through desert sand dunes. How dare Honda, Toyota, and Hyundai make reliable, small, efficient cars and sell them to conscientious Americans. Obviously anything with a small design is meant for the smaller roads of foreign countries, and not for commuting on the U.S. highway system. They are stealing business from American Companies. Instead of providing tax rebates for hybrid cars, the federal government should place a higher tax on these people to encourage them to buy big and buy American.
I am presenting this out of the goodness of my heart and the kindness of my observations. I will not benefit as a result of any change resulting from this essay as I own no shares of stock in any American auto companies, and because I am not looking to purchase a vehicle. Nor, will I live to see all of the polar ice caps melt.
FOR FIXING THE U.S. AUTO INDUSTRY, AND MAKING VEHICLES LESS HARMFUL TO THE PLANET.
It is a depressing fact that Detroit, once the Mecca of auto manufactures, is essentially vacant as factories have closed their doors, and millions of workers have lost their jobs. Around the country, trucks and SUVs from the last model year sit in the parking lots of car dealers as their value decays exponentially, but still no one is willing to buy them. Gas prices rise, and summer starts earlier as the Earth bakes in hydrocarbon emissions, but many refuse to trade in their current gas guzzlers for fuel-efficient vehicles; until recently, we continued to signal to the shrinking giants that we wanted big, bulky, inefficient cars, so they refused to evolve. Now, over 8 billion bailout dollars later, the shrinking giants only need a few billion more to continue down their path towards failure as more Americans lose their jobs and the government creates more debts that will never be repaid.
I think it is agreed by all parties that we have to mend the auto giants because the economy is greatly affected by their downfalls, and the prospects for future generations are very grim as they will be faced with a new host of natural catastrophes based on climate change.
After careful consideration, I believe the U.S.’s first move should be to continue pouring money into private companies. This would protect the assets that they have already invested into each company’s leaking bank account. We should provide this money with no strings attached because government pressure may force executives to make rushed, un-thought out decisions as they try to please a group of people in addition to their buyers. The additional few billion dollars that the government would loan to the auto manufacturers could be used to increase production of the new, GREEN Hummer, Hybrid Yukon, and fuel-efficient Corvette, as activists will support these models after seeing their improvements and consumers will crave to join the Go Green phenomenon. The waiting list for these vehicles will be much shorter than the list for the Prius. Using hybrid engines in our SUVs could increase efficiency by 60%, or at least 5mpg, which would save gasoline.
The state governments should provide rebates of sales tax on SUVs that have already been produced while the federal government should give a one-time income tax rebate for buying a GREEN or hybrid SUV, or extremely aerodynamic and thus efficient American sports car, the ZR1 Corvette. This would encourage consumers to purchase all of the leftover vehicles that are already being offered at discount prices, and the money could be used to help payback some of the debt American automakers have with the federal government.
Europeans have remarked that they do not find the American auto market to be saturated with the same models of cars. They think that consumers enjoy fads and following trends, so it is perfectly logical to have partnered companies producing the same vehicle under a different name. This ensures that there are plenty of each desired model to go around and that the United Auto Workers do not have too little work.
There are no possible ways to solve this problem other than to continue to produce models that fit a trend that has been dying for over a decade. Smart cars will not work because they can barely fit two adult sized people, and they will get run over on interstate highways by tractor trailers. Electric cars are a failure. Do you want to be electrocuted while driving? Which ever Chevy employee thought of the Volt should be fired. Batteries will not work because stores will have trouble finding storage space for the huge rechargeable battery packs that the vehicles require. Driving cars that are practical for a person’s needs? That is absolutely ridiculous! I need my Hummer just in case I fall under sniper fire while driving or decide to drive through desert sand dunes. How dare Honda, Toyota, and Hyundai make reliable, small, efficient cars and sell them to conscientious Americans. Obviously anything with a small design is meant for the smaller roads of foreign countries, and not for commuting on the U.S. highway system. They are stealing business from American Companies. Instead of providing tax rebates for hybrid cars, the federal government should place a higher tax on these people to encourage them to buy big and buy American.
I am presenting this out of the goodness of my heart and the kindness of my observations. I will not benefit as a result of any change resulting from this essay as I own no shares of stock in any American auto companies, and because I am not looking to purchase a vehicle. Nor, will I live to see all of the polar ice caps melt.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Brave New World vs Oceania
Neil Postman makes a sound argument about the differences between Orwell’s 1984 and Huxley’s Brave New World. It is true that Orwell “Feared that what we hate will ruin us,” while Huxley “Feared that what we love will ruin us” (Postman). Orwell’s society, Oceania, was extremely oppressive through violence and scare tactics; while Huxley’s Brave New World maintained control by creating a caste system and providing escape from fear and unhappiness. While there are examples in contemporary society that can relate to both fictional worlds, Huxley’s Brave New World is a more appropriate characterization of today.
