"More Money is Pouring In for Clinton and Obama"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/us/politics/07campaign.html
March 6 2008
Summary:
As the presidential campaign becomes close battle, candidates start to pour more money into the campaigns. In February, Senator Obama had raised $55 million and Clinton raised $35 million. Also, dating from March 1st, Clinton’s campaign has raised $6 million, a rate of about $1 million a day. In Republican side, McCain has raised $85 million that is to be spent in the final two months of the race. As they raise money, polling shows that Mrs. Clinton leads statewide in Pennsylvania, but Mr. Obama is counting on doing very well in Philadelphia, with its large black population. Despite arm-twisting from the presidential campaigns, the city’s 69 Democratic ward leaders may not endorse anyone as a group at their meeting, which is closed to the news media. But of the 27 ward leaders who are African-American, most have endorsed Mr. Obama.
Analyze:
Presidential candidates’ battle is the headline in the modern days. To win the battle, candidates come on TV as much as they can and they travel around the states to promote themselves. To exercise such things, they raise money for their campaigns. Up until February, Hilary and Obama raised $90 together. Well, it seems reasonable that they have to raise money, but it is questionable if the one who spends more money earns more votes.
In my opinion, there seems to be no parallelism between pouring money into campaigns and earning votes. I understand that they have to spend certain amount of money to promote themselves and their viewpoints. However, spending fifty millions of dollars in a campaign seems to be a waste. Voters pick certain leaders not based on how much money they spend, but who they are as people and if they are good leaders who can lead the country. It seems to me that candidates should save the money that they are going to pour into the campaigns and use it for the public developments.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Women and Girls
"UN asks members to 'invest in women and girls"
Friday, Mar 5 2008
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=388691
Summary:
Recently, the UN chief Ban Ki-moon has lent his support to a worldwide drive to invest in women and girls to foster gender equality. He argues that this will help to fight poverty, hunger, illiteracy, environmental degradation and diseases, which are the goals of the Millennium Development Goals by 2015. This program exists all across America, Asia and Africa, and will start to introduce to Middle East, including Saudi Arabia. When this program works out efficiently worldwide, Ban claimed that this will bring out multiplier effect on productivity and sustained economic growth.
Analyze:
In the past, women were not even considered as human. They stayed at their homes, watching over their children, or worked at poorly-conditioned factories to support their families. Also, they held no power at all and they followed what men told them to do. In contrast to the women, men lived such flourish lives. They were the ones who held social powers in various fields, from medical to politics. Such power gave them to dominate the society, giving no power to women because men thought women could not do anything.
Fortunately, such conditions altered in the modern society. I believe women take more important roles in these days than they did in the old days. For instance, in the presidential campaign in the U.S, there’s a first woman candidate, Hilary Clinton, who fights with other male candidates. This would have been seemed completely nonsense in the past, however, because our world changed since then, we can see more equality among genders.
Then, does gender equality actually help the society to develop as the UN chief Ban Ki-moon stated? I believe it does because in the developing countries, sexism still exists. For instance, in Korea, because people are conservative, they believe men should hold greater power than women do. Such views cause hinder them from development.
Hence, I believe Ban’s proposal is an effective strategy that will fight poverty, hunger, illiteracy, environmental degradation and diseases because the society will become more competitive and children will grow up in an improved family conditions.
Friday, Mar 5 2008
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=388691
Summary:
Recently, the UN chief Ban Ki-moon has lent his support to a worldwide drive to invest in women and girls to foster gender equality. He argues that this will help to fight poverty, hunger, illiteracy, environmental degradation and diseases, which are the goals of the Millennium Development Goals by 2015. This program exists all across America, Asia and Africa, and will start to introduce to Middle East, including Saudi Arabia. When this program works out efficiently worldwide, Ban claimed that this will bring out multiplier effect on productivity and sustained economic growth.
Analyze:
In the past, women were not even considered as human. They stayed at their homes, watching over their children, or worked at poorly-conditioned factories to support their families. Also, they held no power at all and they followed what men told them to do. In contrast to the women, men lived such flourish lives. They were the ones who held social powers in various fields, from medical to politics. Such power gave them to dominate the society, giving no power to women because men thought women could not do anything.
Fortunately, such conditions altered in the modern society. I believe women take more important roles in these days than they did in the old days. For instance, in the presidential campaign in the U.S, there’s a first woman candidate, Hilary Clinton, who fights with other male candidates. This would have been seemed completely nonsense in the past, however, because our world changed since then, we can see more equality among genders.
Then, does gender equality actually help the society to develop as the UN chief Ban Ki-moon stated? I believe it does because in the developing countries, sexism still exists. For instance, in Korea, because people are conservative, they believe men should hold greater power than women do. Such views cause hinder them from development.
Hence, I believe Ban’s proposal is an effective strategy that will fight poverty, hunger, illiteracy, environmental degradation and diseases because the society will become more competitive and children will grow up in an improved family conditions.
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Religion's Role in Politics
Religion in Politics December 09 2007
Article: http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2007/12/06/religion-in-politics/
Summary:
Recently, the U.S presidency candidate, Mitt Romney, has announced upon the subject of how his Mormon faith will inflence his presidency. However, he is not the only one who has brought religion into politics. In the past, famous politicians such as Mike Huckabee, John Edwards, John McCain, Barack Obama, Fred Thomson, Hillary Clinton, and Rudy Giuliani. These people have been affected by religion somehow and it has now become the main topic of the present days with Mitt Romney.
My Thought:
After reading the article, I have realized that religion is an influential factor of politics. According to Wikipedia, religion "is a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people. Also, politics is defined as "the process by which groups of people make decisions." In these two definitions, there is a common term, "group of people". Hence, there is a similar relationship between these two factors. This similar relationship, in my opinion, is that people often make decisions based on their common beliefs and practices.
However, I believe this relationship between these two factors will ignite more problems. As a historical fact, the sole factor that has brought the most bloody event is the religion. Jews have been suffered through Holocaust due to their religion. Also, the war between Pakistan and Israel continues because of different beliefs in religions. Hence, ironically, religion has been an agent, which ignited many problems. Hence, I believe if religion is considered as a important factor in politics, then this will also bring more problems. People will support a candidate who holds same belief as them, which will take them away from making a reasonable decision because they should pick a candidate who should run the government, not the religious group. In the case of present world, Mr. Romney should not go into a religious path. This may help him to earn more votes, but I dont think it is a right thing to do because religion is just a personal belief that one should keep it to themselves. Therefore, I believe religion should not act as a key factor in the politics because it will certainly lead to greater problems in the future.
Article: http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2007/12/06/religion-in-politics/
Summary:
Recently, the U.S presidency candidate, Mitt Romney, has announced upon the subject of how his Mormon faith will inflence his presidency. However, he is not the only one who has brought religion into politics. In the past, famous politicians such as Mike Huckabee, John Edwards, John McCain, Barack Obama, Fred Thomson, Hillary Clinton, and Rudy Giuliani. These people have been affected by religion somehow and it has now become the main topic of the present days with Mitt Romney.
My Thought:
After reading the article, I have realized that religion is an influential factor of politics. According to Wikipedia, religion "is a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people. Also, politics is defined as "the process by which groups of people make decisions." In these two definitions, there is a common term, "group of people". Hence, there is a similar relationship between these two factors. This similar relationship, in my opinion, is that people often make decisions based on their common beliefs and practices.
However, I believe this relationship between these two factors will ignite more problems. As a historical fact, the sole factor that has brought the most bloody event is the religion. Jews have been suffered through Holocaust due to their religion. Also, the war between Pakistan and Israel continues because of different beliefs in religions. Hence, ironically, religion has been an agent, which ignited many problems. Hence, I believe if religion is considered as a important factor in politics, then this will also bring more problems. People will support a candidate who holds same belief as them, which will take them away from making a reasonable decision because they should pick a candidate who should run the government, not the religious group. In the case of present world, Mr. Romney should not go into a religious path. This may help him to earn more votes, but I dont think it is a right thing to do because religion is just a personal belief that one should keep it to themselves. Therefore, I believe religion should not act as a key factor in the politics because it will certainly lead to greater problems in the future.
North Korea VS South Korea
S. Korean Freight Trains to Begin Daily Service to North Within Weeks
December 08 2007
Summary:
Recently, South and North Korea have agreed on starting freight trains between the South Korean border town of Munsan and Bongdong in the North. Until this event occurred, these two countries were under 1953 armistice, which means that they were technically at war. However, as the years passed by, their relationship got better and better. South Korea had spent billions of dollars to improve this relationship, plus investment in economic projects to recover North Korea’s conditions. Hence, this train project marked a great success for both countries.
Analyze:
I agree that this train project is a huge success for both countries. After the war 1953, they have tried their best in order to improve their relationships. Because North Korea was in catastrophic conditions due to 1990’s famine, South Korea came to help their neighbour, despite the fact that they were enemies. Hence, Korea has spent billions of dollars to help their relative. They have sent household items, food, money, and volunteers in order to provide as much support as possible. Because of such generous donations, many people in South Korea believed that North and South Korea will unite one day and this train project is the first step towards the unification. However, I believe this unification will not do any good, hence, I don’t think South Korea should help North Korea.
