After reading Whose Water is it? It hit me that one topic in particular was very interesting. In the book, it was proposed that World War III is coming and will engulf America in a "New Age of Warfare". Not only will WWIII be the most costly war, but the most impacting and dangerous. Another interesting assertation that was made was, “By 2020 there is little doubt something drastic will happen” I agree with this statement. As the planet's carrying capacity shrinks, wars over food, water, energy, and supplies will break out. Warfare is one of those things that defines human life. WWIII will be a paradigm shift in human history that will completely alter the world.
Jeremy Grantham is an investor managing $100 billion in assets; his take on the 2008 meltdown is as followed, "Several people saw this crisis coming for years. It has seemed so inevitable and so merciless. Yet the bosses of Merrill Lynch and Citi, even Paulson and Bernanke, haven’t seen it coming”. In the book, I also found it interesting when one writer stated, “Greed blinds us” after thinking this over, I realized how true this really is. I also questioned, Why can't we open our eyes? Wake up before it's too late? Why don't we learn the lessons of history? And then I realized Sadly, centuries of history prove we never change well we do, just when it's too late.
“The lesson of history is there will always be a temptation to stretch the limits.” (Reinhart and Rogoff). We're addicts, more is never enough, we ignore history lessons. Humans are addicted to greed, success, and wealth. More is never enough: “The lesson of history is there will always be a temptation to stretch the limits.” Leaders always stretch the limits, like gamblers who just can't go home till they lose everything. WWIII is coming. And in 2020 we may wake up and remember we were warned about the disastrous consequences of invading Iraq back during the invasion, warning: “Most great nations, at the peak of their economic power, become arrogant, wage great world wars at great cost, wasting vast resources, taking on huge debt, and ultimately burning themselves out.” (Nixon advisor Kevin Phillips)
The real reason WWIII is coming is because Americans love war; it's in our psyche, our cultural mythology. Deep in our souls we are greedy warmongers. WWIII is coming because America needs a war to prove that we really are still "king of the hill," the world's superpower. That we're not falling second to China and the rest of the world. Forget economics, politics, ideologies: WWIII is an ego thing.
WWIII is coming not because we have terrorists, dictators, and evil men wanting to destroy us; WWIII is coming because we have surrendered our honor, integrity, values, and our moral compass as a democracy. We have surrendered to the almighty dollar. We are at war with ourselves. Committing a national and universal suicide.
Monday
Wednesday
Catapult Design
Catapult Design is a non-profit design firm that provides engineering and implementation support to thousands of organizations in need of different technologies and products capable of igniting social change. This truly amazing organization is comprised of engineers, designers, implementers, and educators. They design products, introduce technologies, and foster trends that are appropriate, self-sustaining, environmentally friendly, socially responsible and culturally sensitive. Catapult Design is an organization that I not only find immensely interesting and support, but also would love to work for one day. Environmental Studies is a huge passion of mine, specifically water ecology and conservation. I have tons of unique and interesting ideas that I know this organization would benefit from. However, it not the organization per se that I wish to work for, it’s the more than 2 billion poverty-stricken people around the globe whose lives can be dramatically improved through the introduction of inexpensive and simple life-altering products. In addition, Their website is amazing and offers endless resources of educational fun facts.
Visible Children
The guys who started Invisible Children are not only smart young men, but they had a dream and they continue to pursue justice for others. The amazing organization these three friends created not only raise funds to send to Uganda, but promote their cause through education. The website they created is easy to navigate and fun to find information. The dedication to sharing their stories is immense and beneficial to helping them raise funds. I found it shocking that there have been over 1800 abductions since 2009. Just to put that in perspective, that’s more than every kid in Deerfield High School alone. Although the documentary we watched in class took place in 2003, the war in Uganda has been going on for 25 years. The protection plan that Invisible Children will administer includes setting up FM radio towers that signal out and warn people when the LRA is close. I am glad that the money raised from School Chest will go to build a new tower. I hope that many more children will now feel safer in their homes. I am very impressed with this organization and proud to say that I have made an impact in supporting them.
Is Death Ever Just?
After reading Governor Ryan’s speech, I believe that his decision to abolish the death penalty in Illinois was a right and just. Governor Ryan made the right decision to abolish the death penalty and I support his decision to take any and all inmates off of death row. I don't believe the death penalty is just for many reasons; there is always a chance that the person being convicted is innocent. Ryan mentioned that many convicts who were wrongfully accused and put on death row, were young adults and teens. In addition, I believe that the death penalty is hypocritical. Killing a killer is unjust. The death sentence is no doubt a cruel and unusual punishment that should be illegal in all 50 of the United States. “ In none of the states where the death penalty has already been abolished has the homicide rate increased.” (Gov. Ryan) The death penalty doesn’t increases homicide rates and it doesn’t decrease homicide rates therefore it is a useless punishment.
