Virginia's biggest problem, or should I say Northern Virginia's biggest problem, is transportation. Anyone who drives around here knows traffic gets bad. Anyone who commutes into DC knows it's really bad. The average time a DC commuter spends sitting in traffic per year is 74 hours. That's three days. If you don't have something to do while you wait, that's a lot of wasted time.
This isn't really a new problem either. There is a bit of a clash of interests between NoVA and, well, the rest of VA. Even though Northern Virginia pays more in taxes, not all of that money comes back around to help our area. The Metro, currently under construction and set to open in 2013, has gone over budget. But when it does open, it will hopefully help this problem considerably. Mass transit is definitely a good way to go: it's good for the environment! But it's caused a lot of construction to be going on on the highways in its vicinity, particularly on 495. 495 is driver's hell during rush hour. I can definitely see myself racking up three days of sitting in traffic just based on how much time I've spent on that road. Part of the problem isn't even on that road; the exit going from the toll road to 495 is my personal nightmare. It is always backed up. Religiously.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
The Republican Party: not as important as it used to be.
www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/us/politics/outside-groups-eclipsing-gop-as-hub-of-campaigns-next-year.html?pagewanted=1&ref=politics#
Some of the most powerful organizations fighting Obama's reelection don't have any formal connection with the Republican Party. It's all outside groups like Karl Rove-founded American Crossroads, the Republican Governors Association, the American Action Network and Americans for Prosperity, backed by millionaires that don't have to report their donors' names and who don't have contribution limits thanks to the "Citizens United" Supreme Court decision.
The Republican National Committee itself is swamped by debt, and it appears the vast majority of the money is flowing into these other conservative groups. Democrats haven't had this problem: Obama has raised massive amounts of money for the Democratic National Committee, leaving no need for outside groups.
What these Republican groups have set out to do is win over all the heavily contested states that republicans will need to win back from Obama. These groups will be emptying their coffers on television ads and social networking, while the Republican Party focuses on less expensive, more traditional means of getting people out to vote. And even though these groups can't collaborate with the party itself, they are extremely organize amongst themselves. They share polling, research, they even coordinate who will take on which state and which race. The Congressional Leadership Fund for example, focuses on maintaining the Republican held House of Representatives.
They seem very focused: get the Democrats out of power. It clearly doesn't matter which Republicans end up in office, as long as they are Republican.The Party itself is a little worried about this: "Every time we empower independent third-party groups to do what the party is supposed to be doing, it diminishes the value of the brand and what the party represents,” said Gary Emineth, a former chairman of the North Dakota Republican Party. It's not really about issues. It's about party labels. And it's about money.
Some of the most powerful organizations fighting Obama's reelection don't have any formal connection with the Republican Party. It's all outside groups like Karl Rove-founded American Crossroads, the Republican Governors Association, the American Action Network and Americans for Prosperity, backed by millionaires that don't have to report their donors' names and who don't have contribution limits thanks to the "Citizens United" Supreme Court decision.
The Republican National Committee itself is swamped by debt, and it appears the vast majority of the money is flowing into these other conservative groups. Democrats haven't had this problem: Obama has raised massive amounts of money for the Democratic National Committee, leaving no need for outside groups.
What these Republican groups have set out to do is win over all the heavily contested states that republicans will need to win back from Obama. These groups will be emptying their coffers on television ads and social networking, while the Republican Party focuses on less expensive, more traditional means of getting people out to vote. And even though these groups can't collaborate with the party itself, they are extremely organize amongst themselves. They share polling, research, they even coordinate who will take on which state and which race. The Congressional Leadership Fund for example, focuses on maintaining the Republican held House of Representatives.
They seem very focused: get the Democrats out of power. It clearly doesn't matter which Republicans end up in office, as long as they are Republican.The Party itself is a little worried about this: "Every time we empower independent third-party groups to do what the party is supposed to be doing, it diminishes the value of the brand and what the party represents,” said Gary Emineth, a former chairman of the North Dakota Republican Party. It's not really about issues. It's about party labels. And it's about money.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Wherefore art thou, Jobs Bill?
www.nytimes.com/2011/10/12/us/politics/obamas-jobs-bill-senate-vote.html?pagewanted=1&sq=jobs bill&st=cse&scp=4#
The Jobs Bill was voted against in the senate by 50-49. Obama has repeatedly asked that it be passed in its entirety, but the only option now is for pieces of it to be passed after votes on specific provisions.
