Change Is Not Always Bad

In response to Ms. McKinley’s blog “Jumping the Gun, Free TV not so Free anymore,” I would have to say that I agree with her but only to a certain extent.  Ms. McKinley’s blog is about the switch that the Bush administration made from analog to digital television and all the problems that are included with it such as having to purchase a converter box and antennas along with having to readjust them more often than not.  I remember at that time I was working as an Event Rep for T-Mobile at 7 Wal-Mart locations in Austin.  It did seem to bring a lot of discomfort to many Austenite’s, especially the ones that really didn’t keep themselves informed and missed the deadline for the vouchers and had to pay out of pocket for the new necessary equipment or those that waited till the entire shipment was gone and had to travel 45 minutes to an hour out of their way to get to a location that still had some in stock.  I also find it very humorous that people believe that this is the government’s way of “spying” on us with the digital boxes now in every house, especially after learning that they’re tapping into our cell phone usage.  I’m just not too sure that this was necessarily a bad change.  It was simply a change that had to be done, not because of politics but because of the advanced technology that we are constantly inventing.  The government had to step in and completely convert us as a whole to the new way otherwise it would be a big mess and there would be even more problems.  This, in my opinion, was an example of us holding the President or even the government accountable for something that was not in their hands.  As we learned in class, it’s unfortunate but true to just throw the blame on them.  I think that the government actually helped a lot by providing the vouchers as oppose to what I’m sure the manufactures of the new digital television sets were looking forward to because they wanted a new TV in every house.  It could have been that way, but the politicians knew that wouldn’t be right or fair for those who could not afford or see the need in a new TV.  So this whole situation was and will continue to be uncomfortable for those that have the converters and antennas but we cannot blame it on anyone, it’s just the way of technology.  I’m sure if we ask our grandparents or great grandparents if they’re happy with IPODs, CDs, or $5 burgers we’ll hear hours of stories of the way everything was cheaper and different but just because it wasn’t mandated by the government doesn’t make it any fairer.  Overall, Ms. McKinley had really good points and a lot of voice in her blog which made it very interesting.

It's time for an Update!

After learning about the lawsuit AT&T is currently dealing with involving wiretapping of customer’s phone calls, it really made me feel that an update of the Constitution is in great need.  Now, after reading an article about two Supreme Court Justices' debating over capital punishment and trying to interpret the words from the constitution that was written centuries ago is a little outrageous.  Also, to top it off there are many families being publically humiliated by protestors next to the family member’s funeral?  As we all know the world is changing rapidly and as we see teenagers out smart their parents in much of the new technology that is what we are seeing the new Supreme Court Justices' do when talking about what our founding fathers created.  Now I'm not saying that anytime we have a problem that we should change the constitution just to make people happy, but I do strongly believe that there are quite a few adjustments needed now and there will be plenty more to come as hundreds more centuries continue to pass.  At the end of the debate it seemed as though the primary focus was on figuring out what the meaning of certain words were but I do think that the focus really needs to change to what do these words mean today, because eventually the connotation of what it used to be will be lost and therefore lose its meaning completely in the Constitution.  Finally at the end it seemed as though the Justices’ agreed to disagree and say that, “…changing the Constitution through amendment. It’s possible to do but not too easy.”  With this being said by a Supreme Court Justice is very exciting to hear because they are obviously considering the idea and necessity of changing the Constitution for its overdue update with the new world we’ve created.

When Will the Time Come?

I would definitely have to agree with Mr. Waggoner on the fact that the government can become a little soft when it comes to putting their true opinion out on certain and most topics.  I understand, that whichever side they do decide to choose will come with a lot of push back from citizens that strongly disagree with the decision.  However, that is the point of being a candidate for what you represent.  I do understand that politicians have to gain every vote as possible and they will do to the best of their ability to gain every vote and yes that may even mean never really giving firm beliefs on certain topics such as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”  I personally don’t believe anyone should be looked down upon just because of their sexual orientation, and I definitely don’t believe a question of their judgment to fight for their country is any different because of their sexual orientation.  Mr. Waggoner is right, we need someone who will not be afraid to stand up for what he or she believes in and support it.  When that person comes I believe there will be a significant change in American Politics, because as of right now I just don’t see it happening.  Mr. Waggoner did a good job presenting his critique of “Government seeks stay of Don’t ask, don’t tell ruling.”  He stated his opinion on the subject and even gave a solution he felt would resolve the situation in question.

Hustling Candidates?

This article is actually a perfect article to follow up with last week’s blog; it taught me a new phrase, “walking around money.”  According to Fox News “walking around money” or “street money” is actually very common in quite a few states.  The acts of “walking around money” happen at the end of the campaign used as a last minute attack.  Fox News describes the situation as “campaigns forking over cash payouts to local officials and organizers who in turn spread that money around to anyone willing to knock on doors and drive up turnout for them.”  How is this any different from campaigning?  It’s said that as long as every dollar is documented and that money is not directly used to buy a vote, then it is legal.  So basically as long as you don’t say while giving cash to anyone, “So I have your vote?” you will not be committing a crime.