Ryan also made the argument whether or not a jury should decide if somebody should live or die? “In Illinois last year we had 1,000 murders; only 2 percent of that 1,000 were sentenced to death.” Where is the fairness and equality in that? The death penalty in Illinois is not sentenced fairly. Ryan even questioned, “Who really has the right to sentence one to death?”
You are five times more likely to get a death sentence for first-degree murder in the rural area of Illinois than you are in Cook County. Where is the justice and fairness in that - where is the proportionality?” Ryan shows that there is a geographical disparity with capital punishment in Illinois and the system is flawed. Many people think that capital punishment is the worst possible punishment a person can receive. Keeping somebody in prison for life without parole would be a worse punishment than ending their life. Ryan stated, “Some inmates on death row don't want a sentence of life without parole. Danny Edwards wrote me and told me not to do him any favors because he didn't want to face a prospect of a life in prison without parole. They will be confined in a cell that is about 5-feet-by-12 feet, usually double-bunked. Our prisons have no air conditioning, except at our supermax facility where inmates are kept in their cell 23 hours a day. They can think about their crimes.” Life without parole has been described as “worse than death.”
The last reason I want to address regarding the elimination of the death penalty is, the too many innocent people that have been put on death row. How, in our day and age as a sophisticated and advanced society can a person who is threatened to make false confessions be sentenced to death? The death penalty malleable therefore it is a good thing it has been eliminated. How can we say our justice system is just if over 20 people have been proven innocent after being death row for years?
Ryan also made the argument whether or not a jury should decide if somebody should live or die? “In Illinois last year we had 1,000 murders; only 2 percent of that 1,000 were sentenced to death.” Where is the fairness and equality in that? The death penalty in Illinois is not sentenced fairly. Ryan even questioned, “Who really has the right to sentence one to death?”
You are five times more likely to get a death sentence for first-degree murder in the rural area of Illinois than you are in Cook County. Where is the justice and fairness in that - where is the proportionality?” Ryan shows that there is a geographical disparity with capital punishment in Illinois and the system is flawed. Many people think that capital punishment is the worst possible punishment a person can receive. Keeping somebody in prison for life without parole would be a worse punishment than ending their life. Ryan stated, “Some inmates on death row don't want a sentence of life without parole. Danny Edwards wrote me and told me not to do him any favors because he didn't want to face a prospect of a life in prison without parole. They will be confined in a cell that is about 5-feet-by-12 feet, usually double-bunked. Our prisons have no air conditioning, except at our supermax facility where inmates are kept in their cell 23 hours a day. They can think about their crimes.” Life without parole has been described as “worse than death.”
The last reason I want to address regarding the elimination of the death penalty is, the too many innocent people that have been put on death row. How, in our day and age as a sophisticated and advanced society can a person who is threatened to make false confessions be sentenced to death? The death penalty malleable therefore it is a good thing it has been eliminated. How can we say our justice system is just if over 20 people have been proven innocent after being death row for years?
Tuesday
Whose Water is it?
“Each day at least 10,000 people worldwide die from disease-infected water.” This is just one of the startling statistics presented in Whose Water is it? This collection of 13 essays edited by Bernadette McDonald and Douglas Jehl, addresses a variety of water-related issues including, pollution, privatization, and distribution. The essays in this book are extremely diverse and interesting; many contributors have bias beliefs and opinions. Many I agree with, however, they are bias none the less.
There were countless statistics presented by scientists that I found extremely difficult to wrap my head around; it is estimated that by 2015, 3 billion people will live in countries where fresh water is in short supply. By 2050, the number could be as high as 7 billion. Numbers this large are difficult to comprehend, which is why the most specific examples are the most horrifying.
The book’s contributors make a very compelling argument: we use too much water, waste it foolishly, and degrade the environment by draining underground aquifers faster than they can be replenished. It also addresses some of the steps that might be taken to alleviate the problems: conservation, technological innovation, and effective water management.
The book’s 13 compelling essayists include Maude Barlow who, in her essay “The World’s Water: A Human Right or a Corporate Good?” looks at the issue of H2Ownership. Water, she argues, should be a public trust, its management and distribution built on the “twin foundations of conservation and equity.”
As a poster country for poor water management, China has several essays in the book that highlight the problems facing a country where dangerous floods are extremely threatening. While northern farms and industries go dry, the southern parts of the country flood. “Why is China running out of water?” asks Marq De Villiers in his essay, “Three Rivers.” “The answer is the same as for the rest of the world: it isn’t running out. It’s only running out in places where it’s needed most.”
In many parts of the world, useable fresh water (about 1% of the planet’s total) is a resource more valuable than oil and even more essential to life. This book makes clear the connection between inadequate clean water and poverty and the potential for increasing international conflicts. Consider the Taliban’s unauthorized construction of a dam on the Helmand River in eastern Afghanistan in the 1990s and its effect on neighboring Iran, where a 4,000-square-kilometer lake has been sucked bone-dry. All fish have disappeared and so has the village that depended on catching them. What remains is an exposed lakebed, rapidly being covered by dunes from frequent sandstorms. A modest example, but a particularly haunting symbol for a growing global problem.
