Bush delivered his final state of the union address tonight and thank god. You would believe that after 7 years in office thus far he would develop some public speaking skills. To think that you would be wrong, very wrong. My favorite part of this state of the union address was the politics beneath the politics. Why Bush droaned on about politics for an hour the entertainment was those paying attention to his words. No different from the speaches in previous years some clap, some sit silently, some stand, some sit, and I laugh.Goverment divided into two political parties just as George Washington had advised against.
My favoriote part of the whole ordeal was the camera men taking advantage of Hilary Clinton’s facial expresions. She is so beautifal when she has that hatefull burning look in her eyes. I just love her. I will vote Sen. Hillary Clinton ambasador of Antartica for life any day just show me the ballot.
Lets not forget Barack Obama either. He occasionaly appeared on the tube. Talking to Ted Kennedy who now has openely given his support to Obama for the election. Throughout the whole appereance Obama had the look of intense concentration. I would put pesos on the fact that he was not concentrating on the speech but more so on not to show emotional responses on the speech. Love him or hate him he is a smart politician.
Now to George Bush. I’m sorry did I studder. Da da da da studder some more. He only mentioned veto, veto, and more veto. His concentration for the night was less on what he planned to put to action until november and more on trying to get the next president to continue his policies when he leaves office. Lets be realistic your not even like in the GOP president. Tax cuts, no child left behind, personal health car, all war no foreign affairs sure sounds appealing to the next democrat eh?No.
Mr. President you have the right to remain silent. Exercise it.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
I believe in free lunch
"No such thing as a free lunch", the philosophy of economics. The platform of the rule is that everything has some price whether it be currency or opportunity cost ( what was given up for something else). For example, you want to spend one hundred dollars on tickets to a concert but the opportunity cost is spending time with your friends and/or family.
I believe that the economist who founded this rule probably had no friends due to the amount of time he spent over anaylizing life and economics. What would provoke a person to dig so deep into life that go as far as to decide that nothing in the world is free. The air we breathe is free. That very well could be the end of the arguement.
While with the exeptions of few things is very much a true statement. The statement is also one embedded with negativity from start to finish. The idea that everything that is done is done at a cost portrays the idea that with everything you do you loose whether small or big. This rule digs for the negative effect in the decisions we make.
This rule tries to hard to make sense of something that does not need sense to be made of it. The rule is forcefull. It does not look at us individually but the universe as a whole. The fact that everything cost something is such a simple idea. However, when push comes to shove much of life is priceless.
By everything in the world costing something the best things in life are no longer free. Also, college is no longer a good investment. Because the by attenting college in a quest to gain a higher education you spend in the range of 75,000 dollars where as not college you would earn 80,000 dollars. When attending college has obviously proven to be the route with a higher rate of success.
The fundamental platform of economics despite its existence for some extended period of time reflects so perfectly society at its state today. This is where you become surprised. It does not reflect upon our society as greatly in economics or money as much as in other ways. The world today is so greatly reflected upon the rule because of the principle behind the rule not the literal version of the rule itself. Society is searching, over anaylizing, digging to find the meaning behind everything. Trying to hard to explain how and why everything happens. The rule is the same way searching for something that needent be found. Life was much better in the days of the indians and in the days of the stone age. The days when searching so deep was not even a step they saw in the future.
The rule of economics, another one of someones time wasted digging to deep when it is not necessary or effective. This rule should be no rule but merely a theory.
I believe that the economist who founded this rule probably had no friends due to the amount of time he spent over anaylizing life and economics. What would provoke a person to dig so deep into life that go as far as to decide that nothing in the world is free. The air we breathe is free. That very well could be the end of the arguement.
While with the exeptions of few things is very much a true statement. The statement is also one embedded with negativity from start to finish. The idea that everything that is done is done at a cost portrays the idea that with everything you do you loose whether small or big. This rule digs for the negative effect in the decisions we make.
This rule tries to hard to make sense of something that does not need sense to be made of it. The rule is forcefull. It does not look at us individually but the universe as a whole. The fact that everything cost something is such a simple idea. However, when push comes to shove much of life is priceless.
By everything in the world costing something the best things in life are no longer free. Also, college is no longer a good investment. Because the by attenting college in a quest to gain a higher education you spend in the range of 75,000 dollars where as not college you would earn 80,000 dollars. When attending college has obviously proven to be the route with a higher rate of success.