There has been a lot of finger pointing involved: there's the obvious "republicans will vote against the bill because they want to keep the economy in a bad way until election time". But the slightly less obvious is "democrats intended the bill to fail to make it look like republicans were trying to sabotage Obama in the election". Either mentality is a bit second grade-esque, but there is some indications that senators are willing to work across party lines. “We are willing to take up the things we can agree on,” Mr. Eric Cantor, of VA, said.I just hope there is something both parties can agree on.
The bill would reduce the payroll taxes and increase the amount of money employed persons have on hand. This only applies to about the first $100,000 though; Democrats are rallying behind the idea of a "millionaire's tax". Spending comes into play in investments in new highways, reminiscent of FDR.
More or less, there seems to be a clear party split here, where it be because of the election or because of the policy itself. What needs to happen is compromise. Senators are saying they are willing to compromise on parts of the bill, but only time will tell what "compromising" actually means.
The Jobs Bill was voted against in the senate by 50-49. Obama has repeatedly asked that it be passed in its entirety, but the only option now is for pieces of it to be passed after votes on specific provisions.
There has been a lot of finger pointing involved: there's the obvious "republicans will vote against the bill because they want to keep the economy in a bad way until election time". But the slightly less obvious is "democrats intended the bill to fail to make it look like republicans were trying to sabotage Obama in the election". Either mentality is a bit second grade-esque, but there is some indications that senators are willing to work across party lines. “We are willing to take up the things we can agree on,” Mr. Eric Cantor, of VA, said.I just hope there is something both parties can agree on.
The bill would reduce the payroll taxes and increase the amount of money employed persons have on hand. This only applies to about the first $100,000 though; Democrats are rallying behind the idea of a "millionaire's tax". Spending comes into play in investments in new highways, reminiscent of FDR.
More or less, there seems to be a clear party split here, where it be because of the election or because of the policy itself. What needs to happen is compromise. Senators are saying they are willing to compromise on parts of the bill, but only time will tell what "compromising" actually means.
President Obama's on the Honor Roll
Well, not really. But he's passing.
Health Care: B-
This was a tough decision, because the poor guy is trying so hard. But we can't give grades based on effort now can we?
Obama's Health Care plan did get passed and are all ready to be put into action in the near future, but it's losing steam. The republican congress is picking away at it before it's even had a chance to go into effect. And Obama's not really doing much about it.
Dealing with the Economic Downturn: B
Very, very solid.
This is mostly for the stimulus package. We haven't had a ton of recovery since it was handed out, but it's a good thing it was. I personally don't agree that big businesses should be propped up by the government or that the government should have a huge hand in the economy other than regulation, but by saving some colossal companies from collapsing, the economy was essentially saved from 25% unemployment. I am glad, although many economists aren't, that at least one bank was allowed to fail: Lehman Brothers. Not that they in particular had it coming, but someone needed to be made an example of so that maybe the big guys will be dissuaded from trying to overuse sub-prime mortgages again.
And I haven't heard of any Obama-villes yet so at least he's doing better than Hoover.
And his jobs plan was a good idea. Even if it got very very much killed.
War on Terror: C
This is the one area Obama seems to be really struggling in. And consequently it's the one thing that might keep him from passing. God forbid we have to hold back our president.
While he came into office at a disadvantage (he was basically cleaning up after Bush), he hasn't pulled through. Troops, instead of being pulled out of Iraq, were at one point in time being sent there. On top of that, there's no real end in sight. The timeline was to remove all troops by August of this year. But the thing is, even if we remove troops, we've done a lot of damage to our PR. Bombing and fighting just gives Muslim extremists even more reason to hate America.
Osama Bin Laden was killed. But that meant more to us that it did to Al Qaeda and didn't actually solve any problems.
An eye for an eye just means there are a lot of blind people.
Reelection Bid: B
Also rather solid.
This one is a bit early to call, but, and I might be biased here, Obama has a good chance of being reelected. Whether it is because there is no strong republican candidate or based on his own merit doesn't matter, as long as he pulls through.
But I would rather it be based on his own merit. Obama has approached the election season with some strategy, that I, based on principle, oppose. I believe that the best candidate should be president. In real life though, his strategy is well formed: get the health care constitutionality question out of the way so closer to the election he can look good.
OBAMA 2012
Health Care: B-
This was a tough decision, because the poor guy is trying so hard. But we can't give grades based on effort now can we?
Obama's Health Care plan did get passed and are all ready to be put into action in the near future, but it's losing steam. The republican congress is picking away at it before it's even had a chance to go into effect. And Obama's not really doing much about it.
