|
Participation: Each week students are required to make one substantive post and one response to another student on the class blog (professorcrain.org) under DeAnza, Poli 1 & the specific week. Each student must post by Wednesday of that week and reply to their classmates by Friday of each week.
These posts should highlight one of the three prompts below: 1) summary of lecture with critical thinking questions (150 words) 2) media (newspaper articles or relevant videos) and a 150 word description of its relevancy to the reading and/or lecture (cover two major ideas) 3) 2-3-minute video logs on your perspectives in the knowledge gained from lecture /reading material WEEK 11 (December 2-5) Monday – California Politics Same day voter registration Policy Maker Pay Increase Tuesday Guns & Butter? War and the Economy WBAI Guns & Butter Radio Show Private Security Companies - Our Silent Partners Wednesday – People, Planet & Profit Peak Water: What happens when the wells go dry? Thursday – Short Essay #5 Listen to one of the Guns & Butter radio shows before class! Reading: PP/ Chapter 11 (Foreign Policy), Chapter 12 (Democracy's Character & Future) Watch: www.democracynow.org Click on add comments to leave your posts and reply to others.
109 Comments
Konstantin Harder
12/3/2013 04:07:57 am
Hello everyone, in the lece of ty we were talking about thepending from the goverment on different subjects , like military,human resrcesor general government. We were looking at a pie chart wereyou could see how much moeny from the 2.890 billion Dollars the government is spending on these different subjects. And the biggest supprise was that the government spends nearly 50 % of the money on military and that health, education and justice were in human resources and didn't have a own chart.
Allie
12/3/2013 10:14:48 am
If the war in Iraq is still going on in the next couple of decades than I really don't think that the present military will change. But as for past military such as old debt that the US owes I don't think that will change for a long time. Look at how much money we owe other countries right now there is no way I think that we will see military debt payed off in our lifetime.
Sam Kuhlmann
12/4/2013 02:30:47 am
I don't think spending will ever change. The majority of our money will go to the military so that we can continue to say we have the strongest military in the world. The government will also continue to make the country afraid of an attack by other countries and we will continue to fund the military from that fear.
Prasanna Kancherlapalli
12/6/2013 12:01:15 pm
I believe the government will continue to spend more of their money on military, unless people become more conscious of how government spending is organized. If people become more educated on how the government's actions affect their lives, they will be more likely to want to make changes in the government, and ultimately the government will be more likely to change its ways. However if people continue to be oblivious to whats going on, I cannot see any change happening, anytime soon, unfortunately.
Allie
12/3/2013 10:34:30 am
I was reading the policy maker pay increase and it is kind of good and bad at the same time. They currently make about 90,000 dollars a year and California law makers are all getting a raise of and additional 5000. Our economy is still unstable and we are giving more money to people who lets be realistic, really don't need a raise. Most people think that Republicans are greedy and don't care about the people but it seem like they are willing to give up their raises. Now our Gov. Jerry Brown makes 165,000 and is getting a raise and he is taking it. He states that the voters allocated him that raise so he is going to take it. Doesn't that seem a little selfish? I think that he needs a pay cut not a raise. At least take that money and donate it to a homeless shelter or a charity that benefits poor people. Help the people who elected you and not yourself. I just wish that politians could see what it was like to have nothing and see how they like it.
Hoang Long Le
12/6/2013 05:17:20 pm
when you think of it, these guys are getting a raise for just giving out orders to have other people do the work for them. There are decisions that they have to make that affect a community which is probably why their pay is so high. I'd rather see a raise for people who actually put in physical work rather than someone who is already making a lot money.
Lisa Rabago
12/3/2013 10:37:08 am
For my blog post I read the article “California lawmakers set for 5.3% pay hike” on the class website. Twelve of the legislators have refused the pay raise because they think it is unfair to citizens who are still recovering from the recession and they also feel the money could be put to better use where I is needed more, such as in the education and infrastructure sectors. I remember some years ago when the U.S. Congress voted not to accept a pay decrease. The decision for the California pay raise was accepted by the Citizens Compensation Commission. I looked this Commission up and found out that the seven members are appointed by the governor of California. Jerry Brown did accept the pay raise. In class, we have talked a lot about holding people accountable but it seems that ordinary citizens have very little control over the salaries of our elected officials. I think it would be fairer if we kept the Commission but made the members be voted for in a public election by the constituents of California.
Ryan Provost
12/4/2013 04:05:56 pm
I hold the belief that the government works for us (in principle at least), so I see it the same way I see asking for a raise in the corporate world. They should put it up as a ballot initiative and let the public decide if they earned it.
