Fog Blog Smog

Weekly Blog Entry 2

2011-06-07T13:10:00.001-07:00

So I just got done reading the two papers assigned for Tomorrow: Collegiate Happiness and College Advice. Pretty good advice and I just wanted to write down the few that I thought were most applicable to me.

Meeting the faculty, Studying in Groups, and getting involved in other clubs I think was the most important to me. Building rleationships with teachers is a pretty good thing because it helps cement a relationship with someone who could possibly be a great mentor and life long teacher. There are a few teachers to this day that I still email from freshmen year with questions.

Studying in Groups is a great way to learn the material. We all learn and think differently so when you sit in a group it is pretty good because you can talk about the material help each other answer questions and the more you talk about things the more it sticks in your head and the better you understand the material. Last semester in stat I use to do this with my study group a lot and I ended up making an A- in the class.

Getting involved in other clubs is pretty important to. When you constantly put yourself in a position with other similar aged people who have common interests you put yourself in a position to find life long friendship. For instance I joined the stock market club freshmen year and just constantly going to these clubs every meeting and sharing opinions and going to the social events I made friends that I still talk to to this day.

For the other paper College advice I found it interesting that programmers who have the best communication skills had the most power because they were able to communicate and gain leverage for their idea's the best. They were also taller but I really can't do much about that except wear my Nike Shoxx a lot haha.

Another interesting tip from Joel was taking Programming Intensive courses. He pointed out that most colleges dont offer software development. They offer computer science which IS NOT the same thing. You want to take CS courses that make you do a lot of programming because in doing a lot of programming you learn the skills better to develop software. Software engineering practices in CS classes are not frequent. That made me appricate the class that I am currently taking-software engineering with Professor Downing.

All in all both papers were pretty good and I took some precious gems from them. I am off now to continue working on the assignments.

Weekly Blog Entry 1

2011-06-04T18:39:00.000-07:00

So I registered for Software Engineering CS 373 with Professor Downing. I was a little apprehensive before class started because I am a Business Major and I don't have the prerequisites that most of the other students in the class have. But after speaking with Dr. Downing and given my current knowledge of programming I am confident I can do well in this class.

Dr. Downing said we wont be learning about software per se but the things that go around software like the development process and related. We talked about GitHub and version control which is all really new material for me. But I felt like I understood most of what was going on. I didn't know anything about caching but hopefully with the TA's help, Arun, I will be able to learn what I don't know. Arun seemed like a really helpful guy.

So some of the books are free, there is a quiz every day which is a good thing because it will keep us on our feet. We're suppose to ask questions in Piazzza (which always make me think of pizza haha), Piazza seems really cool and reminds me a lot of Google Wave. We talked about the 3n+1 problem, I didn't quite understand the gist of the algorithm but that wasn't important it sounded like. What was important was the technqiues in designing solutions and versioning them. I felt like I could understand this.

Professor Downing also talked about writing the stupidest quickest solution possible because we care about the human. We don't care about the machine, humans get tired, machines dont. After building a dumb quick solution we version it and then we can start working on improving the solution. This is what Git is all about.

I am looking forward for Monday's lecture but I'm not sure what I am suppose to have prepared for it other than what the syllabus says which is reading chapter 1-8.

I'm also suppose to get some UML software, the books, and something with Collatz? I think I have to come up with a solution or something. Ill start a bulk of my work tomorrow.

Goals for this class: Hopefully this class will teach me good techniques in designing software. One of my dreams is to do a start up with some friends. So by taking this class I hope to get closer to that. Also it would be great to meet people who are as passionate about software as I am.

Great so I hope I written enough. Till next week,

Omar

"Chance favors the prepared individual."

momentum

2011-04-27T13:53:00.001-07:00

successful people are constantly hustling and do more than the expectations of others

momentum

they are successful people and constantly work hard in school no procrastination

momentum

they are the winners, the successful people they are not the people trying to party or be cool

momentum

they are cooler than those people, they will change the world some day be famous be those guys at their own game

momentum

donald trump ttalks about it all the time

momentum

stay focus keep momentum keep it going

talk positive to yourself

you can overcome unconcisous negativeity by cosntantly thinking positive and never letting go of that positive feeling.

so what are you doing sitting here and writing this blog go get 'em

momentum

Assignment 10

2011-04-23T21:09:00.001-07:00

Okay so I had trouble with this assignment last week.

I have a lot of code written up so I DONT want to rewrite everything

my plan of action is to start with one class and review the code.

at each method I will debug it so it's smart to run with the string representation method first.

oh god this has been tought:

so you have to attach vertex objects to add to functions only IF the vertex's have been created

dont send strings or labels else you will FUCK up i think

though you could find the object with the label right?

what is the label?

could you find it with the data name?

oh man i feel like this is going to blow up in my face

i have noticed how big of a difference the "()" makes when working with methods, lists, and objects!, and properties!!!!!!

definantly start learning how to work with the methods you write rather than trying to access the objects data directly

USE THE METHODS TO ACCESS DATA

yea the () things really fuck me up!

so writing your udnciton and debugging in main at the same time REALLY HELPs

Assignment 8

2011-04-22T21:21:00.000-07:00

Okay so im working on assignment 8 and i have to ponder

what does the init function in circular list, what should that do.

should it create a ciruclar list with the solider's already in it. OR should it be empty and I append the soliders in the main function definition.

I think i will have the list initialized to none and then have only one attribute which is the pointer to the first node "think self.first=None" then pass an argument

do I need any other attributes?

what happens when i assign a variable an object and then do:

while variable != none

i mean wouldn't python get confused because it does not know which attribute you are referring to (confused between variable.data and variable.next ???)

im having a problem with traversing a circular linked list

I can't seem to find an implementation that completes the last link before the jump to the new link while starting with the first link. because when i do then i can't start

starting from one and stopping when you reach back to one are very different prcesses

you basically need a .next that is not attached to a node that will be traversed otherwise it will kill the operation and that node will not be visited

classes

2011-04-13T10:52:00.001-07:00

when defining classes

we use the paramer self in much of the methods to refer to the name of whatever object we create using the class

ergo:

class Student(object):

def getScore(self):

....

s=Student(Omar, 4)

s.getScore()

in the method def getScore(self) self is bounded to whatever object is create which in this case is "s"

why can't you do s.getScore() cause wouldnt it know that s is a part of class Student and therefore when I do s.getScore it knows and i wont have to write self as a parameter?

seems redundant

so when I do s.getscore it knows getscore is a method of object "s"

cool notes:

so i dont' have to write self, i can actually write object or any other word in there so long as im consistent and i write SOMETHING. Cause when I dont it says the method takes no arguments and one given

some other things: you can set default paramters in normal functions that dont exist inside of a class but you can't set instance variabales in normal functions that dont exist inside a class

i played around with classes alot to see how it works and doesn't work when i change certain things

and in normal functions you can write jobersih and the program works so long as it doesn't call that line in the code:

however when writing classes you can't do that python will get mad even if the code or function is not called

there's a lot of pointer passing that goes on in python, that's why you need self, cause it passes arguments like that (dont ask me why). all that i can extrapolate is that when you do:

s1=Omar()

s1 is really self

and so

def runner(self,parameter="None")

s1.runner() means that s1 is self, calling the function runner (though instnatieing it should link the two) passing a paramter of nothing.