Dealing with the Economic Downturn: B
Very, very solid.
This is mostly for the stimulus package. We haven't had a ton of recovery since it was handed out, but it's a good thing it was. I personally don't agree that big businesses should be propped up by the government or that the government should have a huge hand in the economy other than regulation, but by saving some colossal companies from collapsing, the economy was essentially saved from 25% unemployment. I am glad, although many economists aren't, that at least one bank was allowed to fail: Lehman Brothers. Not that they in particular had it coming, but someone needed to be made an example of so that maybe the big guys will be dissuaded from trying to overuse sub-prime mortgages again.
And I haven't heard of any Obama-villes yet so at least he's doing better than Hoover.
And his jobs plan was a good idea. Even if it got very very much killed.
War on Terror: C
This is the one area Obama seems to be really struggling in. And consequently it's the one thing that might keep him from passing. God forbid we have to hold back our president.
While he came into office at a disadvantage (he was basically cleaning up after Bush), he hasn't pulled through. Troops, instead of being pulled out of Iraq, were at one point in time being sent there. On top of that, there's no real end in sight. The timeline was to remove all troops by August of this year. But the thing is, even if we remove troops, we've done a lot of damage to our PR. Bombing and fighting just gives Muslim extremists even more reason to hate America.
Osama Bin Laden was killed. But that meant more to us that it did to Al Qaeda and didn't actually solve any problems.
An eye for an eye just means there are a lot of blind people.
Reelection Bid: B
Also rather solid.
This one is a bit early to call, but, and I might be biased here, Obama has a good chance of being reelected. Whether it is because there is no strong republican candidate or based on his own merit doesn't matter, as long as he pulls through.
But I would rather it be based on his own merit. Obama has approached the election season with some strategy, that I, based on principle, oppose. I believe that the best candidate should be president. In real life though, his strategy is well formed: get the health care constitutionality question out of the way so closer to the election he can look good.
OBAMA 2012
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Current Event #2: Anwar al-Alwaki
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/world/middleeast/anwar-al-awlaki-is-killed-in-yemen.html?scp=8&sq=awlaki&st=cse
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/world/middleeast/secret-us-memo-made-legal-case-to-kill-a-citizen.html?scp=1&sq=awlaki&st=cse
Anwar al-Alwaki was a American citizen born in New Mexico to a Yemeni family. Earlier this month he was executed in Yemen for his ties with Al-Qaeda. For several years, he has had ties to the terrorist organization, rising from a religious leader just giving anti-American sermons to actively recruiting people for terrorist activities. He was executed in Yemen a couple weeks ago, gunned down by a drone in a covert operation.
The "secret memo" discussed in the second news article outlines the justification for his assassination. Basically, it weedles its way through every law against killing people. For example: it's lawful to kill him if his capture is not feasible; it was covered by a movement of congress to use force against Al-Qaeda; it wasn't "murder" because we're at war; it wasn't prohibited by the executive order against assasinations because that was specifically for political leaders outside of war, not a person during an armed conflict. It didn't matter so much that Yemen is no where near Afghanistan, or that another U.S. citizen was killed at the same time, or that it was CIA, not a uniformed soldier, that pulled the trigger.
I agree that Mr. Alwaki was a person of interest in the war on terror, but I do not in any way agree with how America handled it. There is such a thing as "taking the high road" even in time of war. Even if by digging around and finding all the loopholes it was technically legal, it was not the right thing to do. At that point, why make the laws in the first place, if we're just going to find a way around them?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/world/middleeast/secret-us-memo-made-legal-case-to-kill-a-citizen.html?scp=1&sq=awlaki&st=cse
Anwar al-Alwaki was a American citizen born in New Mexico to a Yemeni family. Earlier this month he was executed in Yemen for his ties with Al-Qaeda. For several years, he has had ties to the terrorist organization, rising from a religious leader just giving anti-American sermons to actively recruiting people for terrorist activities. He was executed in Yemen a couple weeks ago, gunned down by a drone in a covert operation.
The "secret memo" discussed in the second news article outlines the justification for his assassination. Basically, it weedles its way through every law against killing people. For example: it's lawful to kill him if his capture is not feasible; it was covered by a movement of congress to use force against Al-Qaeda; it wasn't "murder" because we're at war; it wasn't prohibited by the executive order against assasinations because that was specifically for political leaders outside of war, not a person during an armed conflict. It didn't matter so much that Yemen is no where near Afghanistan, or that another U.S. citizen was killed at the same time, or that it was CIA, not a uniformed soldier, that pulled the trigger.