Christian Decareau
12/6/2013 01:52:48 pm
That’s a touchy subject at best, and there is no clear cut best answer, there never is in politics. To hold them to a corporate standard would be a move in the wrong direction due to one, key difference. A corporate equivalent position is only interested in efficiency at a certain task, usually just ensuring that they complete tasks by the deadline. For elected government officials, the issues are hardly direct, and are very subjective in terms of does it benefit the populace or not. To hold them to a standard would grate against political parties if it went against their shared beliefs, and ultimately creating a standard of right and wrong. While this may seem a godsend in ending the squabbles of politicians, it would come off more as a censure rather than a standard. To hold one person accountable for that decision would greatly favor one side depending on their views and beliefs.
stacey doyle
12/6/2013 02:37:07 pm
Hi Lisa,
Kevin Lopez
12/3/2013 10:55:07 am
Today in class we were talking about a very interesting subject to which many people share very distinct and different ideas and opinions. We talked of what is going on with “our” money in our government and where all the funding is going to and how much money is being spent. One of my opinions is that our military has been spending and receiving more money than the should. When we refer to the term, Guns or Butter, we technically are talking about how we decide whether to put our all into creating more weapons and invading countries and war stuff to focusing in our own economy and resources such as infrastructure and other useful things that help our country strive to a better condition. In my opinion, I believe that the government is getting to much funding and education is not as much as it should be. The people are the ones paying this. We should be able to say something and vote against certain funding. So, to end up this my question to every single one of you is:
Minh Van
12/4/2013 09:38:05 am
As for me, I would vote to spend most of our budget on education. We do indeed have a great public education from K-12, but college costs so much. We don't see much impact in the state of California, but elsewhere, like Dr. Crain mentioned, many couldn't afford the cost for a higher education.
Ryan Provost
12/4/2013 04:16:18 pm
If I can remember correctly, California pays something like $2000-$3000 annually to educate a K-12 student, yet pays $40,000+ to keep one inmate incarcerated each year. Considering the much better return on investing in a student rather than an inmate, I feel as though even the stingiest of capitalists should be able to see the benefit in creating a new generation of capable (or better for them, over capable) workers for them to under employ and make more money off of.
Anna Baucus
12/6/2013 12:46:42 pm
Just today I was having a conversation about short-sightedness in the name of profit. The topic was the American auto industry, and it's history. In the conversation we ended kind of blind sided by the fat cat, instant return aspect to how the industry was run into the ground.
Steven Le
12/6/2013 05:26:27 pm
I believe our top main things to fund our country is education, healthcare and basic needs. Education so that each generation has a chance to get somewhere in life and it also helps the country become more advanced as more people are able to get an education by government funding. I also think healthcare is something to be funded, for those who are low income might see healthcare fees such as hospital fees as a nightmare. A financial nightmare.
sheyla camones
12/7/2013 03:10:25 pm
The government should put the money in our health and education the most. Those two are the most important for the people in my opinion. If we dont have health the people wont be able to work so they will wont be able to make money. This is such a rich country that do not worry about the health of their people. Education is the next big thing the government should focus on. Education will make people smarter and get better jobs and also improve this country. Those are my two big things the government should focus on.
Chelsey Beckler
12/3/2013 02:09:14 pm
Todays lecture topic was about Guns and Butter, which is a political way of saying how the government spends our money and resources (Military and Goods/Services).
Angela Paolella
12/4/2013 02:09:18 am
Hello,
Sam Kuhlmann
12/4/2013 02:27:41 am
Yesterday in class we discussed guns & butter which are hard issues and soft issues. I think it is interesting because people are split on the issues. But, one of the biggest things we talked about was the budget for 2014. In 2014 we will have a 2.9 billion dollar budget and 43% of it is going to Human resources. 20% goes to past military, 27% goes to current military, 5% goes to physical resources and 6% goes to the general government. Ms. Crain brought up an interesting point when she said that it would be a better idea just to combine some of these things like current and past military and I agree with her. Also so much of the budget goes to the military because people think it is unpatriotic to not support the military. The government builds a fear that other countries want to attach is so that is another reason why we fund the military so much. My question is should we continue to fund the military so much or should we cut back on them a little and fund other resources which are failing due to the lack of funding.
Flora Tang
12/4/2013 10:35:48 am
Hi Sam! Do I believe that we should cut back on military funding a little bit and fund other resources which are failing due to the lack of funding. I was in debate last year and we argued a lot about military policies and I learned about many different plans that were completely useless to the U.S. military. One part that I believe that we can totally get rid of funding from is drone strikes. Drone strikes are not very accurate and many innocent civilians are killed, in turn, turning their families against the U.S. and turning them into terrorists. Terrorism has grown, especially in Yemen, because of these drone strikes, not just because of religion. A quote that I remember stating last year was from a Yemen lawyer in May stating "Dear Obama, when a U.S. drone missile kills a child in Yemen, the father will go to war with you guarenteed! Nothing to do with Al Qaeda." Such useless plans in the military take up so much of the U.S. budget and produce reverse effects than what we were originally looking for. Therefore, I do believe that the U.S. should cut funding to the military and find more important places to use it such as education and health.
Konstantin Harder
12/5/2013 03:57:52 pm
hello Sam, so i think we should stop funding military, because thee are so many subjects and topics in this counrty were we have to work on and were we have to change things, and mostly this is just possible if we spend more money on other things , like education or health instead of spending it on military
Michael Caudill
12/4/2013 03:58:22 am
This week we were having a discussion about guns and butter. About how we use guns just as much as butter. We also viewed a chart of the government spending and where it goes. Most of the government spending went towards our military. Most of the class created a chart that favored education over everything else. My chart favored our security and our well being.
Victor Vilchez
12/4/2013 09:42:08 am
Of course I'd love to live in a safe place rather than a place where I have be fighting for my live and family as well. So I come from a country where is not safe that all, business people have to pay for their life, people can't dress up nice because there is always the fear of being robbed. first time I moved to America I felt secure everywhere but now I don't feel anymore. Once I was almost been robbed in the exclusive neighborhood "Santana Row" so I was very surprise. I thought myself that no matter where you are there is not safe places in this country anymore. People always have to be careful wherever you are.