Working in Files

2011-04-12T19:46:00.000-07:00

So files has been a tricky spot for me

i think because im not comfortable with having code grab things off of a screen.

cause how does it know when it "sees" the letter "A" in a file that it is actually A?

And how does it keep track of what line it's in?

according to Mitra's instructions:

if the file is small and can be read in as a single string then you can do this:

infile= open("sample.txt", "r")

filecontent=infile.read()

however if the file is too large to fit in memory then you will have to read the file line by line

that command is readline()

to read remaining lines the command is readlines()

the simplest way to read a line line by lines would be to:

for line in openfile:

#process the line

line=line.rstrip("\n") #strips the newline character at the end

...

infile.close()

ahhhh okay!!!!

file=openfile.read() #reads the whole file in

file=openfile.readline() #reads one line and

file=openfile.readlines() #reads everything in the file and puts it in a list with each element being a line

#what's the advantage of this( readlines() )? it's the same

# as the for line in openfile

#it's different by sticking each line as an element in a list

################

use readlines() when you want a list with each element in the list being the line of the text
use readline() when you want only one line and python remembers the second line is next
use the for loop (for line in openfile (see above)) to work line by line in an iterative fashion
use openfile.read() when you want the entire file as one string

Web Core-Technologies

2011-04-09T21:54:00.000-07:00

alright so im beginning to learn about publishing on the web using core technolgies:

seems there are 7 core technologies:

1. XHTML is a mark up language. it has some control tags and content.

control tags used by browser to render the document on the web page. my question, how do control tags help render documents on the clinet monitor?

you can write the control tags by hand, or you can also use xhtml editors like MSFT FrontPage and Dreamweaver . the W3C has provided spcification for this language

2. Cascading Style Sheets

so CSS specifies how content is to be displayed. The trend in web design has been to seperate content from rendering instructions.

seperate content from rendering instructions...this is CSS

3.XML

stands for eXtensible Markup language. so i can create my own control tags. xml you can have any number of control tags, the tags can be used to describe content of the doc for humans and machines.

4. JavaScript

is a scripting language. used to write scripts that run on the client side.

ususally used in forms, they do the client side verification of data you enter in those forms. the scripts can also be used with CSS to produce dynamic effects. these are called Dynamic HTML

5. Java

is an object oriented language that is used for writing applets

Current Trends in Web Programming

Rich User Experience:

most wbe applications are not as responsive as desktop applications because they run on the server side.

AJAX has solved with problem. It stands for Asynchronous JavaScript and XML. SO! it means that small data can be transfered between client and server without web page having to be loaded

Web Server: is a software program that provides documents to browsers. Apache is widely used in this regard=68% of the market share.

A web browser inititates a request with a server, by sending it the URL of the document it wants...the server searches for it and restrives the document (but where does it search for it, in a database?)

so the internet has many layers.

i think important to me is TCP and Application Layer

in the application layer you have: SMTP and HTTP

so you have SMTP stands for simple mail transfer protocol

does the POP

and the IMAP

HTTP (hyper text transfer protocol)

transfers web pages from server to the client

A browser is an HTTP client for HTTP servers (listens on port 80)

http is the protocol for transfering files through TCP/IP sockets

so URL's are

universal resource locators, used to identify documents in the internet

they have the following patter:

scheme:object-address

in the case of HTTP:

//fully qualified domain name/path to document

Domain Names

okay so Overview of the internet chapter on Mitra's website was a wee bit confusing. I think seeing it in action would help me understand better

so there is HTTP, Domain names, IP address, DNS

Are URL's IP addresses which DNS serves up?

internet uses all the protocols

the web refers to http

i guess that's the most important thought. no one uses email anymore

most requests on the internet are for existing documents, but some requests are for program execution

browsers always inititate,

servers always react, although sometimes servers require responses and recall that facebook chat has the client wait and when the server gets a message can push to the client

Tips and Tricks

2011-04-09T12:05:00.000-07:00

So I've learned that in control statements:

if nodeA and nodeB are equal to 4

then this statement:

if nodeA and nodeB == 4

doesn't work you to write it like this:

if nodeA == 4 and nodeB ==4:

...

working on homework on a saturday makes me feel really good. its quiet too

"He needs to stop always seeing things for what they are, and learn to occasionally look at things for what they could be."

--some successful guy

sets are pretty useful in making comparisons:

Union: combines two sets and takes out all the duplicates

(think of build a super car from two different cars you're looking at feature wise)

Intersection: what are the common things between two sets and leaves out the differences

(think okay this honda and this toyota both have a cd player, they both have etc)

Symettric difference: what are the differences and only the difference between two car models

difference of two sets: how does one car excel in it's features over another car i.e. what does it have that the other car doesnt (not thinking about what the other car has and this car doesnt, kinda like playing to your strengths. I'm a differece of two sets kinda thinker...got to play to your strengths

less than or equal to in python is >= NOT =>

sometimes i feel that python is like an automatic machine gun in the way the language is so advanced.

i haven't learned C but maybe that would be like a manual transmission car the way it's older and yet gives you more control over the language. (i.e. in C you don't have garbage collection)

sometimes i feel like to catch tough errors you just have to write certain sections of code from scratch again

assignment finished

Computer Science

2011-04-09T11:58:00.000-07:00

It's been a while since my last post.

Just to update you on my life, I've recently got super interested in Computer Science, the reasons why I'll save for another blog later.

I'm creating this blog to share with the world what I've been learning, and a good way for me to remember the material (they say you remember 95% of what you teach).

A big focus for me will be on learning web development: Javascript, HTML, XML, XHTML, serverside code, client side code, apache, MySQL.

To be honest I don't have a fucking idea what any of these technologies are or how they work together but I want to learn. And I want to learn them because I'd like to make a social network or an ordering reservation system.

Let me say one thing, the failure of other people motivates me. Where others could not push forth is the motivation I need to not only make it past that point but to beat and shatter so much forth in that direction.

100% Reserve Ratio

2010-04-11T12:34:00.000-07:00

If banks were allowed to fail then wouldn't the commercial banking industry evolve to have 100% reserve ratio's?

With out regulation, banks would have to market themselves and compete agaisnt one another as being the SAFEST bank to which to deposit money into. Then with their 100% Reserve ratio, bubble's would not be allowed to grow because their would be no increase in the money supply (ignoring actions by the fed, which I too think they should be replaced) via the money multiplier.

Furthermore, with the activities of the banks such as taking depositors money and lending them out (the 3-6-3 club, thanks Michael Lewis) prevented, this would cause a shorten supply of loanable funds pushing the savings market interests higher . This would signal two things:

1) That investments of higher quality and better earnings growth be funded since they can bear the higher interest rate and

2) The increase in the interest rates for loanable funds from the savings market would encourage depositors to allocate more of their money into the savings market (since they're getting 0% on their deposits) encouraging more Americans to save.

With 100% reserve ratio's there would be no concern for a run on the banks. Lesser regulation reduces moral hazard (i.e. discourages banks from taking more risks). Surely then the ability for your clients to trust you, being trustworthy, becomes a profitable advantage.

