5/28/2009
5/20/2009
NPR sponsorship
I'm a touch bit uneasy with the idea that Monsanto is a sponsor of NPR. Hopefully the editorial process at NPR remains impartial when reporting agricultural issues.
Start here if you're unsure of why I have a negative view of Monsanto.
Start here if you're unsure of why I have a negative view of Monsanto.
Peyote story on NPR [UPDATED, orig post 5/18]
has me thinking...
If certain drugs bring happiness to an individual (with no negative
consequences to any one), why are they illegal?
Isn't the American motto of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness
enough to justify the use of happy drugs?
This isn't the first time I've considered this.
More on drug policy later...
UPDATE 1: mba has some good points in her comments. She is correct in implying the argument "with no negative consequences to anyone" is in fact a broad definition. The fault lies with me in stating such a vague phrase. There definitely needs to be a defined balance of what constitutes positive versus negative consequences. For example, if a so-called happy drug puts a financial strain on the user, I would think that this would counter-balance any positive effects of the drug itself. The smart thing to do is to go on vacation when you can afford it.
The second part of mba's comment I disagree with. I don't think today's mainstream has been taught to fear. That may be the approach of the anti-drug school of thought, but the reefer madness era has come to pass. I believe in fact that the instilling of fear of drugs has actually been counterproductive. For example, if I've been bombarded with ads (such as Above the Influence, drug money pays for terrorists, etc) stating that drug use has a negative effect, and then try them and the effect is a positive experience, the ads lose credibility with me. And I think humans have a tendency to not have a strong emotional attachment with abstract ideas like "drug money funds terrorists" (There would be more vegetarians if we watched how our hamburger was produced).
So because of the loss of credibility and lack of negative direct connections associated with drugs, I'm less likely to accept the next round of "information". This can be dangerous because perhaps the next round of information is in fact accurate. Then we have a very slippery slope.
5/18/2009
High School Home Economics
I've been out of high school a decade so maybe I'm out of touch, but
shouldn't home economics classes teach how to balance a checkbook,
explore the pros/cons of credit cards, investing, learning about bank
loans such as mortgages (and pass that knowledge to parent, maybe the mortgage crisis wouldn't have been as bad), among other things?
shouldn't home economics classes teach how to balance a checkbook,
explore the pros/cons of credit cards, investing, learning about bank
loans such as mortgages (and pass that knowledge to parent, maybe the mortgage crisis wouldn't have been as bad), among other things?
I have yet to sew one thing, although I've baked brownies a few times.
Maybe more on this later...
EDIT: If you're involved with the academic ciriculum at a public high school, feel free to enlighten me on what is taught in home economics. Meanwhile, I'm going to try and find some sites that would post this type of info.
The United Immigrants of America Part I
Recently, I received wonderful news that a friend of mine, after passing her citizenship exam 6 years ago (if I recall correctly), is finally going to be naturalized later this month. As a natural-born citizen, I can't possibly describe the feelings that my friend is going through with this news. She has much to give to the United States, but to get there, for a while it seemed the United States government did not want to give her anything.
This does not mean they did not want to give to her specifically, but the issues that she had to deal with would perhaps have discouraged many immigrants from continuing to pursue citizenship (especially if there was a language barrier). It took a US Senator's office to get the ball rolling (or so I think that was it; the good news happened shortly after discussions with the Senator's office. This after 6 years of back and forth between my friend and the immigation agency). Why did it need to take a powerful government official to get this issue straightened out? What changed for the immigration agency? It's almost like a stubborn child who refuses to give up his toy until his mother says so.
It's hard to remember sometimes, but this is supposed to be the place where anyone can come to live in hopes for a better life. Perhaps since the 9/11 attacks, we've become somewhat an isolationist-type country, afraid of anything new, therefore settle into the mindset that everyone is a security threat until proven otherwise. Paranoia is the status quo. It seems one of the objectives of the hijackers has been achieved.
This is just speculation on my part but my friend can probably attest to the paranoia mindset. She was, in my mind, harassed illegally while re-entering the US from her honeymoon abroad. What happened to respect and the presumption that everyone is innocent until proven guilty? It's frustrating to hear about stories like this. I'm glad I haven't gone through that; I might get in trouble, since I tend to speak my mind. But perhaps that's another problem; if I don't show the "respect" that the authorities demand, will I get into trouble? What I think I would do was question why I'm being questioned. Depending on the mood of the officer, that may sound like I'm being defensive of something guilty. Well, it is defensive but its in defense of my reputation, rights, and respect.
Okay, straying a little here. Back to immigration agencies and the problems. I would imagine that part of the problem is that the original Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) was dissolved in 2003 and replaced by a Homeland Security department: Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Part of the stated mission of the USCIS is to "promote national security..." (1) whereas the original INS "protected and enforced the laws of naturalization...". (2) The USCIS mission does go on to say to eliminate the backlog of immigration cases. (1) But the focus here is by promoting national security, does that imply a guilty until proven innocent mindset? Note that the USCIS rolled into the Homeland Securty Department from it's previous home at the Department of Justice. (1) My guess is that the primary role of the immigration agency turned from an law-type view to a security-type view. And this is how it continues today.
I'll post more on this later...
Sources:
1 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Citizenship_and_Immigration_Services
2 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Naturalization_Service
This does not mean they did not want to give to her specifically, but the issues that she had to deal with would perhaps have discouraged many immigrants from continuing to pursue citizenship (especially if there was a language barrier). It took a US Senator's office to get the ball rolling (or so I think that was it; the good news happened shortly after discussions with the Senator's office. This after 6 years of back and forth between my friend and the immigation agency). Why did it need to take a powerful government official to get this issue straightened out? What changed for the immigration agency? It's almost like a stubborn child who refuses to give up his toy until his mother says so.
It's hard to remember sometimes, but this is supposed to be the place where anyone can come to live in hopes for a better life. Perhaps since the 9/11 attacks, we've become somewhat an isolationist-type country, afraid of anything new, therefore settle into the mindset that everyone is a security threat until proven otherwise. Paranoia is the status quo. It seems one of the objectives of the hijackers has been achieved.
This is just speculation on my part but my friend can probably attest to the paranoia mindset. She was, in my mind, harassed illegally while re-entering the US from her honeymoon abroad. What happened to respect and the presumption that everyone is innocent until proven guilty? It's frustrating to hear about stories like this. I'm glad I haven't gone through that; I might get in trouble, since I tend to speak my mind. But perhaps that's another problem; if I don't show the "respect" that the authorities demand, will I get into trouble? What I think I would do was question why I'm being questioned. Depending on the mood of the officer, that may sound like I'm being defensive of something guilty. Well, it is defensive but its in defense of my reputation, rights, and respect.
Okay, straying a little here. Back to immigration agencies and the problems. I would imagine that part of the problem is that the original Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) was dissolved in 2003 and replaced by a Homeland Security department: Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Part of the stated mission of the USCIS is to "promote national security..." (1) whereas the original INS "protected and enforced the laws of naturalization...". (2) The USCIS mission does go on to say to eliminate the backlog of immigration cases. (1) But the focus here is by promoting national security, does that imply a guilty until proven innocent mindset? Note that the USCIS rolled into the Homeland Securty Department from it's previous home at the Department of Justice. (1) My guess is that the primary role of the immigration agency turned from an law-type view to a security-type view. And this is how it continues today.
I'll post more on this later...
Sources:
1 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Citizenship_and_Immigration_Services
2 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Naturalization_Service
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)