The thought police of Oceania who would be able to gain knowledge of any idea that the residents had could be likened to the U.S. government’s ability to wire tap phones via the Patriot Act. However, wiring tapping is not as extreme as the thought police. We also do not have telescreens that can spy into our homes; however we do have security cameras and webcams that can allow us to see into the lives of others if they choose to let us. We do not have three minutes hate to direct all of our anger toward one subject so that we can remain civilized; feuds and displeasures come out everyday in newspapers; on TV; on the internet; and via word of mouth. Our media does try to manipulate us, but texts that are supposed to be truthful are typically not altered to the pleasure of the government. Members of the opposite sex are not separated and forbidden from engaging in sexual encounters like Winston and Julia; in fact, much of our culture is heavily influenced by sex. Sex is present in music videos, TV shows, commercials, and print ads. Half-nude models adorn shopping bags from Abercrombie and Fitch, and sexual references are made in countless songs that are played over the airwaves; much like how sex is ever present in Huxley’s Brave New World.
Huxley takes the casualness of sex to an extreme with kindergarten aged children playing sexual games on the playground; however he does present that sex plays a huge role in our lives. The technology of altering embryos is actually something being considered in today’s scientific world, not the intelligence level, but many genetic research projects relate to this. It is amazing that Huxley would dream of this, or have nightmares about it in 1932. The influence of soma, a drug that allows people to sleep away their problems and have a dream vacation from everyday life mirrors alcohol and substance abuse, without the unwanted side effects. Huxley is making a statement that we wish to evade our problems and fears, like when Lenina needs to sleep for 19 hours to survive the trip to the reservation. Soma allows the people to escape, and only enjoy the good things in their life. Even if someone is not an alcoholic or illicit drug user, there are still ways to escape; everyone has them. For some it may be music, reading, writing, sports, dancing, or any other hobby that allows us to escape from the rest of our lives. We do these tasks because they provide us pleasure or reward which provides pleasure. We do not do these things because it is our duty, and it is a fair assumption to say that many of us would be much less happy without our hobbies to release stress.
Why neither utopia is perfect, as none are, Brave New World by Aldous Huxley presents an idea that is much more relatable to today’s society. While 1984 does have some presence today, it would be much more applicable to a Cold War era society that feared the Communists and spies, much like the people of Oceania feared Big Brother, and in a society that as a whole is more conservative in public. In general, we do not use violence to make people obey society’s rules. Our society is influenced on a much larger scale by the media and actions of others. There is always a large group of people that want to fit in with the “in crowd” so they willingly comply, while a few choose to not conform.
The thought police of Oceania who would be able to gain knowledge of any idea that the residents had could be likened to the U.S. government’s ability to wire tap phones via the Patriot Act. However, wiring tapping is not as extreme as the thought police. We also do not have telescreens that can spy into our homes; however we do have security cameras and webcams that can allow us to see into the lives of others if they choose to let us. We do not have three minutes hate to direct all of our anger toward one subject so that we can remain civilized; feuds and displeasures come out everyday in newspapers; on TV; on the internet; and via word of mouth. Our media does try to manipulate us, but texts that are supposed to be truthful are typically not altered to the pleasure of the government. Members of the opposite sex are not separated and forbidden from engaging in sexual encounters like Winston and Julia; in fact, much of our culture is heavily influenced by sex. Sex is present in music videos, TV shows, commercials, and print ads. Half-nude models adorn shopping bags from Abercrombie and Fitch, and sexual references are made in countless songs that are played over the airwaves; much like how sex is ever present in Huxley’s Brave New World.
Huxley takes the casualness of sex to an extreme with kindergarten aged children playing sexual games on the playground; however he does present that sex plays a huge role in our lives. The technology of altering embryos is actually something being considered in today’s scientific world, not the intelligence level, but many genetic research projects relate to this. It is amazing that Huxley would dream of this, or have nightmares about it in 1932. The influence of soma, a drug that allows people to sleep away their problems and have a dream vacation from everyday life mirrors alcohol and substance abuse, without the unwanted side effects. Huxley is making a statement that we wish to evade our problems and fears, like when Lenina needs to sleep for 19 hours to survive the trip to the reservation. Soma allows the people to escape, and only enjoy the good things in their life. Even if someone is not an alcoholic or illicit drug user, there are still ways to escape; everyone has them. For some it may be music, reading, writing, sports, dancing, or any other hobby that allows us to escape from the rest of our lives. We do these tasks because they provide us pleasure or reward which provides pleasure. We do not do these things because it is our duty, and it is a fair assumption to say that many of us would be much less happy without our hobbies to release stress.
Why neither utopia is perfect, as none are, Brave New World by Aldous Huxley presents an idea that is much more relatable to today’s society. While 1984 does have some presence today, it would be much more applicable to a Cold War era society that feared the Communists and spies, much like the people of Oceania feared Big Brother, and in a society that as a whole is more conservative in public. In general, we do not use violence to make people obey society’s rules. Our society is influenced on a much larger scale by the media and actions of others. There is always a large group of people that want to fit in with the “in crowd” so they willingly comply, while a few choose to not conform.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Capital Punishment
Murder is presented to society everyday on the news and in the newspaper, but there are very few instances where justice is served. While capital punishment is legal in some states currently and for federal offenses, it is rarely used over life imprisonment. From the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976 up to December 2008, 1,136 executions have occurred while 3,308 inmates remain on Death Row; according to America.gov. Nearly 17,000 murders occurred in 2007 alone. (Disastercenter.com) Capital Punishment should be carried out for convicted murderers.
Some may feel that issuing capital punishment only places others on the same level as the convicted; as George Orwell states in A Hanging, “I had never realized what it means to destroy a healthy, conscious man. When I saw the prisoner step aside to avoid the puddle, I saw the mystery, the unspeakable wrongness, of cutting a life short when it is in full tide.” Why is the same sentiment often not considered for the victim? The murderer did not consider what was being taken away from the world when he took his victim’s life; so it does not seem fair that he garners more consideration and a second chance.
Capital Punishment may seem inhumane, but the processes used, electric chair, gas, injection, firing squad, and hanging, are more humane than numerous ways a person could kill another person. All of the processes are designed to be as efficient as possible so that the murderer feels as little as possible. Nearly all of the states that do use capital punishment use lethal injection; which is the most efficient and humane method. If only the victims had received consideration in their final moments, or got to choose how they wanted to die, as some convicts do in certain states.
Giving convicted murderers multiple year sentences spanning to multiple life sentences in prison is a mistake. There are some convicted murderers that receive parole for good behavior or are acquitted. How can any amount of good behavior in prison make up for taking a person’s life? Life is supposed to be sacred and valued. Murderers do not value lives that they take. They do not deserve to have their own valued. Putting a murderer back on the streets is endangering the lives of others. There is no way to prove that someone has changed, and with an issue as important as life, no chances should be taken.
Imprisonment may seem like a good alternative to capital punishment because the convicted has to live with guilt everyday, for the rest of their lives, but very few people actually want to die. As long as the convicted is living, they have hope that something might change for them. Numerous people are afraid of death because no one is certain about what is after death; it all depends on personal beliefs. Allowing a murderer to obtain any hope or possible pleasure they may still have in prison, whether it is as simple as reading a book, is unfair to the victims who can have nothing.
Not only is imprisonment unfair to the victims, it is extremely costly. Imprisoned people can not work to support themselves, so their lives are paid for by the government; meaning you and I are supporting them with our taxes. It costs approximately 22,650 dollars to house one inmate per year according to the federal government. If capital punishment is not considered because of justice, it should be considered because of economical reasons. The money spent to support these individuals that have been so detrimental to society could be used to better infrastructure, social programs, or a number of other causes.
Capital Punishment is the most efficient and fair solution to dealing with convicted murderers. Assuming that our justice system has afforded someone a fair trial, they deserve no further consideration. Any consideration given to a murderer is more than they gave to any of their victims or their victim’s family. Justice should be served in the capital punishment.
Some may feel that issuing capital punishment only places others on the same level as the convicted; as George Orwell states in A Hanging, “I had never realized what it means to destroy a healthy, conscious man. When I saw the prisoner step aside to avoid the puddle, I saw the mystery, the unspeakable wrongness, of cutting a life short when it is in full tide.” Why is the same sentiment often not considered for the victim? The murderer did not consider what was being taken away from the world when he took his victim’s life; so it does not seem fair that he garners more consideration and a second chance.
Capital Punishment may seem inhumane, but the processes used, electric chair, gas, injection, firing squad, and hanging, are more humane than numerous ways a person could kill another person. All of the processes are designed to be as efficient as possible so that the murderer feels as little as possible. Nearly all of the states that do use capital punishment use lethal injection; which is the most efficient and humane method. If only the victims had received consideration in their final moments, or got to choose how they wanted to die, as some convicts do in certain states.
Giving convicted murderers multiple year sentences spanning to multiple life sentences in prison is a mistake. There are some convicted murderers that receive parole for good behavior or are acquitted. How can any amount of good behavior in prison make up for taking a person’s life? Life is supposed to be sacred and valued. Murderers do not value lives that they take. They do not deserve to have their own valued. Putting a murderer back on the streets is endangering the lives of others. There is no way to prove that someone has changed, and with an issue as important as life, no chances should be taken.
Imprisonment may seem like a good alternative to capital punishment because the convicted has to live with guilt everyday, for the rest of their lives, but very few people actually want to die. As long as the convicted is living, they have hope that something might change for them. Numerous people are afraid of death because no one is certain about what is after death; it all depends on personal beliefs. Allowing a murderer to obtain any hope or possible pleasure they may still have in prison, whether it is as simple as reading a book, is unfair to the victims who can have nothing.
Not only is imprisonment unfair to the victims, it is extremely costly. Imprisoned people can not work to support themselves, so their lives are paid for by the government; meaning you and I are supporting them with our taxes. It costs approximately 22,650 dollars to house one inmate per year according to the federal government. If capital punishment is not considered because of justice, it should be considered because of economical reasons. The money spent to support these individuals that have been so detrimental to society could be used to better infrastructure, social programs, or a number of other causes.
Capital Punishment is the most efficient and fair solution to dealing with convicted murderers. Assuming that our justice system has afforded someone a fair trial, they deserve no further consideration. Any consideration given to a murderer is more than they gave to any of their victims or their victim’s family. Justice should be served in the capital punishment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)