Capitalism works even if it hurts.

"I want people to take thought about their condition and to recognize that the maintenance of a free society is a very difficult and complicated thing and it requires a self-denying ordinance of the most extreme kind. It requires a willingness to put up with temporary evils on the basis of the subtle and sophisticated understanding that if you step in to do something about them you not only may make them worse, you will spread your tentacles and get bad results elsewhere."

--Milton Friedman

Nobel Prize Winning Economist

If you believe in Freedom, you believe in Capitalism?

2010-04-06T13:56:00.001-07:00

The other week I had dinner with a Professor I had during my Freshmen year in economics. A couple hours into dinner we got into a deep discussion about freedom. He argued that in all of history no politico-economic system has been freer and more prosperous than Capitalism. He argued that in Capitalism, and unlike any other system, people make deals with one another through voluntary action. And it is this freedom, the ability to pursue your own rational self interest, that has unleashed such productive genius and prosperity equaled by no other time in history.

He had a great point. One shared by many Ayn Rand, Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, Hayek, and/or Mises fan.

However I had one question for him which he walked around. Let me set it up for you:

In my microeconomics class we talked about the concept of price elasticites and inelasticies. That is the % change in demand/supply in response to a % change in price. Take something like an Oscar Meyer hot dog. If tomorrow Oscar Meyer suddenly raised the price of their hot dogs by $100 dollars than most people would have no problem easily switching to something like Ball Park Frank hot dogs because it's a good substitute (and did I mention they plump when you cook 'em).
That is an example of a good that is relatively price elastic, the demand for it changes a lot when you change the price.

Now let's take a look at the prescription drug Elaprase. It's a drug used in replacement therapy for people with Hunter's Syndrome. It costs $4,215 for a 6mg vial and has no close substitutes. Suppose tomorrow the makers of Elaprase decide to raise the price of the drug by a $1,000. I would argue not very many people with Hunter's Syndrome currently using the drug would stop buying it. In economics we say that this good is relatively price inelastic.

My point here is that goods of certain types have some "sticky" prices. That the demand for it doesn't really change all that much if the prices change a bit perhaps alot.

This comes down to the question that I had for my Professor: If goods have varying price elasticities then does freedom truly exist in every transaction you make? I argue that there are varying degree's of freedom depending on the transaction. And that when it comes to goods like MP3 players and coffee mugs yeah there is a lot of freedom but when it comes to cutting edge prescprtion drugs that might save your life there's a lot less freedom. Yeah noone's holding a gun to your head forcing you to make the transaction but in some instances the ability to say no mean your the one pulling the trigger.

I'm convinced that Capitalism is blind.

Persecution of Big Businesses

2010-03-31T18:46:00.000-07:00

http://www.businessinsider.com/lloyd-blankfein-says-he-is-doing-gods-work-2009-11#comment-4bb3fabb7f8b9a21164c0600

Bullshit. Without Government aid Goldman would have still survived. So long as there are companies in this world there will be companies looking to Merge and raise capital. Goldman is the best Investment Banking company in the business, like hell they would have failed without the Government. You don't have to take my word for it Warren Buffet sank $5 Billion into it before the Government offered it's bail out money and Buffet is the greatest Investor in history (Buffet's number one rule: Don't lose money, number two rule: don't forget rule number one). And don't give me that "Well he only invested in it because he knew that the government wouldn't let it fail" bullshit. If you know anything about his investment style you wouldn't dare make such a comment.

The Government shouldn't have bailed anyone out, let the weak go bankrupt. As Alan Greenspan calls it: Creative Destruction.

Big Government Sucks.

Obama Should Listen to Ben Franklin

2010-03-19T11:34:00.000-07:00

I wish Obama would address the following quote:

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

~ Benjamin Franklin

A contradiction exists. Ben Franklin was a smart guy. Either Obama is right or Franklin is right, they both cannot be right when it comes to approach. So you must explore the possibility that Obama may be right or likewise Franklin could be right.

My money's on Ben

Logic

2008-09-28T01:40:00.001-07:00

Before the government can give you something it has to take it away from you or someone else first. This bail out plan has to be funded from somewhere, it is not magic money. We're all going to have to pay for it. The 700 billion dollar package is going to be bad for our money supply and you will see your purchasing power weaken. The bad debt is basically assets that were bought at one price and are no longer valued at those prices. People defaulted on the their loans and the bank has taken a hit on the loans to these overvalued properties. It makes no sense for the government to hold on to these assets, what are they going to do with them? Hold and sell them when prices come back up? They're definantly not going to come back up to the prices we have seen in 04 and 05. We just have to face the facts. Ron Paul is like the wiseman that nobody listens to because he does not tell them what they want to hear, instead he only tells them what they need to hear. How childish is that? Have greater strength and responsibility in yourself. I know that's hard but it will be good for us in the long run.

Short Sentences

2008-04-24T23:08:00.001-07:00

Technology has improved our lives. Communication has become quicker and less formal. Online communication is less human. We place less attention on our messages. We assume people know what we are talking about. There becomes confusion. More emailing is needed. Time becomes more essential. We place even less time writing emails. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Emailing is a more preferred use of messaging and at the same time contains less information. The loss in nonverbal communication reduces the full interpretation of the message. Though things becomes faster they also become less efficient.

Blog Log

2008-04-23T12:46:00.000-07:00

Is SMU challenging enough? Smiley felt it upset that some kid's thought we weren't challenging enough. SMU too easy?

Blog Log

2008-04-23T12:44:00.000-07:00

I was talking to Claire about the significance of having a drinking age of 21. I am sure you have opinions that you would like to share too.

Here is where you can find our talk....Drinking at the Age of 18

Blog Log

2008-04-23T12:40:00.001-07:00

Hello there! Leth and I were discussing the importance of practice. How important do you think it is? Follow the link....Practice Practice Practice!

Faith

2008-04-21T18:56:00.001-07:00

In my philosophy class we have been discussing the Problem of Evil from the perspective of Philosopher Mackie. The problem is actually very difficult to solve if you believe in God and it has caused much debate in our class. I often find myself scratching my head just trying to figure it out for myself. The problem goes a little like this:

Philosophers will accept each of the following three postulates:

God is omnipotent
God is omnibenevolent
Evil exists

However one cannot accept all 3 postulates together. To hold two true leaves the other false. If God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent and evil clearly exists why is this so? Would not it seem that a perfectly good being would wish to eliminate evil and if he had the power to do so he would do so? Is it because God cannot destroy evil? No he would not then be omnipotent. Is it because he has leniency to evil? No he would not then be omnibenevolent. And Evil clearly exists.

What becomes even more confusing then is that Philosopher Mackie shows that each attempt to explain why evil exists can be convincingly refuted.