The fundamental platform of economics despite its existence for some extended period of time reflects so perfectly society at its state today. This is where you become surprised. It does not reflect upon our society as greatly in economics or money as much as in other ways. The world today is so greatly reflected upon the rule because of the principle behind the rule not the literal version of the rule itself. Society is searching, over anaylizing, digging to find the meaning behind everything. Trying to hard to explain how and why everything happens. The rule is the same way searching for something that needent be found. Life was much better in the days of the indians and in the days of the stone age. The days when searching so deep was not even a step they saw in the future.
The rule of economics, another one of someones time wasted digging to deep when it is not necessary or effective. This rule should be no rule but merely a theory.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Offensive?
Upon attending a Boerne High School basketball game much of the focus was less on the game and more on the students being escorted from the game for the act of wearing suits and ties. As portrayed by the administration a tie is offensive and possibly racist. Due to the circumstance of playing the schools biggest rival, Alamo Hieghts High School, primarly known for their wealthy social standard, the act of wearing a suit and tie was unappropriate. Bull shit.
Primary to the game the administration of the school had made an anouncement that their would be no more dressing up in costumes during the basketball games ( a developing tradition for the seniors to raise student moral and school spirit). In rebellion 4 students decided to go to the other extreme of dressing up from costumes to suits. Disruptive, racist, offensive? I think not.
After multiple confrontations following ejection the administration had not retreated; however, they had called the local police to guard all entrances to the stadium to deny entrance to those refusing to change their attire.
Being one of the students wearing the attire of a suit I was outraged with such a ignorant policy. What the hell is wrong with a suit? People wear suits everyday of every ethniticity and of most financial statuses, especially those from a school who was dubbed 3rd snobiest in the country by Jay Leno. The suit was in no way offensive but a way to raise student passion without dressing in costumes which had been allowed at all the previous games.
In the debate with the school’s principal it is found that the administration did not make the rule of no costumes but enforced it upon the request of parents. The parents argument for the no costume policy was that of racial slures being thrown around from the students in halloween attire. As though the no costume policy would by some work of a higher power stop any racial comments. Ignorant? I think so.
However, the no suit rule was not one of the parents but of the administration souly in attempt to impress the parents at my best guess. The suits at worst added a profuse amount of sweat to the enviroment of the game. Needless to say everyone was still in school dress code by wearing formal clothing.
The act of such a policy reflects the close minded conservative envirement of the Boerne community. Such a rule is so far out of left field Babe Ruth himself cannot touch it. I am ashamed to be representing a community where a suit during a high school sporting event has become offensive and border line racial despite the fact that the coaches were all wearing suits and they represent the team more than the fans.
A policy of such ignorance is what drives almost as much as anything to move far away and start a life of my own where ignorance is not a daily encounter. Where suits are not required nor shunned.
Primary to the game the administration of the school had made an anouncement that their would be no more dressing up in costumes during the basketball games ( a developing tradition for the seniors to raise student moral and school spirit). In rebellion 4 students decided to go to the other extreme of dressing up from costumes to suits. Disruptive, racist, offensive? I think not.
After multiple confrontations following ejection the administration had not retreated; however, they had called the local police to guard all entrances to the stadium to deny entrance to those refusing to change their attire.
Being one of the students wearing the attire of a suit I was outraged with such a ignorant policy. What the hell is wrong with a suit? People wear suits everyday of every ethniticity and of most financial statuses, especially those from a school who was dubbed 3rd snobiest in the country by Jay Leno. The suit was in no way offensive but a way to raise student passion without dressing in costumes which had been allowed at all the previous games.
In the debate with the school’s principal it is found that the administration did not make the rule of no costumes but enforced it upon the request of parents. The parents argument for the no costume policy was that of racial slures being thrown around from the students in halloween attire. As though the no costume policy would by some work of a higher power stop any racial comments. Ignorant? I think so.
However, the no suit rule was not one of the parents but of the administration souly in attempt to impress the parents at my best guess. The suits at worst added a profuse amount of sweat to the enviroment of the game. Needless to say everyone was still in school dress code by wearing formal clothing.
The act of such a policy reflects the close minded conservative envirement of the Boerne community. Such a rule is so far out of left field Babe Ruth himself cannot touch it. I am ashamed to be representing a community where a suit during a high school sporting event has become offensive and border line racial despite the fact that the coaches were all wearing suits and they represent the team more than the fans.
A policy of such ignorance is what drives almost as much as anything to move far away and start a life of my own where ignorance is not a daily encounter. Where suits are not required nor shunned.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
