Response to US Military Spending: Kicking Ass vs. Balancing the Budget

After reading my classmate's blog, US Military Spending: Kick Ass vs. Balancing the Budget, I had this to say:
I agree completely with your statements about down sizing our military. I personally am a strong believer in having a very powerful military, but in my opinion, the United States does not need to be the world police. We do not need to spend massive amounts of money to make sure that other countries do not  misbehave or do something against our interests. The purpose of a military is to defend your country against attack, not to protect the other side of the world against themselves. Our government spends way to much money on our military. Pulling our military out from the foreign countries where our military presence is not necessary would have a strong benefit on our national debt. It does not cost nearly as much money to have a large standing army as it does to have a large army in combat. Take China for example. China has the world’s largest standing army, but they spend around $500 billion less then us annually on their army. By cutting military spending, we could spend 100’s of billions of dollars on our infrastructure ,which in turn would generate more GDP that could go towards lessening our debt. It is a good solution to our problem, and like you, I wonder why nothing is being done about it.

The Modern Food Industry

Being a member of the FFA for the past  seven years, I have learned a lot about where our food comes from, and how it is made. I have noticed that one of the biggest problems that our society faces is with our food. The food industry today focuses on mass production at the lowest possible cost. This has resulted in unnecessary pollution, and low quality, unhealthy processed foods.  The government is partly to blame for this negative turn in the food industry.
    The food industry is nothing like it used to be half a century ago. Everything has changed from how crops and animals are raised, to the crops and animals themselves. Farms used to be very diverse, raising many different animals and crops. Now farms only contain one crop and nothing else. This change came after the invention of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and genetically modified organisms. Chemical Fertilizers were invented after World War II when the government had a lot of excess Nitrogen used for making bombs. They hired scientists to find a use for the nitrogen, and the result was fertilizer for corn. After these inventions, crops were able to grow bigger faster, and more crops could be grown on the same amount of land. The crop that took off after these inventions was corn. Needing a use for all this corn, the USDA helped fund research to alter it into practically everything. Now corn is so widely used that it is in almost everything, from your gasoline to your hamburger. It has been processed into so many different things that it is in almost every type of processed food in the supermarkets. Also, now our livestock is being fed corn, and is being grown on large feed lots. After farms started to grow only one crop, grocery stores have to get their fresh produce from further away then before. For food to stay fresh after traveling long distances, it either can not ripen on the vine, or has to contain preservatives.  These changes that government helped take place in the food industry are now beginning to cause many different problems.
    The first major impact that the food industry is causing problems in is on the environment. A lot of how the food industry operates uses up a lot of energy, and as a result pollutes. To manufacture the chemical fertilizers and pesticides requires a lot of energy, and to distribute them among the fields uses even more. Also, now that food has to travel greater distances to get to the store, it requires more gasoline and oil to get it there. The food industry is polluting and using more natural resources then necessary. Another thing that is causing pollution is over use of the fertilizers. When farmers spray too much fertilizer on their crops, rain washes the excess fertilizer into our water supply, and into the rivers. This is causing major problems in some areas, such as in the gulf where there is now a ‘dead zone’ from excess fertilizer runoff.
    The second major impact of the problems of food industry is on the consumer’s health. One thing that Americans like is cheep food that tastes good and is easy to prepare, and the government helps make this happen for us. In order to meet these three demands, most foods today are processed. This is where the roll of corn, as mentioned earlier, comes in. Corn is in most all of these processed foods because it is extremely cheep to grow, and it can be altered into almost anything. Part of the reason why corn is so cheap to grow is because the government encourages it. They subsidize farmers per bushel of corn that they grow, so they can then sell it below the cost of production. These processed foods also contain a lot of preservatives, salt, and many man made ingredients that are not good for people’s health. These products are considered healthy by the USDA and the FDA, and advertised as being healthy because they add in vitamins and minerals, but processed foods in excess are still bad. By eating a lot of processed foods, Americans are seeing a rise in diabetes, heart disease, and obesity. These problems could be avoided if most of the food in the food industry was not processed.
    One of the biggest issues that today’s society is facing today is with the food industry. The main two problems, unnecessary pollution and low quality, unhealthy foods, can be changed. These changes can start as simply as eating more unprocessed foods, and shopping at places like the local farmer’s market, where you know your food has not traveled from several states away to get to you. In addition to this change that needs to take place at home, the government needs to stop encouraging the production of cheep corn. Instead of subsidizing farmers for corn, they should spend their money on remodeling the current food industry into something better for our health and our environment.

Legalizing Marijuana

After reading my fellow classmates blog, Marijuana should be legal across the United States, I had this in response:
I agree that marijuana should be legalized in the United States for several reasons, many of which you mentioned. To add to your argument, if marijuana was legalized, the government could put a tax on it like they have on cigarettes. This would be taking advantage of a large, untaxed (because its sold on the black market) potential source of income for the federal government. Many people feel that if you legalize marijuana, usage of other illegal drugs will rise. I feel that this is not the case. Buying marijuana puts people into the places and situations where the other dangerous and addicting drugs are. When they go to buy marijuana, they are pressured and enticed into experimenting with other drugs. If marijuana were to be legalized, people would be able to go to their pharmacy to but it, and will not be around, or pressured into using the other drugs.
Although I feel that marijuana should be legalized, it should have restraints on it similar to alcohol. There should be an age limit on it of either 18 or 21 to deter the use of it by adolescents. Also, people should not be allowed to drive under the influence because marijuana can slows peoples reaction, distort their perception, and can render their judgment. Since alcohol consumption is legal and produces worse consequences then marijuana, under the same type of alcohol laws, marijuana should be legalized.