Kevin Lopez
12/5/2013 08:41:18 am
Michael, I really do see this as a big concern and a very hard decision but you also have to understand that they are getting to much funding! I mean like I said in class, my cousin was deployed in South America and was staying at a 5-star resort. This is what we are doing to our military while we work our butts off and pay the government the tax that the rich don't even want to pay. I think that without education, through time, the future of America will be a bunch of blood thirsty soldiers with no thought of economic planning or any peaceful thought. Every nation falls through time. Atleast through war. We have a powerful militia already. We shouldn't mess with something that is good. We should fix the broken. Like our Party system. Im just saying my opinions. But I like your thought on the well-being of the United States.
Roger A.
12/4/2013 07:22:30 am
Today is class we watched an interesting video about plastic. To quickly summarize it, the burning of plastic is very unhealthy to our planet AND to people. Van Jones also mentions that it doesn't matter where you live, the dirty air pollution that is being created by the burning of plastic impacts us all at some point. A solution Van Jones proposes to solve this problem is the coming together of all people in order to respect the wisdom of all species. In other words, learn to coexist by learning from them. I personally agree with his solution. If we were to create a new system of government where its main goal is to protect the people and the environment then we would be far better off than we are currently today. I'm sure people are aware that burning plastic is bad for everyone, including the planet, so why can't we simply just ban the usage and production of plastic?
Carolina Munoz
12/6/2013 02:38:07 pm
Hi Roger,
Cory
12/4/2013 07:30:35 am
In class we talked about last minute voter registration and how it affects the voter. In California the law states that you have until 15 days before the election to register to vote. I find this kind of ironic because of the laws pertaining to voters rights. If we all have the right to vote, why is registration period limited? One situation is interesting because what happens if your 18th birthday falls after the deadline. These people should not be denied a vote because of a technicality. What are some other repercussions of this law? What are the benefits of changing the law?
Flora Tang
12/4/2013 07:49:06 am
In class today, we discussed issues in the plastic industry that affected not only the environment, but people as well. Cancer Alley is a place where the plastic industry gets oil which is then made into plastic. However, the oil in that area contains many dangerous chemicals that lead to cancer leading agents inside the plastic. Of course, those with money are able to afford plastic that is safe, but poor people have to buy these dangerous plastics, which affect them a lot. Not only that, after the usage of these plastics, they are taken to Asia where they are burned in the "recycling process." It releases dangerous chemicals in the air, harming humans and the environment. As a very important concept, the class then discussed different ways to solve this problem of disposibility. In our group of three, we came up with a solution: that of using glass bottles instead of plastic ones. It is healthier for the environment, due to its components made out of sand and easy melting to reuse. So my question is this: What other ways can we solve this problem and why will it be more effective?
Roger A.
12/6/2013 12:14:18 pm
My group and I came with a similar solution to yours however we also talked about the possibility of banning the production and usage of plastic worldwide. Banning the production of plastic would create incentives to invent new products that are more environment-friendly.
Leyla Mousli
12/8/2013 04:40:07 am
I completely agree with Rogers idea to completely ban the production and therefore the usage of plastic worldwide. I think this would be an excellent idea, however it would be hard to regulate. If we really think about it, plastic is used in sooooo many of our everyday items. It would be difficult and not to mention costly, to completely eradicate those items and substitute them for something more environmentally safe. My group and I simply came up with the idea about educating everyone on the effects of plastic, therefore if people were more educated they would be less likely to buy something made of plastic, and perhaps destroy the plastic companies.
Victor Vilchez
12/4/2013 09:28:58 am
On monday we talked about California Lawmaker's raise. I think the California lawmakers are being fair with not accepting their raises, because at least they are pretty sure that there are still people that are unemployed. Most of those people are household that need to support a family. I’m totally agreed with Mansoor saying. "So let's continue to be a little more responsible in how we manage our government before we give ourselves pay raises and a pat on the back. He is being considered refusing this money proposal. Although the state should give a raise to those people that are still in minimum wage, I think they really deserve a raise because they work hard some of them work outside in the cold, rain, sun helping to improved our state’s infrastructure. It is funny to hear that there is a recession, when people out there are getting high salaries plus getting raises. As a student I’d like to hear that they are working on School’s budgets, infrastructures, creating more students programs, creating jobs and adding more security to our community as well.
Eric Pham
12/6/2013 03:54:40 pm
For positive ideas, I would like to see the government to get more involved in creating jobs from the green energy sector. From my understanding, this field has been producing many jobs in the past years since the economic crisis since 2008 I believe. However, private companies are the ones who invested most of the money, and therefore most of the jobs. If they government can plan its budget to invest more in this sector, I think it will attract more investors, and therefore, more jobs with good salary. Also, I would love it if they can reduce the educational price or provide students with more aids. With the cost school system keeps increasing, it give many families and students a hard time paying, especially low and middle class.