For example one might say that God could not have created good without creating evil and so this is why evil must exist.
However Mackie will show that that statement puts a restriction on God's power. If God is truly Omnipotent then is it not possible that he may create Good without evil? Surely this seems possible so we cannot say that an omnipotent God should be subject to rules as this seems contradictory
One might say that God created evil on purpose so that a greater good can be achieved in the presence of evil. For example courage could not be brought about unless fear and malice existed. Or generosity could not occur without the existence of suffering.
However Mackie will point out that there also exists a greater evil that can be achieved in the presence of evil. He provides that cowardice could not exist without fear or malice existing and similarly cruelty could not exists if suffering did not exist. Mackie then goes on to show that any greater good that could be brought about in the face of an evil there can equally be brought about a greater evil that could not have existed without the evil. This he points out answers nothing. The argument can be extended out to an infinite order of good and evil.
One might say that God could not create Free Will without creating Evil.
Mackie says then a wholly good God would have seen Free Will as a greater virtue than evil if he wished Free will to exist. But he asks then if evil existed so that a being could freely choose between good and evil why could not God create a being that freely choose Good every time when presented the option between good and evil? Why are there some being who choose evil? Clearly God would have this ability when he designed us if he was omnipotent. But one might argue that God cannot do what is logically
impossible. But Mackie is quick to ask what is logic? Is not logic created by God himself? Are there rules that exist that even an omnipotent being must follow? There are some that even say Logic is the way God arbitrarily chooses to think. Mackie extends into deeper arguments of the Free Will defense but which I will not explain here for the reasons of time and space.

These are challenging questions. As a logical person I am constrained to interpret my faith in a logical fashion. I will not accept from my faith that which is contrary to science but I will accept where science falls short. Questions like these are not just for the philosophical they concern us. I have found that many young people are losing their faith but I don't think it is a sin to question because questioning is important part of discovering the truth. Science has always seem to differ on faith in important issues but we live in a society where science has been continually evolving and continually disagreeing with some parts of our faith. Our job is to learn how this continually conflicting information can coexist. I wanted to know how do you guys handle this and perhaps Mackie might have introduced some things you need to think about as well.

Blog Log

2008-04-11T01:36:00.000-07:00

Nathan and I are having a blast discussing policy, ethics, free markets, federal government and much much more.

You can read along right over here....Healthcare x2

Blog Log

2008-04-10T23:36:00.000-07:00

Hello again,

Nathan was so courteous as to respond to my comment on his post about healthcare that I engaged in discussion with him again. Check it out here....Comment on Healthcare Dialogue

Blog Log

2008-04-04T11:21:00.000-07:00

Nathan had an ethical consideration on his hands as he argued National Healthcare. I provided insight as to some problems such a policy would cause. You can read more about it in this think: Healthcare

Outline for Argument Paper

2008-03-30T23:52:00.000-07:00

Reason: There exists a fundamental difference between the way an individual is brought up in Western Culture and in Eastern Culture.
Evidence: “In contrast (to the West), the traditional view, especially in Asia, has been that the individual is nothing until shaped and refined through interaction with others… The Hindu person is produced consciously and deliberately during a series of collective events.” (Finding Flow 79)

Reason: Individuals brought up in Eastern Cultures seek out unity and common values in relationships.
Evidence: East Asians perceive people as inseparable from other people, so that ‘the relationship, rather than the individual, may be a fundamental unit of consciousness”. (qtd. Placing the face in Context 367)

Reason: Individuals brought up in Eastern Cultures spend more time and are more concerned with the people and things outside of their own self.
Evidence: “East Asians have a more ‘holistic’ pattern of attention, perceiving people, objects, and events in terms of their relationships to other people, objects and events rather than in terms of their distinctive properties…People raised in the Western European tradition find it easy to isolate an object from its context; East Asians do not…East Asians are more alert than North Americans to relationships and context”. (Placing the face in Context 366)

Reason: Meaningful and long lasting relationships require two conditions: Compatibility between goals and willing to invest attention in the other person’s goals
Evidence: “A relationship that leads to order in consciousness instead of psychic entropy has to meet at least two conditions. The first is to find some compatibility between our goals and that of the other person or persons… The second condition for a successful interaction is that one be willing to invest attention in the other person’s goals…When these conditions are met, it is possible to get the most valuable result from being with other people-to experience the flow that comes from optimal interaction.” (Finding Flow 81)

Claim: Adopting Eastern ideology in social and family settings leads to more successful and meaningful relationships.

It’s tough to maintain long and meaningful relationships; the high divorce rate is a good example. The way our economy is organized through the merit and reward system trickles down into our culture and we find ourselves with bad relationship skills. If we adopt just in our social life Eastern values and ideals we will posses better habits and find these meaningful relationships we seek.

National Healthcare?

2008-03-30T21:35:00.001-07:00

I was sitting at the doctor's office the other week with an inflamed lower left lung waiting for my name to be called. Across from me there was a mother sitting with her son. She had been there since I arrived. The lady at the front desk called her over with some problem involving the insurance company. I couldn't make out exactly what they were talking about but what it appeared to be was that the mother had a sick child and her insurance company would not cover the visit for this particular doctor. The mother inquired about the cost of the visit uninsured, the lady at the desk said, impassionately, $250. The mother left. As I sat there I felt a string of moral remorse for the sick child and concerned mother. Flash forwarding to the pharmacy. I was in Walgreens leaning against the corner of a wall sitting on a cushy chair waiting for the pharmacist to fill the medication the doctor had proscribed for my lung. An old man walked to the front of the pharmacist's counter. He was there to pick up a prescription that had been filled a week ago. The lady pulled the drug from a cabinet behind her and asked him if he knew that his health insurance company declined to pay for the medicine. He said in an innocent manner, "I guess so" and asked what the cost would be. She said "$100". The man stood back for a second and said "$100 bucks? For that little thing?". The lady asked, "Would you still like to pay for it?". The man said "No Thanks" and walked away.

I looked at the floor. I was experiencing a moral dilemma. You see I believe in capitalism, that its design, in all of Adam Smith's wisdom, is superior to any form of socialism or communism. But yet here I was watching two people denying themselves health care because its cost. I asked myself "Could National Healthcare be the solution?" .

A National Healthcare system would not deny anyone any coverage because of price, all individuals would be able to enjoy medicine, doctor visits, and treatment required to continue to live. The government would have the power then, to hold costs in check and would be able to experience giant economies of scale given the large client list of the American Public. But what would happen to the overall quality of healthcare? Doesn't the government, by restricting profits of the pharmaceutical industry and prices that doctors can charge, inhibit the game changing component that good old competition brings to the table? Would the level technology that has advanced over the years deteriorate because companies could no longer profit from their creation? These questions are tough and the answers so subjective. Do you guys have any idea as to which might be the better solution?

Blog Log

2008-03-17T16:43:00.001-07:00

Powerade posted an interesting post on Love on Reality Shows and Online Dating Services. I thought online dating services were a pretty good idea. What do you think?

Heres the link....Love on TV

Blog Log

2008-03-03T19:55:00.000-08:00

Audacious Mind posses a provocative belief on his blog "Who is the best basketball player of all time?"

P.S.,

He doesnt think its Michael Jordan.

21 Means 21

2008-02-26T00:18:00.001-08:00

All these posts on the drinking age being 21, the pseudo-explanations behind lowering them, and the opinionated reasons of the prevalence of teen drinking are all uninformed and ill researched. The real reasons behind the drinking age are based on sound evidence if anyone ever took a few minutes to read them over.

I assume that advocates and dissenters of the legal drinking age still have one goal in common: to reduce the number of alcohol related injuries and deaths.

