Lobbyist Powers

In Philip Stiefer blog post about Lobbyist Out of Control he states that "Lobbyists and political action committees are a real threat to the democratic process and leave the average voter powerless." I would have to somewhat argue against that.

Lobbying is the ability to be able to convince/persuade legislators and officials in government to vote one way, or to advocate for a cause. I think that that is totally okay. We are in a democracy, and everything is based on voting. And everyday people are trying to change other people's opinions on a topic. It also happens alot in Congress. Lobbying is just a smaller scale of persuading. Instead of trying to convince a whole crowd, you can focus on one official at a time. Then start to move to other officials. Lobbyist are usually someone who is in an intrest group. These people do a good job by being able to inform the legislator about certain types of informations. And the lobbyist can provide a good stong base if the legislator picks up the idea from the lobbyist. I don't believe that lobbyist affect average voters. Lobbyist just affect the decisions of people in office.

PACs are a threat to the democratic process, but not really. PACs are just a collection of peopls money. People like intrest groups, corporations and unions. And there is a restirction that say that someone can only donate up to $5000. Which really isn't that much. Also that PACs only make up about 30% of the overally funds of a campaign. Which again is really not that much.

Cyber Security

While the U.S. has undoubtedly transformed and benefited from the rapid advancement of technology, the new era has allowed the passage and creation of a new breed of criminals: cyber thieves and hackers.

The internet now plays a major role in the everyday functioning of societal and business activities. The ability to transfer and store information instantly across a cyber medium can be found in the millions of Americans' daily usage of online banking services, Facebook, Twitter, Gmail, and Amazon to name a few. Sophisticated individuals or groups of them who have the knowledge and means to do so can now take advantage of such activities for their own unlawful monetary and personal gains. Identity theft, computer fraud, and spam attacks are quickly replacing the worries of what once used to be primarily burglaries and vandalism. Cyber thieves are stealing identities and personal information from unknowing victims and hackers pose not only a home threat, but an enormous military threat in their abilities to backdoor systems and destroy information and data. So what is the US government doing to address the problem?

I believe that U.S. government has the same responsibility of protecting their citizens in the safety of their own computers just as much as protecting Americans in their own homes. Police patrol the streets and respond to any attack on life or property, so I don't think a cyber police force should not be too much to ask for.
One of the things I see that Obama does not get enough credit for amidst all the criticsm on the economy is his awareness of the problems that will soon largely face the new generation. Obama recognized the critical issue of cybersecurity and paved the way for a new dimension of focus in crime by creating a Cybersecurity Czar and starting new policies concerning it.

The US government is at least taking a step, a very good step, in the right direction. Cyber crimes statisically are rapidly rising with each passing year and if not already, this will be a huge issue in the mind of the public. It will be the US government's job to continue to adapt to the changing environment and keep its promise to protect its citizens whether it is on the streets or on the web.

America v. Norway

 In Robin Dao's Treatment, care, and a better life for EVERYBODY! Poor or Rich. blog post, he states that Norways standard of living is 30% higher then U.S standard. He believes that it is because of their morality and how they treat one another. 
I think that one of the main differences is that Norway is much much smaller then America. Its a a lot easier to be able to govern and take control in a small land. If their economy is stable then it will be better for them because they don't have to worry the mass amounts of prisons, homes building and jobs that America has to worry about. Plus does Norway even have an army? I wouldn't think so. With that they are not even at war so they don't waste money into that. I believe that it is easier to be able pass laws and to regulate it on a smaller scale. As we have already learned that it is easier for something to work locally then nationally. Same thing here. The size is what is making this difference.

The Fight for Obesity

The amount of obesity in America is quite alarming. I find it quite amusing what the government is trying to do to stop this. Yeah sure these days school cafeterias are going for the "Gold Standard" for food. Some schools have reported removing soda vending machines. This is good for the kids, and a Big step for the government. Also restaurants and fast food places or any food place has to provide a a nutrition menu for people to see. Another big step. Especially Supersize Me has made a huge help. But is this really helping stop obesity? It may be slowing down the rate of obesity, but it won't eliminate the problem. Why? Cause look at all of the fast food resturant. Most are open 24 hours a day. So people can still go and buy burgers at 3 in the morning. Its all over their ads "Open 24 hours". The Government should be able to stop this. But i think that its just a waste of time. You can't stop people from eating good food. If the government places policies on like Mc Donalds and Bugerking and stuff like that then its going to hurt the economy. Big Time. But you see. We'll be healthier. So whats more important. Economy or Obesity?

The Reality of McDonald's Happy Meal

Sure the Happy Meal may taste good for children. Sure it may be a bit small. Sure it may already be bad for kids. But to this extent? In this blog post titled That Happy Meal won't make your body happy Nicole Belle rants about how bad the food is for the body. The intended audience is for EVERYONE!!! Even vegitartians. Thats because it show to all of the people who like to eat fast foods like everyday that this kind of food is being put into their body. And for vegetarians because it helps their idea that meat or the killing/treatment/processing of the food is wrong and bad. Belle is just  proving a point that has already been made.
But yeah everyone knows its bad. Everyone has hear of Supersize Me. But that still won't stop people from eating fast foods cause its cheap and fast.

Source: That Happy Meal Won't Make Your Body Happy

"Climate Change" a J-O-K-E?

It seems like Thomas L. Friedman wrote this mainly for environmentalist but also for anyone. Friedman is an internationally known writer, reporter and columnist. He has also been the recipient on three Pulitzer prizes. And as any English major should know that the Pulitzer prize is given to the best of the best writers. So I believe that his credibility is acceptable. So what Friedman does is put humor into this article. Comparing us to China is a big deal for us. He claims that while Americans are lallygagging with pollution issues, China is putting the pedal to the medal for this. China "sees, eats, and breathes pollution everyday" unlike Americans. That is why American Republicans turned "climate change" into a joke. American Republicans really aren't passing legislation to improve this. While China every year is passing many laws an legislation in order to fix this. Friedman then brings in Peggy Liu, a chairwoman of the Joint U.S.-China Collaboration on Clean Energy, who states "China is changing from the factory of the world to the clean-tech laboratory of the world".  This is totally true. He backs this up by talking about MBA Polymers. These people make old plastic into new plastics. People in America aren't required to recycle. Unlike China and other countries who are required to recycle. That is why the company operates in other countries cause that is where they are able to acquire the amount of used recyclable plastics needed to used to make new plastic. This verifies Friedman's  point that American Republicans have turned "climate change" into a joke. Totally believable. Totally Logical.

Source: Aren’t We Clever?

Republicans on the rise?

 Nancy Pelosi is starting to make some of the Democrats go against her. Now her decision, if made, over the issue of taxes made either help her or beat her down. With the elections coming up in November, some Democrats say that Pelosi should not run for speaker of the house and give it back to the Republicans. This is because the majority of the house may shift back to Republicans, and Pelosi would be a Democratic minority leader, which wouldn't be very effective.
I think people should read this because people will then realize that if Pelosi does lose power and the House majority will become Republican. Which would make our government very intresting. Having a Democratic President but having a House with a majority of Republicans. This may affect the the bills that are going to be presented in this next coming year. We'll just have to see what happens.

Source: Nanci Pelosi facing dissent.