Allow me to paint a picture for us all: a sleeping America, unsure of what they will wake up to in the morning. A still running government? A "partially" shut down government? Midnight on Capitol Hill, and a partial shut down goes into affect. The Panda Cam at the National Zoo is shut off, the Washington Monument closed, Yosemite National Park is closed on it's 123rd birthday, many Americans forced to work without pay, and Katniss Everdeen comes out of the woods with her bow and arrows. Does no one else see what I do? But, that's beside the point.
Everyone at one time has heard of "ObamaCare." If not, here's what this health care plan entails: Formally known as the "Affordable Care Act," this act is aimed to give all Americans the chance at an affordable health insurance. If Americans choose not to take advantage of this act, they will be forced to pay a fee on their end-year taxes. The benefits of ObamaCare seem, to many, great. However, our nation is still unstable economically, and in serious debt. Negotiations for the new American Budget began weeks before ObamaCare went into affect, however, these negotiations failed to come to a compromise between The House of Representatives and the Senate. It seemed apparent to the Republican majority ran House of Representatives to cut funding on ObamaCare, this because it is not essential to the country. Regardless, no one would budge.
On October 1st, 2013, at 12:01 A.M, the American government went into partial shut down. This meaning all government ran parks, museums, and zoos were shut down. This forcing many government workers to go on a furlough, and many employees still working, to go without their paychecks, as long as the government is still on partial shut down. Why is this occurring? Simply because our government seems to act like children fighting over toys, unable to compromise. Many politicians, as well as citizens want to blame one side or the other. Republicans want to blame the Democrats, and the Democrats have the desire to blame the Republicans. The way I see it, everyone is to blame. Both sides. Yet, I do see one mastermind being at complete fault, the president himself.
The House of Representatives has a Republican majority, and the Senate has a Democrat majority. This forcing a stalemate when passing bills or, in this case, coming to a conclusion on the budget. Yet, who has the power to make all of these arguments come to a conclusion? The President of the United States, Barack Obama. Our president is very stubborn though, and refuses to contribute to the action of a compromise with the opposing party. None of this would have occurred, if the president had figured out America's financial crisis to begin with. Originally, President Obama promised the American people that he would fix our economy. Now, we're being forced to either purchase something we do not want, or pay a tax that is very unreasonable. We as the American people are now losing money to something that is not essential to our well-being. I do not believe this is fixing the American economy, but disrupting it once again.
What our country needs is a compromise from both parties. At this point, what was done in the past can not be undone. We must embrace the state that our country is in today financially, and pray that a compromise comes soon which will produce something that will save our country, economically. This putting people back to work, reopening our beloved monuments, parks, museums, and zoos, and granting us our constitutional freedoms.
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Haters Gonna Hate, Critics Gonna Critique
A lesson I've had to learn the hard way in this past week or so is that critics are going to critique. Whether it's my English 3 Honors teacher critiquing my most recent essay (rather harshly I must add,) or the guy that sits next to me in my study hall period criticizing "Emmaturity." Everyone is a critic, but are we all doing our best to criticize in the best way possible?
In my eyes, criticism should be constructive criticism. What is constructive criticism? It's certainly not just telling someone everything they've done wrong. If one only sees what they're doing wrong, they have no idea how to improve. An example of this is when my English teacher this week, scribbled her messy cursive all over my essay. When she called me over, she could only tell me what I did wrong in my essay, and failed to tell me how to improve. So what now? I suppose I must just wing-it and try my best to do better. However, this could've gone much different. When my teacher passed back my essay, I could see some points I could definitely touch up, but as for the rest of my eight paragraphs, I was clueless. If my teacher had given me constructive criticism it would look like this: "Emma, right here your sentence has a fragment, you can improve by doing...." or "You're vocabulary is a little dull here, if you use this word instead, or phrase it differently, this could be a potential college essay." You, are a critic everyday, be sure when you're giving your criticism for the day, you're giving constructive criticism.