First and foremost: The brain of an average human being continues to develop until their mid-twenties. During the period before this the mind goes through intensive and critical changes that can be altered and damaged through the use of alcohol. "Damage from alcohol at this time can be long-term and irreversible" (Brown SA, Tapert SF, Granholm E, Delis DC). Occasional and Moderate drinking can inhibit learning and memory functions especially in youth. "Adolescents need only drink half as much as adults to suffer the same negative effects" (Pyapali GK, Turner DA, Wilson WA, and Swartzwelder, SH). Alcohol is a dangerous drug for youth, "Alcohol is a leading contributor to injury death, the main cause of death for people under age 21. Annually, about 5,000 youth under age 21 die from alcohol-related injuries that involve underage drinking. This includes injuries sustained in motor vehicle crashes (about 1,900), homicides (about 1,600), and suicides (about 300), as well as unintentional injuries not related to motor vehicle crashes" (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA] 2003; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] 2004; Smith et al. 1999; Levy et al. 1999; Hingson and Kenkel 2004)

From the WHY 21 website (www.why21.org/teen) the following facts and their citations are given:

Alcohol impacts both behavior and brain function differently in adolescents and adults. (3)

Adolescents are more vulnerable than adults to the effects of alcohol on learning and memory. (4)

Alcohol affects the sleep cycle, resulting in impaired learning and memory as well as disrupted release of hormones necessary for growth and maturation. (5)

Alcohol affects all parts of the brain, which affects coordination, emotional control, thinking, decision-making, hand-eye movement, speech, and memory. (6)

Adolescent drinkers perform worse in school, are more likely to fall behind and have an increased risk of social problems, depression, suicidal thoughts and violence. (7)

Binge drinking is extremely dangerous for adolescents given that their brain is especially vulnerable to alcohol-related damage. (8)

People who begin drinking in their early teens are not only at greater risk for developing alcoholism sometime in their lives, they are also at greater risk for developing alcoholism more quickly and at younger ages, especially chronic, relapsing alcoholism. (9)

Now that the ill effects of alcohol on youth have been established and have been credited as to be substantially severe, let us explore if the quantity of alcohol related injuries and deaths have increased or decreased due to the drinking age.

I was tracing posts and discussions on the topic of underage drinking and the teen drinking law when I came to a particular comment. A blogger expressed the following "(I believe) those under 21 would drink much more responsibly if there was not a possibility of punishment". I was caught scratching my head for a second. I thought when you raise the consequence of a particular action than that act decreases. So I thought for a second…is it possible that by reducing the consequences of this particular action, underage drinking, that the consequences, the number of injuries and deaths, would decrease? I set out to research.

Adrian Lund is the President of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

Thirty years of study at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has indicated that "lowering drinking age brings increased highway deaths" and "raising drinking age reduces fatal crashes" (Adrian Lund). A number of studies were done by the IIHS and other organizations on the fatality rate of teen driving in 1970 when the country lowered the voting age to 18 and 25 states lowered their drinking ages from 21 to 18, 19, and 20. "IIHS's first study in 1974 looked at two states and one Canadian province that lowered the drinking age, carefully comparing their experience to that of adjacent states that did not change. That study showed that the number of 15-20 year-olds involved in fatal crashes increased in the jurisdictions that lowered the drinking age" (Adrian Lund) "Studies show teen crashes (particularly nighttime and single vehicle fatal crashes) increased in states that lowered MLDA (minimum legal drinking age)." (Williams et al., 1975; Whitehead et. al., 1975)

By 1984 22 states raised the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) and again studies were done on the fatality rate of teen driving. "Subsequently, in the late 1970s, states began to increase drinking ages again. Again, it was possible to compare states that made this change to states that didn't. Again, we saw a change related to the drinking age — this time, fatal crash rates declined as teen drinking and teen drinking and driving declined…The 21-year-old drinking age is saving lives." (Lund)

To address the blogger I encountered above, I think he is completely wrong.

The Center of Disease Control also commissioned a study on the fatality rate of teen driving. Their evidence is depicted on the chart below:

(CDC review of evidence regarding interventions to reduce alcohol-impaired driving Shults et al., 2001)

As you can see by forming a linear regression line the net percentage change of aggregated car crashes increases when the MLDA is lowered and decreases when the MLDA is increased.

Say what you will about the teen drinking age but it's hard to argue with numbers. "Lowering the drinking age to 18 would increase the number of 18-20 year-olds dying on our nation's highways…Others too would die in crashes involving drinking teenagers" (Lund)

To add partially to a fellow bloggers words: All in all if you can give your life for your country don't give someone else's too.

In summary the reason behind instituting the Minimum Legal Drinking Age at 21 was because it significantly reduced the number of teen related fatal car accidents and penalized youth for harming their minds and bodies. Lowering the MLDA "is not the path to reducing the problem of teenage drinking — it is a proven formula for increasing the number of dead teens. Clandestine underage drinking is a problem, but lowering the drinking age is not a solution." (Lundi)

Citations

Alcohol and the Teen Brain." WHY 21. 2007. MADD. 26 Feb. 2008 <http://www.why21.org/teen/>.

Lund, Adrian. "Protecting Teens From the Dangers of Alcohol Use and Abuse: Wishful Thinking Versus Science." Insurance Institue for Highway Safety. 9 Oct. 2007. Insurance Institue for Highway Safety. 26 Feb. 2008 <http://www.iihs.org/research/topics/min_drinking_age/default.html>.

Blog Log

2008-02-21T21:12:00.001-08:00

Hi there, a fellow blogger is going through a tough time and decided to use our blogging excercise as a tool for some emotional discharge. I thought I'd offer some advice and maybe you could too...
It hurts so much

Constitution: Still Relevant?

2008-02-10T20:22:00.001-08:00

Recently I had dinner with a friend of mine and we started talking about politics and current events. We discussed how dangerous the world has become and how we are in more harm today than pre 9-11. This is when he suggested "We should take a more extreme measure in our approach because the situation has become desperate." To which I said "Whatever we do we should still be within the limits of the constitution and I think we are over-stepping this quite a lot these days". That's when my friend said "Well perhaps that needs to change, how relevant is a document written 200 years ago, applied in today's context of world affairs? After all when the constitution was written there were only 13 states, Britain and France were the superpowers of the world, China and India were Isolationists, the Central Banking system did not exists, and the Republican and Democratic parties were hundreds of years from being established." These were persuasive points and they raised some concerning questions. How effective can a 200 year old document of governance be when the situation that it was written in is so politically, financially, socially, and morally different today?

I slipped into a deep thought for the rest of that night pondering such a provocative question…and I came to some conclusions.

It is my belief that the constitution is perhaps the greatest longstanding document of governing that has ever been written in history. Not even the Roman Empire ruled with such liberty, strength and egalitarianism. The founding fathers were very wise and possessed intellect hundreds of times greater than even the smartest of public policy writers in our generation. They were so smart that they understood they still didn't know very much. So they wrote a very powerful instrument for change inside the document giving flexibility that would still represent the changing values of a growing society in America, barring some basic principles like inalienable rights. I think the wisdom of the founding fathers and the constitution still has strong relevance in a diverse and conflicted world. Chaos was widespread in their time, just like in ours but their agenda wasn't to eliminate chaos from the world it was to minimize chaos for the American people. But that's just my perspective, what do you think? Does the constitution still hold relevance in handling issues like Iraq and Iran, the small or big government debate, social security, abortion, or many other issues?

Blog Log

2008-02-04T19:20:00.000-08:00

I read a rather interesting post from blogger Interesting Point. This person touched on a subject about money and happiness here at SMU that I think you should check out and give some of your own personal perspective.

Money Can't Buy Happiness? What?

Foreign Policy

2008-01-28T16:13:00.001-08:00

Late last year I wrote a blog in which I spoke about the need for the United States to have an interventionist foreign policy (see “Big Brother America” October 2007). I talked about how some countries in this world posses very deadly weapons that if misused could cause terrible havoc in their region. I also spoke of such implications like the domino effect and mutually assured destruction and the need for a type of instrument to step in and stabilize seemingly unstable and dangerous problems.

Towards the end of the December, with the winter break, I was able to catch up on the elections and research some of the candidates. It was then I found an interesting candidate-Ron Paul. What was interesting about this man was that he was a Libertarian running for the Republican nomination. His message was in the interpretation of the constitution, something that was quite the deal maker for me. One of the notable points in his policy was his view on foreign policy. He was for non-interventionism. At first this contrasted extremely with what I felt the role of the U.S. should be but, like all good humans, I didn’t dismiss him without listening to his reasons. His views stem from the constitution and the founding fathers. According to Ron Paul the founding fathers wanted a non-interventionist foreign policy. Now I give much credit to the founding fathers, they were very, very smart people to whom we owe everything that we find in this country, so my interest grew more. Ron Paul believed that the federal government should run with strict adherence to the constitution, a plausible argument, and that if it does not explicitly state within the constitution that the federal government has those powers then those powers belong to the state under Amendment 10. So through all this I was sitting there and saying boy this guy makes sense. Now Ron Paul is not anti-war, he believes there are reasons when we should go to war and that is through constitutional powers. The constitution states that the country should only go to war when A. our national security is threatened and B. with a declaration of War by congress (House and Senate).

So I stand corrected. Sure one could make the argument for the need for a type of instrument or strong power to step in when things get out of line in this world but the reason not to go is even stronger. The founding fathers were very intelligent people, much smarter than I. They understood public policy and government at levels so intimately that they devised a document for governance, the constitution, that still holds a country together 200 years later. Having a non-interventionist foreign policy is economical. We can save tax payers trillions, focus on our country and our citizens first, strengthening domestic programs that can help struggling Americans and return more money back to the states so that they may address the needs of their people without having to fight other states for federal money (pork barreling). Having a non-interventionist foreign policy is safer. By avoiding entangling alliance, getting our nose out of other countries businesses, and not bullying the UN we can improve our relations with other countries.

“Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.”
Thomas Jefferson
Inaugural Address 1801

Why Blogger?

2008-01-16T19:38:00.001-08:00

I felt sad for the gentleman who wrote "Final Post". It is not very often you read a post that has been prepared as to be read conditionally at the time of the author's death and it gave me an interpretation not felt before.

Why do we blog, why bother? Andy said "Blogging put me in touch with an inordinate number of smart people, an exhilarating if humbling experience". I agree with him. We blog (that is most of us) to discuss, to exchange ideas, and to come away with a more informed understanding of the things we blog about…sometimes even when we don't expect it. Andy realized that the way he thought about things sometimes was inferior, that he was misinformed, or lacked the appropriate mind to understand why, "When I was young, I was smart, but the older I got, the more I realized just how dumb I was in comparison to truly smart people." And that's not unusual, that is how we grow. Through a system of interaction, being wrong, and making mistakes are we given the opportunity to better ourselves. But only the opportunity is given, not the fruits of success that comes with exercising it, you have to commit to the opportunity to receive that, Andy said "But, to my credit, I think, I was at least smart enough to pay attention to the people with real brains and even occasionally learn something from them. It has been joy and a pleasure having the opportunity to do this." The yearn for intellectual exchange is what Andy sought every time he put his "thoughts on (virtual) paper", it is what I seek every time I bring my idea's to my keyboard, blogging is the means by which we attempt to achieve these things. This is why we blog.

Money

2007-11-25T18:07:00.001-08:00

As a country we are spending a lot of money on a lot of things and as a result we end up having big bills to pay just like any other person who spends a lot of money. Now the government raises money in three different ways each influences the way we live and how much money we make and are worth. The first is raising taxes. Natural when the government needs to raise money it can do so by increasing taxes but it can't do so unlimitedly because taxes cause deadweight loss (a term we use in economics to represent the surplus lost that would have arisen if there was no tax). Another way the government can raise money is just by printing more money. This has a side effect though, because the new money doesn't necessarily represent any new value that is added to the economy it devalues all the other currency in circulation. This means the very dollar bill in your pocket is worth a little bit less and has less purchasing power. Critiques sometimes say this is stealing from the middle class. The third and final option that the government can use to raise money is by issuing bonds (an I.O.U). Basically taking out a loan from the public in promise to pay it all back with interest at a later period of time.

So why do I bring this up? Because recently this game of spending money and paying debt has gotten a lot more dangerous. The government is running itself into the ground with the current administration. The war is going to cost about $1.6 trillion, give or take a couple hundred billions, the dependency on government to provide relief and regulation is growing, and the growth of the economy has continue to fall behind the pace of the bigger countries currently developing, China and India most notably. And on top of all of this they want to start a national health care plan? China has been a big buyer of bonds and infrastructure in the U.S they currently own about 1 trillion dollars of our debt. If they called in right now all their debt it would cripple our economy. Basically the government is just getting too big. There are already too many departments and too many proposals that would increase government spending. We have to go back to the system of government when it was unadulterated, back to the founding fathers wisdom when they wrote the constitution. We have gone astray from most of their advice and I believe that we are losing our way. I fear one day we will falter and something bad will happen. Lincoln once said "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves".

The founding fathers wrote nothing of a central bank when they wrote the constitution and how American should run. They backed the Gold Standard which would keep government spending in check. They understood that the manipulation of currency by an elite group of gentlemen who answer to only the joint economic committee would allow for some terrible human errors and took away from the capitalistic ideals. In fact the market crash of 1929 is a great example of poor policy on the central banks allowing for a depression in the economy. If you don't believe it then ask the current Head of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke, he will most certainly tell you (he has done much work on understanding the market crash of 1929).

We have to cut government spending and we have to do it as soon as possible. All these talks of centralized health care plan, and more government spending, and central banking system is far from what the founding father would have wanted. We are walking a tight rope and we must be careful before we confuse good intentions with poor policy.

Minimum Wage

2007-11-14T09:53:00.001-08:00

Recently this semester in Microeconomics we have been learning about price floors. A price floor is a legal minimum at which a good or service can be sold for. Now price floors are okay until they become effective, that is, they become higher than what the equilibrium price and quantity would want. Now when price floors become effective you have a surplus.Minimum wage is a classic example of a price floor. When you set the minimum price at say 6 bucks an hour and the equilibrium is 5 bucks an hour then more people will want to work than there are jobs supplied at that rate, as a result you have a surplus and that surplus is known as unemployment.