Many people claim that the unification will bring benefits to both countries. Yes, there will be more natural resources and workers. Also, people in these two countries will live under peace not the fear of war. However, I believe there are more drawbacks than the benefits. Foremost, unification will not happen in a short period of time, which means that South Korea should spent more money and time towards North Korea. South Korean government has been criticized for spending too much money on their neighbour, while North Korean government has not returned anything good towards South Korean government. In order for two parties to develop, there should be give and take relationship, but in this case, I don’t see any gain for South Koreans. Also, “if” these countries unite, there will be more serious problems that will occur. Because South Korea and North Korea have lived under different political ideologies and culture, it will take extra period of time for them to adjust to a novel environment. I cannot anticipate how these two countries will combine communistic and democratic ideologies. Thus, this combination would not work out thoroughly, and I believe it is better for these two countries to live independently. Lastly, I believe if South Korea spends the money towards North Korea for themselves, they will see much more development and this development will certainly broaden the gap between the North and South Korea. If North Korea sees the South Korea’s development, then I believe they will eventually join South Korea and live under South Korea’s control. Therefore, I believe South Korea should be independent and work for their benefit.
Recently, South and North Korea have agreed on starting freight trains between the South Korean border town of Munsan and Bongdong in the North. Until this event occurred, these two countries were under 1953 armistice, which means that they were technically at war. However, as the years passed by, their relationship got better and better. South Korea had spent billions of dollars to improve this relationship, plus investment in economic projects to recover North Korea’s conditions. Hence, this train project marked a great success for both countries.
Analyze:
I agree that this train project is a huge success for both countries. After the war 1953, they have tried their best in order to improve their relationships. Because North Korea was in catastrophic conditions due to 1990’s famine, South Korea came to help their neighbour, despite the fact that they were enemies. Hence, Korea has spent billions of dollars to help their relative. They have sent household items, food, money, and volunteers in order to provide as much support as possible. Because of such generous donations, many people in South Korea believed that North and South Korea will unite one day and this train project is the first step towards the unification. However, I believe this unification will not do any good, hence, I don’t think South Korea should help North Korea.
Many people claim that the unification will bring benefits to both countries. Yes, there will be more natural resources and workers. Also, people in these two countries will live under peace not the fear of war. However, I believe there are more drawbacks than the benefits. Foremost, unification will not happen in a short period of time, which means that South Korea should spent more money and time towards North Korea. South Korean government has been criticized for spending too much money on their neighbour, while North Korean government has not returned anything good towards South Korean government. In order for two parties to develop, there should be give and take relationship, but in this case, I don’t see any gain for South Koreans. Also, “if” these countries unite, there will be more serious problems that will occur. Because South Korea and North Korea have lived under different political ideologies and culture, it will take extra period of time for them to adjust to a novel environment. I cannot anticipate how these two countries will combine communistic and democratic ideologies. Thus, this combination would not work out thoroughly, and I believe it is better for these two countries to live independently. Lastly, I believe if South Korea spends the money towards North Korea for themselves, they will see much more development and this development will certainly broaden the gap between the North and South Korea. If North Korea sees the South Korea’s development, then I believe they will eventually join South Korea and live under South Korea’s control. Therefore, I believe South Korea should be independent and work for their benefit.
Friday, October 5, 2007
Gun Control Doesn't Protect Us--Guns May Do
%5B1%5D.jpg)
Article: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/orl-miket0407oct04,0,3733024.column?coll=orl_news_util
Gun control issue has been one the the most controversial issues in the U.S history. Currently, many people believe that the guns should be banned because of of high gun crime rate. However, the article, Gun control doesn't protect us--guns do, provides a different view on the gun control issue. A view, that is not commonly sustained by many people, is that cops cannot protect you, so protect yourselves on your own! This view is supported from various examples sfrom the article. For instance, when one calls 911 in an emergency and asks "What can I do?" Then the question that can be interpreted from this is: "What can they do?" Probably, nothing. Hence, the writer argues that it is better for the citizens to have guns on them than just relying on the cops, which seems valid as far as I concern.