The second run-in with criticism I had this week was on this very blog. Allow me to get us all on the same page here. I was being stereotyped a few weeks ago. Many people assumed I had no idea what was going on in the world at the time. Many don't realize I am striving to become a journalist. I brought this blog to some of my classmates, asking them to take a look. Upon telling them the name one of my classmates looked at me in an odd way and said "The name makes no sense, you're trying to be more mature than everyone, and yet your blog name is contradictory to this, because it's a play on immaturity." In fact, that is not the case. The name is simply something clever a dear friend of mine came up with, it then expanded to more meaning: Emmaturity is my own kind of maturity. Seems impossible? It very well could be, but I believe we are all at our own levels of this thing called maturity, that's where my name, Emma, mixed with maturity, created Emmaturity, my description of my maturity level. Now that this has been explained, my point I am trying to get to is, think before you criticize. Sometimes, you don't know all the facts, this making your criticism invalid. Instead, ask the questions in order to criticize in the best way possible. It's simple!
Finally, the toughest form of criticism, judgment. Essentially they're the same thing. But I'm talking about straight up, one on one judgment that we may or may not catch ourselves doing on a day-to-day basis. This occurred in my life just a few days ago. I was wearing this sort of, well, I suppose a robe would be the best term. Yes, I am fully aware that these are not the height in fashion, in America. However, these are very popular in places like Australia. Many were unsure of the attire I was wearing, and many made jokes. No, this did not bother me, because I've learned to wear what I like, and I don't care what others think. But, what about that girl who is insecure, and likes what she's wearing but others taunt her because of it. Another criticism I see is when people criticize people's lifestyles. Yes, I fully understand some do not live in the best way (drugs, alcohol, partying night after night, stealing, etc.) This doesn't give us the right to judge them, we are called to love them not matter what. "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another." This is from the book of John, chapter thirteen, verse thirty-four. We are commanded to love, not judge. My favorite Disney quote of all time is: "If you can't say anything nice, don't say nothing at all." This, from the movie Bambi. If you try, there's no way to mess that one up. Criticize, and/or judge, in a positive, uplifting fashion.
Criticism is something near, and dear to my heart, as a self proclaimed "journalist to be" I will have to experience criticism, and I'll be in positions where I must criticize others. Take these to mind and heart. Be a critic, but use constructive criticism, ask questions, and be positive.
In my eyes, criticism should be constructive criticism. What is constructive criticism? It's certainly not just telling someone everything they've done wrong. If one only sees what they're doing wrong, they have no idea how to improve. An example of this is when my English teacher this week, scribbled her messy cursive all over my essay. When she called me over, she could only tell me what I did wrong in my essay, and failed to tell me how to improve. So what now? I suppose I must just wing-it and try my best to do better. However, this could've gone much different. When my teacher passed back my essay, I could see some points I could definitely touch up, but as for the rest of my eight paragraphs, I was clueless. If my teacher had given me constructive criticism it would look like this: "Emma, right here your sentence has a fragment, you can improve by doing...." or "You're vocabulary is a little dull here, if you use this word instead, or phrase it differently, this could be a potential college essay." You, are a critic everyday, be sure when you're giving your criticism for the day, you're giving constructive criticism.
The second run-in with criticism I had this week was on this very blog. Allow me to get us all on the same page here. I was being stereotyped a few weeks ago. Many people assumed I had no idea what was going on in the world at the time. Many don't realize I am striving to become a journalist. I brought this blog to some of my classmates, asking them to take a look. Upon telling them the name one of my classmates looked at me in an odd way and said "The name makes no sense, you're trying to be more mature than everyone, and yet your blog name is contradictory to this, because it's a play on immaturity." In fact, that is not the case. The name is simply something clever a dear friend of mine came up with, it then expanded to more meaning: Emmaturity is my own kind of maturity. Seems impossible? It very well could be, but I believe we are all at our own levels of this thing called maturity, that's where my name, Emma, mixed with maturity, created Emmaturity, my description of my maturity level. Now that this has been explained, my point I am trying to get to is, think before you criticize. Sometimes, you don't know all the facts, this making your criticism invalid. Instead, ask the questions in order to criticize in the best way possible. It's simple!
Finally, the toughest form of criticism, judgment. Essentially they're the same thing. But I'm talking about straight up, one on one judgment that we may or may not catch ourselves doing on a day-to-day basis. This occurred in my life just a few days ago. I was wearing this sort of, well, I suppose a robe would be the best term. Yes, I am fully aware that these are not the height in fashion, in America. However, these are very popular in places like Australia. Many were unsure of the attire I was wearing, and many made jokes. No, this did not bother me, because I've learned to wear what I like, and I don't care what others think. But, what about that girl who is insecure, and likes what she's wearing but others taunt her because of it. Another criticism I see is when people criticize people's lifestyles. Yes, I fully understand some do not live in the best way (drugs, alcohol, partying night after night, stealing, etc.) This doesn't give us the right to judge them, we are called to love them not matter what. "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another." This is from the book of John, chapter thirteen, verse thirty-four. We are commanded to love, not judge. My favorite Disney quote of all time is: "If you can't say anything nice, don't say nothing at all." This, from the movie Bambi. If you try, there's no way to mess that one up. Criticize, and/or judge, in a positive, uplifting fashion.
Criticism is something near, and dear to my heart, as a self proclaimed "journalist to be" I will have to experience criticism, and I'll be in positions where I must criticize others. Take these to mind and heart. Be a critic, but use constructive criticism, ask questions, and be positive.
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
I Have an Opinion Too: Intervention in Syria
Lately, I have noticed that people in this modern age have assumptions about teenagers. One of these assumptions is that we are uneducated about things going on in this world today. Though this is true for some teens, it isn't true for me. Tonight, I have an opinion too, on the subject of intervention in Syria.
On August 21, 2013 missiles filled with a fatal toxin were sent into rebel towns in Syria killing men, women, and a child majority. The rebels are known as the Free Syrian Army, consisting of 50,000 men wanting freedom from the Syrian government run by Bashar al-Assaad. Those missiles were sent by the Syrian government, aiming to kill as many rebels as possible. However, the government denies any involvement in the missiles. Today, President Obama of The United States of America wants to interfere in Syria and stop Assaad. This action is not a good one, in many more ways than one. Intervention in Syria is not the right thing to do for our nation, for our people, for the people in Syria, for the world, or for anyone.
As previously stated, President Obama wishes to interfere in the Syrian Civil War, and eventually stop President Bashar al-Assaad. The way he wants to do so is where the mistake truly is. There are two options for the President of the United States, send troops or send machines. Which option does he choose? President Obama wishes to send machines into an already scary and bloody war zone, to essentially create more war. But what will these missiles do? They’re certainly not going to only target the president of Syria who is the problem. No, these missiles are only going to do what Assaad is already doing, killing civilians. What President Obama doesn’t see is you cannot stop war with war. This is what he aims to do.
Intervention in Syria is not what the American people want. When a president is elected, he is elected to represent the people and do what is best for our country. In a September 6 poll called Gallup Poll, 51% of Americans said they were against military action in Syria, opposed to the 36% who were for it. Where is the majority vote? What the Commander in Chief doesn’t see is that his country does not want action to be taken. Intervention in Syria is not the right thing to do, for our people.
Not only is this not what Americans want to see from our president, it’s not what the world wants to see from our president. The United Nations is an international organization, which has rules that apply to all nations. In Article 51 of the United Nations Charter it is stated that military action should only be taken if there is a need for self-defense or if peace is needed to be kept between countries. If President Obama decides to take military action in Syria, he would be breaking the international law in Article 51. We once called ourselves “the greatest country in the world,” and other countries look at us that way as well. However, now, the world is seeing a country that could potentially break an international rule. Intervention in Syria is not the right thing to do for the world.
The last thing the United States needs is another war. For a little over a decade, the U.S has been fighting the war on terror. It has cost us 5 trillion dollars and 6,755 of our own fellow Americans. Our nation has grown war weary, and this our president knows. He said in a very recent speech “I know that the American people are war weary after more than a decade of war, even as the war in Iraq has ended and the war in Afghanistan is winding down. That’s why we’re not putting our troops in the middle of someone else’s war.” Something seems a little weird to me here. Is sending missiles over to the war struck country not interfering in someone else’s war? And if the president knows we’re war weary, why isn’t he stopping our country from joining in yet another war?
One of the opposing arguments to this controversy is that President Obama threatened to interfere if the toxic missiles were launched, and now people are pleading for him not to, forcing him to reconsider his threat, this making our country look weak. The only thing I see in this is a weak president who doesn’t know what to do when faced with someone who isn’t scared of him. Things could’ve been done differently, much differently, but they weren’t. President Obama should have not threatened the president of Syria in the first place. Threats don’t work when dealing with international relations, especially when the opposing country isn’t scared of a weakening country. It’s like a Chihuahua threatening a Rottweiler. The president also shouldn’t have announced his want to interfere with Syria. This raised obviously an unneeded and unwanted controversy. President Obama should have done it quietly, or not at all. Now, because of this, the President of our nation has put our country in danger, and essentially the world. It’s too late to take action now, and the president needs to see that.