I agree that Mr. Alwaki was a person of interest in the war on terror, but I do not in any way agree with how America handled it. There is such a thing as "taking the high road" even in time of war. Even if by digging around and finding all the loopholes it was technically legal, it was not the right thing to do. At that point, why make the laws in the first place, if we're just going to find a way around them?
Language and Education
This is the breakdown of the most commonly spoken languages by number of people who speak it:
I'd like to pose the question, why aren't public schools teaching the most widely spoken language in the world? Or languages? Why is it that the languages we have to pick from, other than Spanish, barely rank on the list?
Now, "most widely spoken" is a bit hard to define. Above, the numbers represent the population of native speakers. You could argue that Chinese is "winning" because there are so many dialects of Chinese and there are just so many people in China. Well, that's true. There are also many different dialects of English (no one could win an argument trying to say that British English and American English are the same).
Moreover, Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish are the official languages of the UN. But three of these are rarely taught in public schools. These are arguably the most influential languages, and yet american children have no clue.
French schools happen to introduce a foreign language to students in elementary school, and some lucky students here in Herndon had that opportunity through the immersion program. The difference is, all but one of the immersion students in my grade has since dropped French. And compared to Chinese, French is pretty darn easy.
Personally, I love languages and I'm pretty sure I'm biased in this regard, but American schools need to place more emphasis on language education. I'm currently in AP French and am learning Arabic through a tutor (it's awesome btw). I especially don't understand why Arabic isn't more common in the classroom. During the Cold War, Russian became very popular because of rivalry with the USSR. And now, if you know Arabic, you are almost guaranteed a job in the government. Yet it's still not commonly taught.
On a broader scope of things, America does not place enough emphasis on our education system in general. Our teachers are under paid. Our schools are not in good condition. Standardized tests keep the standards low enough so anyone can pass, but not everyone does. Teachers teach to the test, and still not everyone passes. When budget cut decisions are made, teachers get fired and school funding is cut.
Singapore's school system hires teachers from the top third of their class; in America, teachers are not always in the top fifty. Singapore's teachers are more highly paid. Singaporean students score higher on international tests. Basically, we should aim to be more like Singapore. We can't really afford to half-ass our "investment" in our future.
- Chinese (937,132,000)
- Spanish (332,000,000)
- English (322,000,000)
- Bengali (189,000,000)
- Hindi/Urdu (182,000,000)
- Arabic (174,950,000)
- Portuguese (170,000,000)
- Russian (170,000,000)
- Japanese (125,000,000)
- German (98,000,000)
- French (79,572,000)
I'd like to pose the question, why aren't public schools teaching the most widely spoken language in the world? Or languages? Why is it that the languages we have to pick from, other than Spanish, barely rank on the list?
Now, "most widely spoken" is a bit hard to define. Above, the numbers represent the population of native speakers. You could argue that Chinese is "winning" because there are so many dialects of Chinese and there are just so many people in China. Well, that's true. There are also many different dialects of English (no one could win an argument trying to say that British English and American English are the same).
Moreover, Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish are the official languages of the UN. But three of these are rarely taught in public schools. These are arguably the most influential languages, and yet american children have no clue.
French schools happen to introduce a foreign language to students in elementary school, and some lucky students here in Herndon had that opportunity through the immersion program. The difference is, all but one of the immersion students in my grade has since dropped French. And compared to Chinese, French is pretty darn easy.
Personally, I love languages and I'm pretty sure I'm biased in this regard, but American schools need to place more emphasis on language education. I'm currently in AP French and am learning Arabic through a tutor (it's awesome btw). I especially don't understand why Arabic isn't more common in the classroom. During the Cold War, Russian became very popular because of rivalry with the USSR. And now, if you know Arabic, you are almost guaranteed a job in the government. Yet it's still not commonly taught.
On a broader scope of things, America does not place enough emphasis on our education system in general. Our teachers are under paid. Our schools are not in good condition. Standardized tests keep the standards low enough so anyone can pass, but not everyone does. Teachers teach to the test, and still not everyone passes. When budget cut decisions are made, teachers get fired and school funding is cut.
Singapore's school system hires teachers from the top third of their class; in America, teachers are not always in the top fifty. Singapore's teachers are more highly paid. Singaporean students score higher on international tests. Basically, we should aim to be more like Singapore. We can't really afford to half-ass our "investment" in our future.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)