After the Columbine High School shooting, the government did not change the gun laws. As a result, the shooting in Verginia Tech happens, but the law still does not change. Although these massacres occur, why doesn't the government change the constitution? Is it because they have tight connections to NRA (National Rifle Association)? Or are they just lazy to change the laws? Either way, the result is that the government does not even bother to consider this gun issue. This is probably the primary reason why the author wrote this article. Personally, I am a person who disagrees with the gun possessions, but after reading this article, my mind changed a little. Besides those massacres, other gun crimes occur daily in the U.S. The funny thing is that the victims often call 911 or rely some other people when these incidents happen, which means that the bad guys have the possession of the guns. These bad guys threaten the victims with guns in order to fulfill their wants (although it's questionable how they got the guns). However, this threat can be minimized if the victims hold on to guns. If victims have possession of guns then, this also would be a threat to the criminals. Hence, I believe it is better for the U.S citizens to hold on to a handgun all the time because they do not know when would the crimes occur. Also, I believe the background checks must be more rigorous before people hold on to possession of guns. Guns should be distributed to those who are active citizens because guns are not just toys that can be possessed by any people. As an article states, "responsible gun owners don't use guns irresponsibly." Hence, responsible citizens must hold on to the guns.
To be honest, I do not know how well this system will work, but I'm pretty sure that this would lessen the gun crime rates because all the people will live under the fear. The U.S government may be reprehensible to this fear because they would still not change the gun laws. However, people must not give up and continue fight against the government as Michael Moore does. His provocative films desmonstrates sad truths in the U.S, which need to be addressed quickly. Therefore, it would be sad for people to live under fear of guns, but ironically, in that way they can be more protective from guns.
Gun control issue has been one the the most controversial issues in the U.S history. Currently, many people believe that the guns should be banned because of of high gun crime rate. However, the article, Gun control doesn't protect us--guns do, provides a different view on the gun control issue. A view, that is not commonly sustained by many people, is that cops cannot protect you, so protect yourselves on your own! This view is supported from various examples sfrom the article. For instance, when one calls 911 in an emergency and asks "What can I do?" Then the question that can be interpreted from this is: "What can they do?" Probably, nothing. Hence, the writer argues that it is better for the citizens to have guns on them than just relying on the cops, which seems valid as far as I concern.
After the Columbine High School shooting, the government did not change the gun laws. As a result, the shooting in Verginia Tech happens, but the law still does not change. Although these massacres occur, why doesn't the government change the constitution? Is it because they have tight connections to NRA (National Rifle Association)? Or are they just lazy to change the laws? Either way, the result is that the government does not even bother to consider this gun issue. This is probably the primary reason why the author wrote this article. Personally, I am a person who disagrees with the gun possessions, but after reading this article, my mind changed a little. Besides those massacres, other gun crimes occur daily in the U.S. The funny thing is that the victims often call 911 or rely some other people when these incidents happen, which means that the bad guys have the possession of the guns. These bad guys threaten the victims with guns in order to fulfill their wants (although it's questionable how they got the guns). However, this threat can be minimized if the victims hold on to guns. If victims have possession of guns then, this also would be a threat to the criminals. Hence, I believe it is better for the U.S citizens to hold on to a handgun all the time because they do not know when would the crimes occur. Also, I believe the background checks must be more rigorous before people hold on to possession of guns. Guns should be distributed to those who are active citizens because guns are not just toys that can be possessed by any people. As an article states, "responsible gun owners don't use guns irresponsibly." Hence, responsible citizens must hold on to the guns.
To be honest, I do not know how well this system will work, but I'm pretty sure that this would lessen the gun crime rates because all the people will live under the fear. The U.S government may be reprehensible to this fear because they would still not change the gun laws. However, people must not give up and continue fight against the government as Michael Moore does. His provocative films desmonstrates sad truths in the U.S, which need to be addressed quickly. Therefore, it would be sad for people to live under fear of guns, but ironically, in that way they can be more protective from guns.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Education...Solution to the Current Problems
This article, Education is path out of poverty, is written in the commemoration of the international literacy day, which took place in September 8th. This day is to honor the importance of the education. The writer presents various scenarios in third-world countires to present how some children are desperate to receive education. From now on, I'll discuss about this unfortunate truth that are still present today.
On September 8th, it was an international literacy day. Sadly, I did not know about this day until I read this article. This article, which was written a week before the international literacy day, examines why education is such a vital factor in this world. Although it seems like the world focuses a lot on the education systems, the statistics don’t reveal this fact in third-world countries. In Sienna Leon, one in six people is illiterate while it would cost just $7 billion to teach everyone to read and write. Also, in Ethiopia, literacy rate is only 41%. While the third countries struggle with the education systems, the powerful countries like the U.S and countries in Europe spend up to $18 billion every year to enhance the education systems. The parallelism I can examine from this fact is that if one’s country has a good education systems, then that country will most likely to become developed country. In Sienna Leon, rebels burned down the schools and killed teachers because they know that the education is important and education will hinder them from taking advantage of their people. This happens not only in Sienna Leon, but also in the most of the third-world countries and the world-wide international literacy day is celebrated to remember those who cannot receive these valuable educations. These valuable educations will shorten the gap between the rich and the poor and will assist people to take one step closer to the better world. Therefore, I would like to conclude by saying: “education is the solution to everything”, as the article concludes.