I believe that President Obama has made a huge mistake in his proposition of interfering in the Syrian war. This was not the United States government’s business and the president is just digging us a deeper hole. Interference is a bad idea, and is going to create a larger struggle for our once great nation. Intervention in Syria isn’t the right thing to do for our nation, for our people, for the Syrian people, for the world, or for anyone.
On August 21, 2013 missiles filled with a fatal toxin were sent into rebel towns in Syria killing men, women, and a child majority. The rebels are known as the Free Syrian Army, consisting of 50,000 men wanting freedom from the Syrian government run by Bashar al-Assaad. Those missiles were sent by the Syrian government, aiming to kill as many rebels as possible. However, the government denies any involvement in the missiles. Today, President Obama of The United States of America wants to interfere in Syria and stop Assaad. This action is not a good one, in many more ways than one. Intervention in Syria is not the right thing to do for our nation, for our people, for the people in Syria, for the world, or for anyone.
As previously stated, President Obama wishes to interfere in the Syrian Civil War, and eventually stop President Bashar al-Assaad. The way he wants to do so is where the mistake truly is. There are two options for the President of the United States, send troops or send machines. Which option does he choose? President Obama wishes to send machines into an already scary and bloody war zone, to essentially create more war. But what will these missiles do? They’re certainly not going to only target the president of Syria who is the problem. No, these missiles are only going to do what Assaad is already doing, killing civilians. What President Obama doesn’t see is you cannot stop war with war. This is what he aims to do.
Intervention in Syria is not what the American people want. When a president is elected, he is elected to represent the people and do what is best for our country. In a September 6 poll called Gallup Poll, 51% of Americans said they were against military action in Syria, opposed to the 36% who were for it. Where is the majority vote? What the Commander in Chief doesn’t see is that his country does not want action to be taken. Intervention in Syria is not the right thing to do, for our people.
Not only is this not what Americans want to see from our president, it’s not what the world wants to see from our president. The United Nations is an international organization, which has rules that apply to all nations. In Article 51 of the United Nations Charter it is stated that military action should only be taken if there is a need for self-defense or if peace is needed to be kept between countries. If President Obama decides to take military action in Syria, he would be breaking the international law in Article 51. We once called ourselves “the greatest country in the world,” and other countries look at us that way as well. However, now, the world is seeing a country that could potentially break an international rule. Intervention in Syria is not the right thing to do for the world.
The last thing the United States needs is another war. For a little over a decade, the U.S has been fighting the war on terror. It has cost us 5 trillion dollars and 6,755 of our own fellow Americans. Our nation has grown war weary, and this our president knows. He said in a very recent speech “I know that the American people are war weary after more than a decade of war, even as the war in Iraq has ended and the war in Afghanistan is winding down. That’s why we’re not putting our troops in the middle of someone else’s war.” Something seems a little weird to me here. Is sending missiles over to the war struck country not interfering in someone else’s war? And if the president knows we’re war weary, why isn’t he stopping our country from joining in yet another war?
One of the opposing arguments to this controversy is that President Obama threatened to interfere if the toxic missiles were launched, and now people are pleading for him not to, forcing him to reconsider his threat, this making our country look weak. The only thing I see in this is a weak president who doesn’t know what to do when faced with someone who isn’t scared of him. Things could’ve been done differently, much differently, but they weren’t. President Obama should have not threatened the president of Syria in the first place. Threats don’t work when dealing with international relations, especially when the opposing country isn’t scared of a weakening country. It’s like a Chihuahua threatening a Rottweiler. The president also shouldn’t have announced his want to interfere with Syria. This raised obviously an unneeded and unwanted controversy. President Obama should have done it quietly, or not at all. Now, because of this, the President of our nation has put our country in danger, and essentially the world. It’s too late to take action now, and the president needs to see that.
I believe that President Obama has made a huge mistake in his proposition of interfering in the Syrian war. This was not the United States government’s business and the president is just digging us a deeper hole. Interference is a bad idea, and is going to create a larger struggle for our once great nation. Intervention in Syria isn’t the right thing to do for our nation, for our people, for the Syrian people, for the world, or for anyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)