Minh Van
12/4/2013 09:29:46 am
We went over the topic of the usage of taxpayers' money. The chart displayed almost half of our taxes were spent on our military system. Within the half, the fund splits pretty evenly between the past and present military category. Dr. Crain further explained that the money used for past military includes health treatments for veterans and benefits such as households. We then did an exercise on dividing the budget into 5 categories that we think are most needed. I came up with the following: education 30%, healthcare 30%, public needs 20% (things like public parks, library, and public after school programs, constructions, etc..), defense 15%, and economic development 5% (government putting money back into the economy in order to create jobs the jobless and opportunities for new grad students). I do believe in having a military system for security purposes. I don't see the need in funding our troops to go oversea to terrorize other country's goods.
David McCarthy
12/4/2013 01:33:35 pm
In terms of what we need more of in our present-day situations, our funding now must be turned towards education - the Affordable Health Care act is slowly setting itself in place and we must simultaneously focus on the educational standpoint of America. We must focus on solving the crisis between staggering student loan debt and the fact that there are many people who graduate with a degree and STILL no ability to find a decent-paying job. This in itself will slowly lead to another economic disaster, but with more taxpayer dollars heading to the education sector, we may be able to circumvent it.
Lisa Rabago
12/5/2013 09:43:29 am
I do think that more of taxpayer’s money should be funded into education and healthcare because I think you cannot stress the importance of these two sector enough. Additionally, I think more money should be spent on stopping problems before they happen instead of having to pay as much for the consequences. For example, if we took better care of the environment and did not pollute as much then more people would be healthier and not need health services as much. If we spent more money on education then our incarceration rates might go down. I also think that way too much money is currently spent on the military and I do not think that it is necessary for the U.S. to have troops stationed in 150 countries in the world. Most of the time we are not there to help them but to help ourselves and some countries would probably rather not have U.S. interference. 12/4/2013 09:43:30 am
For this week's response I'd like to reflect on the peak water article that was posted on the website, ''Peak Water: What Happens When the Wells Go Dry?''
Sarah Jane Estrada
12/4/2013 10:04:21 am
Today we talked about the idea of disposability and how it relates to the environment and people. It was almost comical to me when we sat down and had to discuss what we would do to change the way Americans behave towards people--letting the 'poor' people do our dirty work at what ever cost--because we are so set in our ways it seems nearly impossible for us to change. Its hard to see a solution because we want and want and crave luxury to the point of gluttony. People want their comfort at whatever cost and almost have cold hearts when it comes to others. We have created such a culture of individuality and competition that less and less we stop to help others or even consider them. People are so hung up in their own lives they don't notice others or they ave been conditioned to believe that others don't care about them to the point that they do not trust any other people and believe that every one is selfish. I mean, I know plenty of people like that--who believe that no one is good or capable of doing anything out of love or without self interest. Personally, I believe that that is not the case. There are plenty of moments that give us hope in human kindness, the problem is, people don't stop to see what they are doing--they live with blinders or goggles that shade them from the reality. Most people don't know about the trash islands or they do but don't understand the implications. The key is really getting to people, like those gross tobacco commercials. I think the truth needs to be shoved in our faces these days or we will never stop and take a moment to fix things. And I mean the gross, nitty-gritty truth needs to be shown, nothing sugar coated, because we sugar coat far too much these days.
Shelene Celino
12/4/2013 10:57:32 am
Today, for our last "lecture day" of class, we watched a twelve minute video of Van Jones talking about environmental justice. As he has said, the poor have no choice but to buy the cheapest products, being the most dangerous to them, and the rich having numerous choices, being able to buy the high quality products that are less harmful. This thought has been stuck in my mind since I heard him say it. I think that there should be a way for corporations to create a high quality, least harmful product that'd be affordable for both the poor and rich. I believe that such a thing is possible, as long as the corporations can realize that it'd be most beneficial for everyone and the environment. Things truly do start out as individualism, because it takes one person to speak out to others about an issue, to spread the word. Then from the individual's work, builds a group, creating a collective, that'll make the greater outcome work. All it takes to create a better environment, is the people. We, as a collective, have to realize the way we treat our planet. Sorry to sound all green and pushy about it, but I'd love to live to see a better environment than the one we have now, because the one we have now, is constantly being affected, not being as well as it used to be before there was so many factories releasing harmful toxins and chemicals into the air. I'm sure everyone else would too, not only for yourself, but for your future families, wouldn't you agree?
Tedrick Rumohr
12/4/2013 11:18:00 am
Hi Shelene,
Brenda Mejia
12/4/2013 11:04:28 am
In today's class we watched a Ted Talk of Van Jones on plastic and disposability. Van Jones talks about the dangers plastic actually causes that many of us are not really aware of or don't care about. He says that although we pride ourselves in recycling, it all ends up in the same place, the ocean. They ship the plastic to poor countries and sometimes burn it which causes great damage to the air and especially to the people living near by. The people in cancer alley have their lives shorten because of this issue. Although we find that sad, he explains that we are used to also disposing people's lives just as easily as disposing plastic. He said California has the highest incarceration rate and those incarcerated are lives being disposed of. Van Jones points out that we live in a disposable culture where it is easy for us just get rid of things. In class we had discussions on how we can change that. Suggestions brought up were to make something out of it and create a business or to use glass bottles instead of plastic. I think those are all great ideas, but I think we should all just learn to empathize. We should stop thinking about individualism and think more collectively. It's important to put yourself in others shoes and see thing from their perspective. Like putting yourself in the shoes of a person living in Asia where there are mounts of trash and your guaranteed you will die soon. We don't really think of that, and who would have thought that all that damage comes from a nice country like ours just because we don't use an alternative. My question is if there is different ways to go on about this problem what is stopping us? Why aren't we creating business or drinking out of glass bottles?