Government on Bullying

Recently, there have been a rising number in cases of teens committing suicide after being bullied. The most publicized case was when 18 year old Tyler Clementi was web casted  having relations with another boy by his roommate and committed suicide after finding out. This case is was just one of many, and as a result of this recent spike in teens committing suicide after being bullied, the government has decided to step in. The government has recently warned schools that “tolerating or failing to adequately address ethnic, sexual, or gender based harassment could put them in violation of federal anti-discrimination laws” (Armario, Austin American Statesman). An example of how the government is stepping in can be seen in New Jersey. Lawmakers there are working on creating an “anti-bullying bill of rights”, which would require schools of grades K through 12 to have various anti-bullying programs.
The topic of bullying at the schools is an unnecessary issue for lawmakers to be focusing their time on. Yes, bullying is a problem that schools should not tolerate, but having the government getting involved is a step too far. It is every adults moral obligation to stop bullying whenever they are aware of it happening, but we really do not need laws stating that. The main problem with the recent spike in teens committing suicide is not a recent rise in bullying, but a drop in the teens ability to handle insult and criticism in a reasonable way. Instead of teaching kids how to deal with the bad parts of life, we are sheltering them from it as much as we can.  As a result of this, when kids get bullied, they overreact in a negative way towards themselves. This is a tragic situation affecting today’s youth, but government involvement is not going to fix the problem.

Dithering on 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

One of the biggest topics of the public interest dealing with the national government today is the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy in affect in the military. The editorial published "Dithering on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell'" questions why this law is still in effect, and covers the recent rulings by Judge Virginia Phillips. Judge Phillips ruled the law is “unconstitutional because it infringes the due process and free speech rights of gay service members.” She also stated that “the original premises for the policy have been proved wrong”, which was to enhance military preparedness.  She encourages the military to stop the law immediately, as well as “drop any investigation or discharge proceeding mounted under the law against any gay service member.” Although because congress has not repealed the law, changes are still not in effect yet.
    Once again, I could not find who wrote the editorial on the website other the “Editorial Board”, so I am not able to properly and accurately evaluate the authors credibility. The author has all of their facts straight about the recent events, and made very few arguments in some of their statements, which were properly thought out and reasoned.
    The author’s intended audience for this editorial are those that are interested in the events concerning the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ law. The author’s main intention is not persuade anybody either against the law or for the law. Instead, the editorial mainly just discusses the most current events with the law. The only persuasion that takes place in the editorial is that the law should be repealed, but there is very little actual persuasion. We only get this idea from the author from their tone, and a few short sentences simply stating that the law is wrong. Because this is so minimal throughout the editorial, the author’s main audience is not for people against the law, just those interested in the events concerning the law.
    Although most of the editorial is about the recent events with the law, the author’s main argument is that the law is wrong, and should be repealed. This stand point is evident throughout the entire article because it has a tone in favor with the Judge Phillip’s decisions and rulings, most notably when the author calls the law “odious and misguided” . The author also states that they “believe[ed] the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell” law was wrong from the day it passed 17 years ago.”

An ally against Mexico's terror

   A recent editorial in the Austin American Statesman, "An ally against Mexico's terror", discusses why the “U.S. immigration authorities granted political asylum to Mexican journalist Jorge Luis Aguirre” through giving him citizenship. The U.S. immigration authorities granted him asylum in order to protect him from the drug cartels. The drug cartels have been targeting and killing journalists in Mexico for several years now in their efforts to silence and control the free press. The U.S. immigration authorities feel that granting journalists asylum here is important because, as stated by the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, “A free press is essential to an empowered citizenry, government accountability and responsible economic development. Wherever independent media are under threat, accountable governance and human freedom are undermined”.
    Both the printed newspaper, and the internet do not mention a single author for the editorial “An Ally Against Mexico’s Terror”, but rather just the ‘Editorial Board’. The two people on the Editorial Board, Alberta Phillips and Ken Herman, have both been employed by the Statesman for many years, so they hold credibility in their years of experience as editorial authors.
    The author’s intended audience in this editorial are those who are interested in immigration, and those that oppose immigration. The editorial includes a description of the events that took place concerning the U.S. granting journalists asylum, which shows that the article is intended for those interested in the current events on immigration. The article also shows that it is geared for those who oppose immigration when it tries to persuade the audience that the U.S. granting journalists asylum is a good thing.
    The author’s main argument in the editorial is in favor of the U.S. government granting Mexico’s endangered journalists asylum here. Their argument is evident throughout the editorial because of its overall positive tone. The main feelings of the author are most apparent at the end of the editorial when he states that it is good that America is being “proactive about the fact that Mexico is in grave danger and that when the press -- one of the most basic safeguards against tyranny -- is under attack, we’ll be willing to extend our hand”. The author feels that this protection of their press will help protect their country from further corruption.
  

Senate Passes Small-Business Bill

        The Wall Street Journal recently published an article about the Senate passing a new bill that will affect small businesses. This small-business bill will grant banks 30 billion in taxpayer dollars to provide loans to small businesses. The bill was encouraged by President Obama as a push to help the unemployment levels in the United States by helping gain more work opportunities previously held before the economic downturn. The Senate hopes that the money will help small businesses be able to re-hire these employees. The bill is aimed towards small businesses because the Senate says that most of American employment comes from small businesses, so helping them will have the greatest impact on the unemployment rates in the United States.

        This is an important article to read because the outcome of the Senate passing the small-business bill will have an impact on everyone. The bill will hopefully meet is goal, and mean more work opportunities for the large numbers of the unemployed. Also, it informs you of another place that your tax money is going. 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703440604575495882236157048.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird