As I apply for internships and get ready to schedule my summer, I suddenly came upon the question of local politics. How important are they to most people?
Personally, I know that I don't even know the congressmen of California nor the policies of the governor here. I should probably brush up on that. But the question I ask myself is this: are national politics more appealing than local/state-level politics? I doubt it's a question of which is more important, because we all know that state and federal government need to work together to make things happen in this country - ahem the Constitution. I just wonder how much citizens of each state actually know about their mayors, congressmen, and senators? Do they even know where their city halls are?
It's odd that I know so much more about President Obama and the on-goings of D.C., yet I can't say I know what my city mayor has accomplished.
Just a thought.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Friend or Foe
Iran: Friend or Foe?
The conflict with Iran isn't something I can say that I'm an expert on, but nevertheless I, as usual, have an opinion about it.
In general, nuclear arms revolutionized military warfare and the international balance of things. The United States is clearly one of the forefront runners of nuclear weapons since the detonation of the atomic bomb at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II. With the cold war and the arms race settled years ago, the United States still remains a formidable nuclear enemy. But the real question is: did nuclear arms hurt or help us?
Yes, it ended WWII (and it was quite necessary, in my humble opinion), but the long-term effect of a new era of nuclear warfare...was it worth it? Obviously, scientists and government officials, even citizens, recognized the ultimate conclusion of the introduction of nuclear bombs into society. But at what cost does this new technology come with?
Because of nuclear weapons, we have many treaties attempting to control the production of these tools, along with many conflicts that have arisen due to power struggles. We need to remember that what the "good guys" create, the "bad guys" will eventually create too.
The conflict with Iran isn't something I can say that I'm an expert on, but nevertheless I, as usual, have an opinion about it.
In general, nuclear arms revolutionized military warfare and the international balance of things. The United States is clearly one of the forefront runners of nuclear weapons since the detonation of the atomic bomb at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II. With the cold war and the arms race settled years ago, the United States still remains a formidable nuclear enemy. But the real question is: did nuclear arms hurt or help us?
Yes, it ended WWII (and it was quite necessary, in my humble opinion), but the long-term effect of a new era of nuclear warfare...was it worth it? Obviously, scientists and government officials, even citizens, recognized the ultimate conclusion of the introduction of nuclear bombs into society. But at what cost does this new technology come with?
Because of nuclear weapons, we have many treaties attempting to control the production of these tools, along with many conflicts that have arisen due to power struggles. We need to remember that what the "good guys" create, the "bad guys" will eventually create too.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Day of Silence
Across the United States, today was the "Day of Silence" as a day where people voluntarily take a vow of silence in remembrance and silent protest of hate crimes against homosexuals and the LGBT community.
I know I've talked about the LGBT community a lot lately, but I think that it's important to honor today. Personally, I didn't take the vow of silence this year because it's hard for me to keep quiet. But, many of my friends did take this vow and I respect them for this decision. Though people, myself being an example, may not necessarily agree politically with the actions/advocations of homosexual/bisexual/transgender people, I'd like to re-emphasize that it's never right to act violently against them. It's okay to "agree to disagree."
In this light, I'd like to commend my school for its efforts to keep the Gay-Straight-Alliance club alive and to keep the entire school community involved in the movement to respect those of the LGBT community.
I know I've talked about the LGBT community a lot lately, but I think that it's important to honor today. Personally, I didn't take the vow of silence this year because it's hard for me to keep quiet. But, many of my friends did take this vow and I respect them for this decision. Though people, myself being an example, may not necessarily agree politically with the actions/advocations of homosexual/bisexual/transgender people, I'd like to re-emphasize that it's never right to act violently against them. It's okay to "agree to disagree."
In this light, I'd like to commend my school for its efforts to keep the Gay-Straight-Alliance club alive and to keep the entire school community involved in the movement to respect those of the LGBT community.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Morals v. Science
Why is this such a difficult topic to have an opinion on? There's never a right or wrong viewpoint...is there?
Morals..Ethics. How can you determine what is completely moral when everyone's standards are different?