Brenda Rios-Dorado
12/6/2013 12:26:32 pm
This is kinda relatable to global warming and how people know what's happening even political leaders are aware and have been proposed with solutions but no one seems to want to take the problem on and fix it. I think people are selfish and concern with themselves and how everything is functioning now but we need to realize that we need to help each other and fix the problems now so our generations to come have a better world to live in and better future.
Justine Picar
12/4/2013 11:09:39 am
On Tuesday, the class talked about Guns and Butter which is basically an economic and political way of saying what the government spends on or for it’s society, ie. Military--Guns--and goods/services--Butter.
Shelene Celino
12/6/2013 02:29:11 am
Hi Justine,
Tedrick Rumohr
12/4/2013 11:12:38 am
The other day in class we were talking about guns and butter. Basically, we were talking about the budget for next year and where our money is going to go. Then professor Crain had us do our own little budget. I thought the activity was EXTREMELY difficult. As a guy that doesn't know what's going on in the government and what finds what, I didn't know what to do. It's so easy to say I'll take money from military and put it towards something else. But like The environmental guy that was talking about the plastic bottle said, "Everything is connected." If I take money away from one area, I don't know what the consequences are, so I'm scared to take it away. What if I take away 5% and we actually needed it? Or what if I take away money from government funded things and make a large group of people mad. I didn't know who or what I was going to effect. It was extremely difficult. My question is: where did you put your money towards and why?
Brian Phen
12/4/2013 11:36:59 am
For this week, we had a lot to talk about during our class discussions. Today we saw a video about disposability, and how the poor don't have much money or the choice to buy products that aren't harmful to them. People who do have the resources to be able to by expensive products that are harmful don't really know how people who are poor or are not well off have troubles. The products that came into question was about plastic and how it was harming the environment a lot. He also mention how the air from Asia was travelling all the way to the United States, and how it was affecting us badly too. I was pretty shocked to see that picture we were shown, the picture that was of dumping plastic into the pacific ocean. It saddens me because you do have to think not just about the people in the world who are affected by the disposing of plastic in the ocean. The others you have to think about that are getting harm are the animals that actually live in the pacific ocean and all the other oceans that have plastic floating all around.
Catherine Lin
12/4/2013 01:03:54 pm
Hi Brian,
Brenda Rios-Dorado
12/4/2013 11:45:35 am
Today in class we watched a short video of Van Jones on environmental justice. He introduced us with the topic of how we dispose of our plastic and how the damaging effects it has on people especially the poor people. The poor people are always the ones first affected because they do not have financial options. Jones stated that it's usually cheaper products that are the most dangerous and the poor people are the ones to purchase these products because of no other options. It was really interesting to learn how disposing of plastics works and how it's harming the gulf like cancer valley. Jones then related disposing of plastic to disposing of people. He stated that we are quick to decide to give aluminum cans or plastic bottles a second chance, but not to people. California has the highest incarcerated rate and people aren't working to fix this but disposing of plastic relates to how we dispose of people. And he makes a similarity on how we need to both hug a child and hug a tree. That we can do both and not necessarily fix problems that we quickly see our impact in. We should help people for our world to be helped.
Jennalynn Luz-Fernando
12/4/2013 01:14:30 pm
Hello Brenda. I think that one of the main ways to have people become more aware of the crisis concerning our damage to the environment and the affect it has on wildlife and mankind is through the use of media. Unfortunately, such media may be deemed prohibited by the government or generally unpopular or "boring" by mainstream media. However, as of late, the environment has become a more pressing issue to people and society, so I believe that media focusing on such topics will be taken more seriously. However, there is still the chance that the government will feel threatened and shut down the whole thing completely. But it is still worth the effort to even try and get people interested enough to become concerned. That's just my opinion.
Terrence Chantengco
12/4/2013 12:05:39 pm
Today in class, we discussed about the problem of disposability and how it not only affects the earth, but our lives also. We saw a video about how disposability is affecting mostly the poor. Van Jones told us about how plastic is very dangers and how it’s affecting our lives. They ship the plastic into poor countries and have them burn it harming the air that we breathe. We don’t come to mind where the products that we buy can harm the people around us. We are being selfish and only thinking about ourselves and how it only benefits us. Ms. Crain showed us an image of the Great Pacific garbage patch. From the image, it displays that we have no space to put the garbage. The only idea was to place it in the ocean where it’s harming the environment and the fish, and other marine animals. It made me think we really can’t do any major changes, but if we do minor things about our environment about plastic disposal or recycling we can make a difference in our world.
ariana ortega
12/4/2013 12:12:19 pm
Today during class we were talking about how we in California and in the United States care more about the environment than our own people. We got into this concept by watching a video by Van Jones where he talked about disposability. Our country contributions about 25% of the green house gases and 25% of the worlds prisoners. That means 1 in 4 prisoners are in our prisons. We care more about changing what our environment is instead of our laws for prisoners. Even if the United States changes our environment, we will still receive the green house gases from China, because they burn our plastic and that then causes the gases to travel to the United States. During our discussion i was thinking of different examples to lower our prison rate. For example, the government should change the laws and then our police forces should be less corrupt in away. And we should stop using plastic bottles and use alumni, glass, and porcelain bottles to help with the biting of plastic..