Now our society is a free market economy. We have always advocated education because nobody really wants to work at the minimum wage. We all want nice cars, nice clothes, big houses, and lots of money to put our children through college when tuition becomes something around $80,000 a year. Given that costs will only continue to rise in everything that we purchase as consumers, do we really want to advocate a minimum wage, a safety net that gives citizens the comfort of falling back on when they choose to produce very little? It only causes more unemployment and a false sense of value. I mean really, do you see the reason behind a person earning an extra dollar for wrapping your hamburger just because they raise the minimum wage? No, and it only hurts consumers. I believe in placing proper value where it is merited. If someone chooses not to go to school, not to differentiate themselves, or not to increase their skill then they should be given a wage that is the correct value to their contribution to society.

Now I understand some of you will say that if you get rid of the minimum wage and give people a dollar an hour or two dollars an hour then you’re exploiting them. But like my economics teacher says “The only thing more tragic than an exploited worker is an unexploited worker”, they don’t have a job! You are artificially creating value and giving it to a person whose contribution to society is much less than that and as a result more people want to work at that minimum wage price and less businesses want to give out jobs at that minimum wage price and so you have increasing unemployment.

When we as a society encourage education and place heavy emphasis on it than what kind of effect does that have on our message when we always want to raise the minimum wage? “Little Johnny it’s important to get an education because it stimulates your mind and puts you in a better position to take advantage of all that society has to offer in a market economy but, even if you decide to drop out, it’s okay because we will continue to raise minimum wage so that you will have a safety net to fall back on”. Well it’s not okay because we live in a world where international trade is expanding, where we have to compete against more countries that have lower minimum wages, where automation of rule based tasks with machines are replacing unskilled labor, and outsourcing is a growing trend in American businesses. The reason to study hard and stay in school has never been stronger than it is today.We need to let go of minimum wage if we are to remain competitive domestically, internationally, and academically.Raise the minimum wage? Yeah right, I’ll stay in school thanks.

To protect freedom for the world?

2007-11-08T23:07:00.000-08:00

Pakistan

Lately I have been keeping up with global and current events. As you may know President Musharraf has declared a state of emergency in Pakistan. He has suspended the constitution, forced media to close down, arrested many top officials, protestors, and lawyers, and pushed back Presidential Elections. Anyone who chooses to argue with his decision is arrested; anyone that pushes for him to step down is arrested. There is no system of check and balance in place right now. If you have even read a quick one paragraph column on what’s going on in Pakistan your probably thinking Musharraf is consuming too much power and is doing a great injustice, and your probably right.

I, for one, am outraged on what is going on and more importantly I am upset and confused as to why the US is doing very little. What it sounds like is Musharraf is on his way to be another Saddam Hussein. I understand that when President Bush wanted to go to war in Iraq he made a little speech that went something like this “This nation, in world war and in Cold War, has never permitted the brutal and lawless to set history's course. Now, as before, we will secure our nation, protect our freedom, and help others to find freedom of their own.” I see a little bit of inconsistency here. Pakistan is a real country that is being taken over by a President that is the army chief as well. This is a president who seized power in 1999, who declared a state of emergency a few days before the Supreme Court was to rule on the legitimacy of his presidency, and a man who refuses to abdicate any power at all. We fight a war for people who are not our own, and we sit back while our “ally’s” use tyranny to suppress others. That must be terrorism right there, an attack on freedom by Musharraf. This is idiotic…what do you guys think?

Big Brother America

2007-10-14T22:38:00.001-07:00

I know some people think America can sometimes get their nose involved in international affairs which they shouldn't be involved in. Sometimes America's actions are biased and "big brother" like but other times I think they're just. I mean there are so many problems in the world today and there are so many terrible intentioned agendas and weapons. And these weapons are only getting more powerful and more dangerous. With all this conflict and danger all it takes is one mistake, just one mistake to cause a global crisis. For example, if one country gets their hands on or starts a nuclear weapons program this adds one more hassle to the globe of problems. These days a lot of countries are gaining the financial resources and knowledge to build these kinds weapons. If a country with ill intentioned motives has this kind of power it could be dire.

A lot of these countries are not run by democracies where a congregate of people react, deliberate, think, argue, and discuss before acting. In reality they're run by a few to one person aristocracies, tyrannies, and dictatorships which can sometimes be irrational or respond with emotional and sporadic intentions. This is bad news. You see when countries are enemies with one another they arm themselves accordingly; they react in the best interest for themselves. There is a paradox in game theory called the prisoners dilemma where the best outcome mutually cannot be reached because countries would have to act individually in their least great outcome. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) stems from game theory and explains why countries will arm themselves and arm themselves with the most advance weapons possible. If Iraq (before the invasion from America) is a landlocked country with a lot of oil and a lot of enemies which surround them, they will be motivated to protect themselves. Other countries will be motivated to counter with arming themselves also. With all these issues mounting how easy is it for a country to launch one nuclear missile in the name of "defense"? If such a single event takes place do you know what kind of repercussions would happen? It would be a colossal domino effect. The damage will extend to other countries and they will retaliate. The nuclear debris and fall-out would spread to other nations. It would be a big mess. I mean just think about it, when democratic America was hit with terrorist attacks we went and took over a country. What will a nuclear missile make a country with a sporadic dictatorship do?

That is just one of the terrible problems existing in this world. You have to understand that there must be a peacemaker or someone powerful who can keep these things from happening. Methods are debatable, yes, but there is a need for some type of instrument to step in. We cannot rely on the countries to work these things out themselves all the time because the threat of it not working out just one time is too great to leave it to chance alone. I am grateful that the super power of the world today is one that is run by the ideals and values of a population which is educated and strives for standards that are beneficial to society as a whole. It is these things and this type of system which allows for peace and understanding to spread, that we need in our world and that we need keeping the peace. Critics of America can say what they feel, ( and it is important that they do because when they take action and correct the things they find wrong with America by their words and actions they make America better), but I implore them to ask themselves what would the world be like without her? Where would we be? Sometimes we cannot have the absolute good (policies and actions that lead to success every time); we often have to settle for the greater good. What I am trying to get at in summary is, has the net benefit of America being in this world, having done the things that it has done, and strives to do exceeded the net costs of its position and actions in the world?

"This country will not be a good place for any of us to live in unless we make it a good place for all of us to live in."
-Theodore Roosevelt

Global Warming

2007-10-08T16:48:00.001-07:00

Recently for a Chemistry assignment this weekend we had to watch Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth". It got me thinking about the environment again. I know I had talked briefly about Global Warming in a comment to someone else blog but I would like to share and expand on my perspective.

The earth is the only habitat and home we have in the known Universe. Trying to relocate the population somewhere else is unpractical, close to impossible, and resourcefully draining. So we have to make do with what we got and what we got isn't bad at all. The planet is a scare resource and it is very valuable to us for that reason. When we burn fossil fuels we disrupt the carbon cycle by adding a net 3 gigatons of carbon dioxide a year. This heats up the planet by trapping more solar energy. The ice caps which act as a mirror to bounce of light energy from the sun are melting, lakes are drying up (Lake Chad is a good example), storms are getting stronger, global temperatures are rising. All of these signs are warnings from the Earth desperately trying to tell us that the increase in CO2 is going to change the environment for the worst.