Which brings me to the topic at hand - mixing a mitochondria of an egg with a nuclei of another to make a new egg to join with a sperm. According to this article from The Sun, UK scientists are attempting to solidify this new discovery to help couples who have genetic disorders, so they will not pass on these disorders to their offspring. Thus, they extract the "batteries" of the egg by taking out the mitochondria and then join it with a nuclei of a healthy-genetic-disorder-free egg. I like the idea that couples who have these disorders have an opportunity to have children who aren't afflicted. But at the same time, I feel that it's not the scientists' place to interfere with this natural process of copulation, pregnancy, etc.
My friend says that a lot of unnatural things are beneficial to humankind - cancer treatment, immunizations, vaccinations, medicine, birth control, etc. This argument is too true, very valid, indeed. But in the question of morals, I don't like the idea of someone interfering with a future child. They say it's for the "better"? Yes, scientifically and biologically speaking it would be better I suppose for a child to not have genetic disorders. But the parents will always carry the knowledge that this child is not completely their own.
Just something to think about.
Morals..Ethics. How can you determine what is completely moral when everyone's standards are different?
Which brings me to the topic at hand - mixing a mitochondria of an egg with a nuclei of another to make a new egg to join with a sperm. According to this article from The Sun, UK scientists are attempting to solidify this new discovery to help couples who have genetic disorders, so they will not pass on these disorders to their offspring. Thus, they extract the "batteries" of the egg by taking out the mitochondria and then join it with a nuclei of a healthy-genetic-disorder-free egg. I like the idea that couples who have these disorders have an opportunity to have children who aren't afflicted. But at the same time, I feel that it's not the scientists' place to interfere with this natural process of copulation, pregnancy, etc.
My friend says that a lot of unnatural things are beneficial to humankind - cancer treatment, immunizations, vaccinations, medicine, birth control, etc. This argument is too true, very valid, indeed. But in the question of morals, I don't like the idea of someone interfering with a future child. They say it's for the "better"? Yes, scientifically and biologically speaking it would be better I suppose for a child to not have genetic disorders. But the parents will always carry the knowledge that this child is not completely their own.
Just something to think about.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Gay Pride
In Philadelphia, I saw these banners flying everywhere about the Equality Forum. Based on the rainbow colors, I assumed it was about homsexuality and the LGBT community. When I Googled "Equality Forum," it says that it is the "Global GLBT Summit" taking place in the next several weeks. Personally, I found it a bit awkward but oddly interesting at the same time. When it comes to gay marriage, you should probably already know my take on that. But when it comes to non-gay-violence and spreading the word about accepting homosexual/LGBT people into the community, I'm all for it. There's no reason for "hate" crimes or other violent types of discrimination just because we don't agree with those people.
I think all the history reading I've been doing on the Civil Rights movements of the 50s and 60s is getting to me.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Colleges and Politics
As a rising senior, it's time for me to start seriously considering which colleges I intend to apply to and which fields I will endeavor to study in. Thus, my dad and I went on a college touring trip last week on the east coast to visit Georgetown, Duke, UPenn, and Swarthmore. An important question that I asked myself was - what is the political diversity on this campus? Can I openly discuss politics and find people who equally disagree and agree with my viewpoints?
At UPenn, I found this diversity. Looking at the list of clubs, organizations, and groups, I saw many liberal-oriented groups, but as I observed the campus in between the class periods, I came upon a small gathering that I must say I approved of.
It was an Anti-Abortion group handing out fliers!
Each flag represented a certain amount (I think a thousand, or ten thousand) of babies that are killed each year due to abortions. I'm glad to know that UPenn is a safe place to say I'm anti-abortion!
Which, one again, got me thinking...
How politically diverse are colleges? Including both the professors and the students. Just something to think about.
At UPenn, I found this diversity. Looking at the list of clubs, organizations, and groups, I saw many liberal-oriented groups, but as I observed the campus in between the class periods, I came upon a small gathering that I must say I approved of.
It was an Anti-Abortion group handing out fliers!
Which, one again, got me thinking...
How politically diverse are colleges? Including both the professors and the students. Just something to think about.
Good Law!
I've never noticed this when riding taxicabs anywhere else, but when I was in Philadelphia, PA, last week for college touring, I noticed a sign in the taxi.
I'm glad signs like this exist, especially in the city. Do all taxicabs have this sign? I don't believe so. It was just a small observation on my part, but I think it's extremely useful to have this notice posted in the cab. Though one hopes that one proceeds to exit a taxicab using his/her common sense when deciding which door to use to get out.
That makes me wonder how much common sense people actually have today?