Hakwoo Kim
12/4/2013 03:49:16 pm
I just wonder, was the issue in the video that we care more about the environment than people, or was it just that our "environmental" activities aren't actually helping the environment and hurting people all around the world?
Brian Phen
12/5/2013 03:28:57 pm
I think that the U.S. does care for the environment but there are probably a lot of other issues they choose to focus on instead. They probably look to fix things that they think are more important like healthcare and finance. In terms of people, I do think the U.S. cares for it's people but sometimes the government focuses on certain groups sometimes instead of as a whole.
Yadira Narez
12/6/2013 03:26:14 pm
You are right a lot of people think about other issues instead that they are missing the big picture. If we do not take care of our planet generation to come wont see the beauty of our planet. Plants will die and air will get worse. I believe people are focusing on the newest technology that the earth does not matter to them.
Terrence Chantengco
12/5/2013 05:51:02 pm
The United States cares a little bit of both because some people are trying to fix the damage of what we've done to the environment, but also try to help the people that are affected. We prioritize people first rather than caring about the dangers that we are doing to our environment only because that we try to help only ourselves rather than notice what dangers we are doing to the earth.
Jennalynn Luz-Fernando
12/4/2013 12:26:49 pm
In class today, we watched a video of a man named Van Jones, an environmentalist working in the White House, speak of the connection between environmental justice and the rights of and the injustices against human beings. We may think that we help the planet by recycling and that the results of our constant garbage throwing will not affect us, but we are wrong in both accounts. Most of the materials we put into recycling end up getting burned, releasing toxic gases into the air, while our trash ends up in landfills, in the soil, and in the ocean, damaging both wildlife and plant life. Human life is also in danger as much as the environment. All of human life consumes and wastes, but the poorer spectrum of the human population is usually more affected, since the people with the power to help the environment, such as the rich, corporations, and the government, choose to ignore the damage they have done and continue to waste and revel in their wealth. Jones goes on to explain the flawed human concept of disposability. We are so used to using materials, we have gotten used to using humans, dismissive and unfeeling to both of each creatures needs and pains. Once we learn to appreciate a species with damaging or using it, we can start to save people and the environment and help lead to a cleaner and healthier future. I very much liked Jones' lecture, since it was logical and humorous while presenting a new theory that I have not thought about, but extremely appreciated once it was presented. So I guess my critical questions are these:
Bianca
12/4/2013 12:53:22 pm
During class Tuesday we came across the actual U.S budget and a budget that we ourselves would create. I was surprised to see how much money goes into the military. I think it is important for our soldiers to be well taken care of but I feel as if the government over does it. They fear that the US will suddenly get attacked and invest so much in the military and at the end of the day it might not be necessary. I think the government should be more concerned about healthcare and school. You can't have one without the other and if we want to be better as a nation we have to be healthy and educated.
Eric Ortiz
12/4/2013 01:23:49 pm
I think health and education should be the top things we invest our money in. I'm not saying its bad to invest a lot of money in military because we need our protection from other countries. Also health because we need health insurance and equal benefits if you can afford it. The last thing is education because without this there's no future for our country.
Catherine Lin
12/4/2013 12:59:52 pm
http://youtu.be/OINj8ituFLc
Steven Le
12/4/2013 01:06:20 pm
On Tuesday we discussed the topic of “guns and butter”, being introduced to this new phrase we discussed what it meant and what was affected. The guns part on a broad scale represents our military. It represents war, weapons, violence and so on. On the other hand the “butter” we have the basic services to the public, and goods. We discussed on a very basic level what we spend our money on and what we think would be best for the country. One of the biggest issues that we all pinpointed together were the huge amount of money that we spend on the military and why is that we spend so much. Our spending in the military includes various things such as past military and current/future. Our highlight in the discussion was “do we need this much power?” and I believe in a way we do but not to the extent that we spend on it now. However we don’t know what would happen if we were to spend a less amount of money on the military as we are so used to feeling safe and secure with the current military we have today. We can only base our knowledge to other countries that can’t spend the amount of money we do on the military. So…
Ariana Ortega
12/5/2013 12:34:17 pm
Hey Steven,
Justine Picar
12/12/2013 08:06:46 am
Answering your question, I do believe we are taking our military position for granted. Take Rwanda in the 90's for example. Despite the fact that a mass genocide was going on, we chose not intervene until much later on. Why? Because there was no incentive to. Furthermore, I do not believe that we face as much of a threat as other countries around the world do. Our only neighboring countries are Canada and Mexico, whereas countries in the Middle East must constantly protect themselves from other neighboring countries. We are lucky because of our geographical location. I don't think that decreasing our military spending will cause any kind of detrimental effects on our economy. If we were to allocate all of that towards other programs, I think that we would still be protected but having a much higher quality of living because we have programs to help us.
Eric Ortiz
12/4/2013 01:19:15 pm
So in professor Crain class today we talked about many different things. One thing that really caught my attention was that the government isn't responsible for what companies and or corporations do. We were talking about the disaster involving a hurricane that happened and how security from corporations were stopping people from getting food and in some situations even drive. How is this possible when the government knows and it's totally fine with them. Most of the people that are being stopped are people of color. Where is the equality in this? I feel that instead of helping them in the moment of need they just sink them down.