Article: http://www.thestar.com/News/GlobalVoices/article/252611
On September 8th, it was an international literacy day. Sadly, I did not know about this day until I read this article. This article, which was written a week before the international literacy day, examines why education is such a vital factor in this world. Although it seems like the world focuses a lot on the education systems, the statistics don’t reveal this fact in third-world countries. In Sienna Leon, one in six people is illiterate while it would cost just $7 billion to teach everyone to read and write. Also, in Ethiopia, literacy rate is only 41%. While the third countries struggle with the education systems, the powerful countries like the U.S and countries in Europe spend up to $18 billion every year to enhance the education systems. The parallelism I can examine from this fact is that if one’s country has a good education systems, then that country will most likely to become developed country. In Sienna Leon, rebels burned down the schools and killed teachers because they know that the education is important and education will hinder them from taking advantage of their people. This happens not only in Sienna Leon, but also in the most of the third-world countries and the world-wide international literacy day is celebrated to remember those who cannot receive these valuable educations. These valuable educations will shorten the gap between the rich and the poor and will assist people to take one step closer to the better world. Therefore, I would like to conclude by saying: “education is the solution to everything”, as the article concludes.
Article: http://www.thestar.com/News/GlobalVoices/article/252611
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Morality VS Reality
This article presents two sides of the controversial issue, whether the government should provide funds for faith-based schools or not. Personally, I believe both sides are presented thoroughly, hence, I could not make a solid decision on one side. To elaborate on this, I believe this issue deals with a fundamental problem that still continues to the present world: Morality VS Reality.
In the article, the arguments that is presented in the pro side mainly deals with equality among people. Morally, there is not doubt that every humans are equal. They are born from their parents and live in the same environment as anyone else. Thus, Dalton McGuinty, the premier of Ontario, claims that “The ideal here is equity with the Catholic system”. If the government provides funds for Catholic schools, then why not Jewish schools or Hindu schools? This is certainly a discrimination towards certain group of people and I believe there’s a problem with that. Under the Charter of Freedom of Rights, every single Canadian deserves same equality and they have right to believe in the religion that they feel most comfortably to. However, it seems like the constitution does not even apply to this issue. If government supports those who are Catholics, then they should also provide same supports to people who believe in other religions. Therefore, pro side on this issue attacks on the moral rights that all people deserve.
On the other hand, the con side approaches realistically on this issue. Foremost, the article quotes, “ the cost in time and energy will be enormous”. It is not easy to change the way that has been done from the past. It will take time and cost a lot of money to change this tradition, which can lead to worse outcomes. Moreover, most faith-based schools are private schools, which means that students pay to school to go to that school. If they choose to go to that school then what do they expect more? If they want to get supports from the government, they can move to the public schools and get same education. Therefore, this side approaches realistically, with supporting their claims with stats.
In the article, the arguments that is presented in the pro side mainly deals with equality among people. Morally, there is not doubt that every humans are equal. They are born from their parents and live in the same environment as anyone else. Thus, Dalton McGuinty, the premier of Ontario, claims that “The ideal here is equity with the Catholic system”. If the government provides funds for Catholic schools, then why not Jewish schools or Hindu schools? This is certainly a discrimination towards certain group of people and I believe there’s a problem with that. Under the Charter of Freedom of Rights, every single Canadian deserves same equality and they have right to believe in the religion that they feel most comfortably to. However, it seems like the constitution does not even apply to this issue. If government supports those who are Catholics, then they should also provide same supports to people who believe in other religions. Therefore, pro side on this issue attacks on the moral rights that all people deserve.
On the other hand, the con side approaches realistically on this issue. Foremost, the article quotes, “ the cost in time and energy will be enormous”. It is not easy to change the way that has been done from the past. It will take time and cost a lot of money to change this tradition, which can lead to worse outcomes. Moreover, most faith-based schools are private schools, which means that students pay to school to go to that school. If they choose to go to that school then what do they expect more? If they want to get supports from the government, they can move to the public schools and get same education. Therefore, this side approaches realistically, with supporting their claims with stats.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)