And yet we have great problems in trying to reduce that carbon dioxide. For one it’s pretty hard to find a cheap alternative energy source that has the convenience fossil fuels have that are inherent to them. Trying to implement a policy to alter from fossil fuels is another obstacle altogether. These problems aren't new they have been around for quite some time but it is the conversation that is important. Educating the public is important and finding solutions are so important. Al Gore said in his video that when he went to congress in the 70's after his professor had shared with him some new research information that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere were rising that he, Al Gore, was sure that his government would hear him. He had so much faith in democracy going into the problem. However when congress heard him they did nothing. It became part of his agenda to inform the public and the world about the problems they were going to have a devastating impact on our planet and for the future.

As a young person, this movie has motivated me to do something about it, engage myself in the issue. This problem isn't just a problem that an American needs to solve but it is a global problem in which humans everywhere need to seriously think about. There has been too much procrastination and second agenda policy that has been going around with global warming. We owe it to our planet and we owe it our human race to really start the chapter in taking care of a global killer, a problem so huge it may take centuries to fix. I don't want to start when it is too late. After all your kids and my kids deserve a home where they can grow up, we have to protect that idea at all costs. We have to protect this home.

My voice is one

2007-10-01T21:41:00.001-07:00

How many Americans at the time voted to go to war in Iraq? It is certainly a lot less now. I don't understand it. When we went to war in Iraq we said that we have to go in order to stop Saddam Hussein and protect freedom for the world. I ask you how many dictators are there in this world and how many people are being exploited and abused by their governments that could have used the 1 trillion dollars that we have spent on every cost that is associated with Iraq. And why is it that George Bush says it's a war on terror? A war on terror will never be over. Terror is not a country; it is not a tangible thing. There will always be terrorists or at least people who we think are terrorists (sometimes one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter).

If there wasn't a clause in the U.S. Constitution that stated a president may not serve more than two terms I believe that George Bush would become a dictator. I feel that he does not listen to the people. When the polls clearly show he is not doing what is in the interest of the people he continues to push on Iraq. When it is all said and done what will become of the image of George Bush? I will not remember him as a man who strengthened our country, one who increased the benefits of being an American that we enjoy, or decreasing the deficit. No, not at all I will remember George Bush as an individual who did not listen to reason and to people. Who was not a wise leader, who could not apologize or admit that he was wrong. Being the president of the United States is not something you do for ego, money, or fame. You become the President of the United States because you believe in Public Service. That is how I envision it, the champions of democracy, the true leaders like John F. Kennedy or Abraham Lincoln. These are the leaders that built a strong nation and a strong foundation. George Bush insults me. He insults my country. He has alienated relationships with so many other countries; he has tarnished the image of the United States so that we now look like a branch of government that monopolizes the regulation of the world and advocates war not relentless negotiations.

Thank goodness for Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison and the many other framers for the constitution, they at least knew that time to time we would have elected a leader who no longer possesses the proper qualities and constructed a powerful system of check and balance to protect the people from unintelligent thinking and a change agent that would eventually eradicate bad thinking altogether. We take it for granted because we are so use to a stable system. If you have lived in another country that relies on rule which is not provided by the people, then you have lived in a very dangerous place. My voice is one of many in our nation, our voices are important because as a collective whole we are the most powerful aggregate that will bring the government to service us. Never stop thinking and never stop voicing.

Technology

2007-09-23T19:08:00.001-07:00

I am truly impressed by the human race. We are the most intelligent species in the known Universe...or at the least capable. Truly our unique ability to learn, store large amounts of information, and make intelligent decisions when rational is something of a wonder that perhaps is taken granted for since we are able to demonstrate these acts so quickly and so numerously. Technology is a byproduct of our imagination and intelligence. It is one of the most powerful things we can build, use, and learn. There is technology everywhere you look: Cell Phones, Light Bulbs, Toilets, processed and pasteurized foods, medicine, and the list continues. All of this allows us to do things we could never do with the physical traits that are given to us. Intelligence is our most coveted gift and the most coveted skill anyone or anything could ever ascertain. Technology increases our productivity; it increases our standard of living, our democracies, our lives, and our future.

It may all sound cliché but that's because it is everywhere and we often take it for granted. But if you really, really think about it what we have is the results of a collective whole of every human who has ever created any technological breakthrough. And though, each thing that was built that allowed us to do whatever it was designed to do, took years and lifetimes, we all posses and benefit from it in some way or another. We can all drink healthy milk because of Louis Pasture's lifetime commitment to the sterilization of food. We can all call our mothers at night when we are thousands of miles away from them because of Alexander Graham Bell's years of dedication to inventing the telephone (and the many people who came afterwards that refined it and made it wireless). Warren Buffet once said "The average American lives 100 times better than the wealthiest man 100 years ago." Why? Because as a society we all benefit when one citizen dedicates their time to the advancement of our way of life through technology. In 100 years things have changed a lot and our life has increased in many aspects. A lot of people have contributed their lives to developing new technologies that make our lives better.

What I am trying to get at is that without technology without that intelligence we would be a lot different. And I bet most of you, if you had the chance, would compare a life without technology to a life with technology as a very scary, boring, and limiting experience. Sure you will have your breaks from technology where you cherish the very simple things in life but when you weigh those things technology has a net benefit that is exponential as the times go forwards. That is why I am truly impressed at our race. It makes you think that such a superior and advanced life form must have had a pre constructed blue print of our evolution…because I just don't think we're that lucky.

World Government

2007-09-09T22:31:00.001-07:00

After watching a solar system video in my lab and watching the discoveries of our planets and neighboring galaxies evolve I began to think that really there is no other place that we know of within thousands of years of travel that could provide us with a home like our planet Earth. After thinking about that for a couple of days I really started to appreciate everything around me. I also began to think of the conflicts humans have had with each other throughout the times. It seems that these fights are so insignificant in the grand view of it all. I began to think how we are exploiting our planets resources and damaging it with our burning of fossil fuel. We only have one planet Earth in this vast cold region of space and I feel that as each day goes on our earth grows weaker and weaker. It is a sad and lonely journey out there beyond the skies and this beautiful blue and green marble that we live in is the most important habitat we humans have. And once more I started to think...

How wonderful would it be, if it worked, a world government? A government, perhaps, more like a democracy and a republic that allowed indirect representation of people around the world. A world government that ran on a free market system much like our capitalist country. Perhaps then we could put rest to threats of world wars and civil wars. Maybe we could take a one world stance on issues like poverty and world hunger. And maybe the world would be a better place if only just by a little bit. It seems that underdeveloped countries would be considered and they would be allowed to develop more. Trade restrictions would be lifted and countries would be more efficient at production. Somewhere I read in an encyclopedia that the theory behind democracy is that the intelligence of a group is better served at managing a group of people. In other words the strength of democracy lies within the strength of the participants. And to think that the participants would reach to the far edges of the world making global problems an immediate agenda. The collective intelligence of the world seems so tantalizing.Maybe I have my head in the clouds...maybe something like that is not feasible. But maybe something like that is a better solution to a world full of problems.