Angela Paolella
12/6/2013 03:42:23 pm
Hello,
David McCarthy
12/4/2013 01:28:31 pm
Today I listened to one of the "Guns and Butter" radio segments, where Dr. James Feltzer explaines supposedly new facts and evidence regarding the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. In this radio segment, Feltzer describes many small details about the day of the assassination - pointing to Lyndon B. Johnson as the mastermind behind it. He talks about how Johnson wished to secure the presidency from the start, blackmailing the Kennedys into the Vice Presendtial chair (threatening that he'd expose JFK's affair with a German spy). Feltzer goes on to say a wide variety of things, such as: the motorcade was altered 4 days before the event to intentionally expose Kennedy in a minimum security environment; many shots of the famous assassination footage had been altered to remove critical evidence; and that the secret service had been ordered by J. Edgar Hoover to remain complacent and non-reactive to the impending bullets to be fired at the president.
Tina Nguyen
12/4/2013 01:30:43 pm
On Tuesday, in class, we took a look at the budget for 2014 and how money is is divided in it. On the chart, human resources has the highest percentage. If we were to combine, past and present military, it would also have a pretty high percentage. But looking at past alone or present military alone, it has a small percentage compared to human resources. Although, education goes under human resources, we don`t know the exact percentage of the budget goes into it. Military was the second highest on the budget. Do we need to spend this much money on military? I think if we spent less on military, we would still be fine. We were asked to create our own budget chart and some of us rather use most of the budget on "butter" rather than on military, which is "guns".
Robert Chavira
12/4/2013 01:41:24 pm
Today in class we talked about the phrase guns and butter and what it means. guns essentially is the money we spend on our entire military, past and present, and butter is the money our country spends on food and other human resources. we spoke about how a lot of the "pie" goes towards military spending versus everything else. we talked about the negative things that money goes towards like third party militia such as blackwater. I feel as though the amount of money we spend on military is necessary but we need to still regulate exactly where that money goes. we shouldnt be paying third party people to use military force and then not have them be accountable for their actions. but we still need a strong national security due to the size and political strength of our nation.
Jazmin Ordaz
12/6/2013 02:43:49 pm
Hey rob, I feel like the reason they want to keep military spending under 20% is because if there's less money going into it they won't be able to do as much damage because they won't have the funds to do everything they're doing now 12/4/2013 01:51:54 pm
Today in class we watched a video featuring Van Jones, he spoke about the pollution of plastic and how the united states is a prime source. We Americans are so stuck on capitalism we forget about the effects of our action. We think about more on the new phone or iPad we forget about mother nature. We should ban plastic from the United States and add more water fountains to public areas and parks. Make the fountains clean and people can use filter bottles on the fountain water. We can also use plastic for art and even make island or houses out of it. Go to the link to see the floating island made out of plastic bottles.
Jorge Talamante
12/4/2013 02:05:59 pm
In class today we watched a video of a environmentalist named Van Jones, he explained that even recyling plastic bottles is still bad for the environment. The process of recycling bottles is bad because plastic is made from oil, and the fumes from burning is a lot worst. The people that work there are getting sick from the toxic fumes. He also talked about garbage that is used to create ski mountains, and putting waste under grounds and deep holes.
sheyla camones
12/4/2013 02:12:42 pm
During class on Tuesday we talked about how the governement is planning on spending tte money for next year. I already had some knowledge last year around 50% of the money goes to the military. I dont understand why it has to go over to those expenses when we need it for education and health care for the peoples well being. Most of the people dont know where the money goes to. I have always wonder what can we do change that? The other concern I have is I thought I was recycling the water bottles which I found out is not recycling at all if we send it to china for them to burn it which is wrost. We need to come up with better ideas for the environment to get better.
Elizabeth Hill
12/4/2013 02:15:18 pm
On Monday, we discussed the topic of same day voter registration. I believe that it increases the amount of people who decide to vote. The fact that registering to vote is a process makes the idea unappealing to some people. However, simplicity tends to attract people. Some believe that voting isn’t worth the time or energy, especially since it takes steps in order to vote. But voting is something that many more individuals should partake in and if there are any ways to increase the appeal, it would be to make the process simple. There aren’t many downfalls that could be considered by enacting same day voter registration. Fraud might happen but in most cases it would likely increase the number of people voting for the right reasons. In the end, the process would encourage people to be active in the community and motivate others to educate themselves about politics.
Megan
12/4/2013 02:20:06 pm
Yesterday in class we talked about where most of our income tax money really goes.I was shocked to see that 47% goes to the military which is about $1,334 billion. I also was shcoked to see thateducation was not even up there. Most of the money goes to the military because we live in a culture of fear. We are always worried about what other countries are going to do to us but we dont seem to worry about what is going on with the people. It also is an industry it increases jobs for people which makes unemployment rates decrease. I do not understand why it is more patriotic to be promilitary than to be propeople. You would think that the government would care more about it's people than violence. Professor Crain had us make a chart of our own. I definitly put education and health as the top two. I put education at 40% and health at 30%. I put the military at 15%. Ya I understand that they protect us and everything but do they really need like almost half of our money going to them. I don't think so, they are other things that need to be taking care of a little better. For example can't some of the money go to helping people get off the streets, giving them a place to live. I wish we wern't in a lot of debt so the governement can put more attention on it's people.