Other problems addressed include pollution, irrigation, the draining of “aquifers”.
Conflicts over water have begun to increase and become more violent. New ideas are being tested around the world. Efforts include community planning, desalinization, conservation and reforestation. The book doesn’t shy away from painful truths about global water use, offering fresh insight and constructive solutions from a well-chosen group of authors.
There were countless statistics presented by scientists that I found extremely difficult to wrap my head around; it is estimated that by 2015, 3 billion people will live in countries where fresh water is in short supply. By 2050, the number could be as high as 7 billion. Numbers this large are difficult to comprehend, which is why the most specific examples are the most horrifying.
The book’s contributors make a very compelling argument: we use too much water, waste it foolishly, and degrade the environment by draining underground aquifers faster than they can be replenished. It also addresses some of the steps that might be taken to alleviate the problems: conservation, technological innovation, and effective water management.
The book’s 13 compelling essayists include Maude Barlow who, in her essay “The World’s Water: A Human Right or a Corporate Good?” looks at the issue of H2Ownership. Water, she argues, should be a public trust, its management and distribution built on the “twin foundations of conservation and equity.”
As a poster country for poor water management, China has several essays in the book that highlight the problems facing a country where dangerous floods are extremely threatening. While northern farms and industries go dry, the southern parts of the country flood. “Why is China running out of water?” asks Marq De Villiers in his essay, “Three Rivers.” “The answer is the same as for the rest of the world: it isn’t running out. It’s only running out in places where it’s needed most.”
In many parts of the world, useable fresh water (about 1% of the planet’s total) is a resource more valuable than oil and even more essential to life. This book makes clear the connection between inadequate clean water and poverty and the potential for increasing international conflicts. Consider the Taliban’s unauthorized construction of a dam on the Helmand River in eastern Afghanistan in the 1990s and its effect on neighboring Iran, where a 4,000-square-kilometer lake has been sucked bone-dry. All fish have disappeared and so has the village that depended on catching them. What remains is an exposed lakebed, rapidly being covered by dunes from frequent sandstorms. A modest example, but a particularly haunting symbol for a growing global problem.
Other problems addressed include pollution, irrigation, the draining of “aquifers”.
Conflicts over water have begun to increase and become more violent. New ideas are being tested around the world. Efforts include community planning, desalinization, conservation and reforestation. The book doesn’t shy away from painful truths about global water use, offering fresh insight and constructive solutions from a well-chosen group of authors.
Monday
Drug Testing in Public High Schools: A violation of ones rights to privacy or a safety measure?
Are public high schools allowed to drug test their students? The answer is yes however, does it violate student’s right to privacy? I believe the answer to this question is yes indeed. Every year more and more public high schools require drug testing for students to participate in extracurricular school sponsored sports, clubs, and activities. Although “There is an element of ‘communal undress’ inherent in athletic participation” (Acton) I don’t believe that alone should make it right for high school athletes to be required to submit a urine sample.
Many argue that the “Conditions of testing are nearly identical to those typically encountered in public restrooms.” (Acton) however, that does not make it any less intrusive. I do believe that “Drug abuse is one of the most serious problems confronting our society today.” (Earls) still, there are many other ways of fighting the war on drugs than to physically violate teenagers.
In Board of Education V. Earls a student was not allowed to participate in athletics because his parents did not agree to let him submit to drug tests- “All students who participate in competitive extracurricular activities are required to submit to drug testing” (Earls). The school board argued that “Public school children are routinely required to submit to various physical examinations” (Acton) However, the physical examinations required to attend school are done in a doctor’s office by licensed physicians where patients privacy is upheld.
“This policy reasonably serves the School District’s important interest in detecting and preventing drug use among its students, we hold that it is constitutional.” (Earls) I admire the School’s ambition to want to end and deter drug use among its students, however, it CAN NOT be at the expense of the student’s right to keep their bodily fluids to themselves and free from being drug tested.
Many argue that the “Conditions of testing are nearly identical to those typically encountered in public restrooms.” (Acton) however, that does not make it any less intrusive. I do believe that “Drug abuse is one of the most serious problems confronting our society today.” (Earls) still, there are many other ways of fighting the war on drugs than to physically violate teenagers.
In Board of Education V. Earls a student was not allowed to participate in athletics because his parents did not agree to let him submit to drug tests- “All students who participate in competitive extracurricular activities are required to submit to drug testing” (Earls). The school board argued that “Public school children are routinely required to submit to various physical examinations” (Acton) However, the physical examinations required to attend school are done in a doctor’s office by licensed physicians where patients privacy is upheld.
“This policy reasonably serves the School District’s important interest in detecting and preventing drug use among its students, we hold that it is constitutional.” (Earls) I admire the School’s ambition to want to end and deter drug use among its students, however, it CAN NOT be at the expense of the student’s right to keep their bodily fluids to themselves and free from being drug tested.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)