 The article then brings up the point of a situation in Nevada, where a candidate gave out free food at rallies and gift cards to voters.  I do not agree that these acts were made to “steal” the election, but rather to have a higher turnout to gain more ears to hopefully gain their votes.  I have been enticed before with free vacations but with high pressured salesmen trying to get me to become a shareholder of their timeshare.  However, I don’t become a shareholder, and I still receive my free vacation.  There are plenty more examples with many more people that receive similar incentives.  The point I am trying to make is the free food and gift cards are simply there to get more people out and make them feel obligated to at least hear the candidates since they are the ones providing all the free stuff, but if they don’t like the candidate or what they have to say, it will not alter their vote just because they received a free slice of pizza.  As a matter of fact, the candidate might put themselves in jeopardy because the people that came down for the free food received their most disliked food, pizza, now out of anger they want to vote against that candidate.  I believe the only reason these incentives are wrong is because it creates more “noise” then “signal.”  When giving a speech, you must have a crowd, but the candidates have a choice of giving a speech to a crowd that already supports them or by adding members to the crowd that give them opportunity to gain more votes from what they already know they have.  So again, in my opinion, the candidates are not using these strategies as ways to pull votes but to get people in, and rely on their speech to do the work.

$400 Million Does Count!

Robert Frank wrote a blog on Wall Street Journal named, Wealthy Candidates to Spend More Than $400 Million on Elections.  He talks about how Jeff Greene, Linda McMahon, and Meg Whitman spent a total of $400 million on their campaigns.  He goes on to say that it became a small stimulus program with all the money that was being put back into the economy due to needing food, consulting, and advertising, and so on for their campaign.  He also makes a small comment on how they are not spending all this money just to get into the office and we should know that money does not get you into office, and that there are several examples of candidates spending a significant amount of money and still not winning the election.  He then makes a comparison to Michelle Obama's spending with the pet project, and ends with the reminder of the $14.6 trillion deficit.

Frank makes a strong point of the candidates creating a small stimulus project for the communities that they are visiting by putting a portion of their total $400 million into the economy and by it being rephrased the way Frank did, it truly makes the campaigning a lot more desirable in all cities.  However, I would have to disagree when Frank said that the candidates are simply spending all this money just to buy their way in.  Now of course it'll take a little more than just money however, I believe that the more you have to spend the more businesses you'll have supporting you.  Also when comparing the total spending of 3 candidates campaigns to one project and having the same dollar amount attached to it may seem a bit ridiculous, however, I don't see the harm in trying to provide all children with nutritious foods.  It seemed as though Frank wanted to show a little of the colors on the flag he waives.  When bringing it back to perspective of perhaps putting that $400 million towards the $14.6 trillion deficit and explaining that it may not wipe the debt but at least it will get us that much more closer because it really seems like we're getting that much more further everyday.

Is thinking logically wrong?

With the case involving the Texas Department of Housing and Community affairs and city of Dallas, it is a little unclear. When you look at it from the buyers side it makes sense. I am sure property taxes are cheaper in an area that has high crime rate and high poverty rate. However, when "discrimination and segregation arise, there is a lot more then logical thinking going on. It may even bring up ideas of what other government controlled programs are put in place to "regulate" specific groups of citizens.

I don't agree with the city of Dallas. I do not believe that they are intending to discriminate or segregate minorities from the majorities. My opinion is not to pass this case because if ruled in favor of Dallas I believe there is going to be a follow up trial because the housing will no longer be upto standard. I am sure the City of Dallas wants the best for their community no matter who they are, but I am afraid that they may be asking for a little too much when asking for new projects to be in nicer communities. There is already a lot that the government does for citizens in need, why should there be question behind a lending hand? If I were to receive help, I would not be picky on what I'm giving. I would simply be grateful and try my hardest to recover and give back. Of course if the Department were to say that they are purposely discriminating then yes, it is wrong. But I strongly believe, they are just making a business decision that does not recognize emotion and in some eyes it's wrong, but it is just logical thinking.

Arizona wanting to bring US down to Mexico's level

 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/03/mexicos-illegals-laws-tougher-than-arizonas/

Is the state of Arizona interfering with federal governments duty to handle immigration? Yes, and some are even referring to it as a "cry of frustration." I would have to agree. The arguments and pointing of fingers Arizona is doing is the reason why President Obama calls it an example of "irresponsibility" by the state. Representative Steve King of Iowa says how can Mexico's President Felipe Calderon not be in agreement when his laws against illegal immigration are far worse. Is Mr. King really upset because we are not at the same standard as Mexico? There is however, a great argument of a bill passed in 1998, that if your employer has "reasonable suspicion" that you are under the influence then they are legally protected to ask you for a urine sample. The argument made with this example is why it hasn't been challenged when this is what Arizona is doing. I don't know about you, but when I'm drunk I'm a complete opposite person of who I am sober. I'm sure everyone would say they have more then suspicion of me being under the influence and I would understand. However, if I were to be pulled over for a routine traffic stop and the officer takes a good look at my name, skin color, and spanish accent and now have a "reasonable suspicion" that I'm an illegal immigrant then now I feel striped of my human rights. I don't believe it's right for immigrants to live in any country illegally but I don't agree in the unethical way Arizona wants to address the issue.