Yocelin Barragan
12/4/2013 02:26:31 pm
On Monday, we talked shortly about what we've taken away from class. I was surprised by how much I remember from the beginning of the quarter. I never expected myself to get so into politics and get angry at the issues regarding our government. Other than that, today we saw a video about Van Jones and his opinion regarding plastic. It's a funny topic although it's very important. Most of us never think twice about throwing away a plastic bottle whether it's at home, at school or at work. We never take into consideration of where it might end up because it's never directly impacted us. He shines a light on putting yourself into someone else's shoes, especially the poor who are more effected by this. When in reality, it's going to effect us in the long run. If even recycling bottles is harming our environment, what else is there for us to do in order to fix it? People all around the world have heard that recycling has always been the better route to take.
gabriela Martin4
12/4/2013 02:28:38 pm
This week oin class we discussed two interested pint. One been guns and butter which is a proof of the way US budget in spent. We got the opportunity to visually see the division of our money and almost fifty percent (47%) goes for military and past military,Human resources for me is something huge and 43% of the budget goes for this, and this percentage covers many different aspects of societies needs. It is surprising to see how rounded 3 billion dollars is divided and the importance some things get over others.
Eric Pham
12/4/2013 02:37:11 pm
The guns and butter lecture on Monday really helped me to understand more with our current budget. What is the most surprising and shocking fact to some people that almost half of all the tax money primarily goes to military, both past and present. Before this class, I thought that most of the money would go to education because it is the most important thing for our country, and our future. I believe that only education will give people and their country peace and prosperity. Moreover, I think the majority of people would also agree because we are sick and tired of wars. On the other hand, military and wars do not guarantee us anything good in return, but death, hatred, damages, and losses. It is hard to believe that there are still wars happening on the other side of the world in 20th century. My question is why do we have so many troops in foreign countries around the world?
Yocelin barragan
12/6/2013 01:42:12 pm
I agree. Its funny how at the same time, they try to act like guns and the war are actually beneficial for us although it isn't. They try to make themselves feel better by adding the fact that the war creates jobs. We wouldn't need so many jobs around the country if there wasn't war to begin with. We've dug our debt hole way too deep. Unemployment wouldn't have been at it highest peak and we wouldn't have gone into recession if the government wasn't wasting it on the military and weapons.
Matthew Kaufmann
12/4/2013 02:41:53 pm
A major topic of discussion in class this week incorporated the United States government's distribution of expenditure to the different functions of society. The diagram shown in class illustrated that our government uses nearly half of its spending toward military and other forms of national security. The reason for this is because of the reputation of the notion that war is good for the economy. Also, it is easier to be pro-military vs. pro-people, as pro-people is perceived as anti-establishment.
Edward Yang-Cabebe
12/4/2013 03:58:12 pm
Personally, I think that the U.S. government spends too much money on the military and should allocate it better. The amount of federal budget spent is unevenly distributed, making it seem too much. There probably needs to be some changes with the military benefits, as that does take a good chunk of the almost 50% of the federal budget. Third party contractors just benefits from this, which I think surveillance and groups like Blackwater are just unnecessary spending. The government could be spending on something else, but they spend it for their own political agenda, in my opinion. I think there could be more they can do to things like health care or education, there are just some better places they could use the money on.
estefania contrerasa
12/4/2013 03:04:28 pm
Today in class , we watched a video called " environmental justices " by Van Jones. Throughout the video he talks about how plastic harms the poor people more than other individuals. I think is true ,because poor people have fewer choices of products they can buy. Oftentimes, they don’t have the same options as other individuals who can afford to buy plastic-free things. Therefore , I think poor people are more likely to suffer from the chemicals that can leach out of plastic products than wealthier people. In a way , Van Jones is trying to make us see the way how we treat economy, also how we treat people . The information that Van Jones provides is very shocking in many ways .
John Eusebio
12/4/2013 03:06:07 pm
Yesterday we had an activity that distinguished the five categories that we would redistribute our taxes to. I distributed the highest being within education @ 40%, and security @ 30%. The rest being distributed to infrastructure, social security and healthcare. There are essentially a deeper aspect behind the distribution of taxes, but we shortened it to 5, specifically to make it simpler. We categorized the most important categories, I prioritized education being the highest. But today, we particularly discussed the economic injustice of plastic which unconventionally correlated both environmental safety and our justice system. In our discussion we had to find a solution to how we can solve either problems as a collective framework. I came to an understanding to how our society within the US as an individualistic framework rather an a collective. That people alienate themselves from other peoples problems all In due for our own responsibilities and our fear of being liable. For being scared of our environments safety and our own, our society is in fear of their liability. Being liable in choosing sides, making certain decisions and being impacted on how the media interprets this perspective. The solution that I came up with was to come up with a new wave of media that shows the detailed side behind the perspective of all parties that are inflicted and or at fault. Even though we should rely on ourselves to understand the truth behind a story, it must be simplified enough for a framework to do the research for the whole rather than their own. Some people just don't take the time to try and find out the truth behind the veil, they rely on the media to get their hands dirty. Our fear of being liable is our crutch, our society is so deeply impacted on living a self centered lifestyle that we won't even dare to go into the deeper perspective. We don't dare to seek out the truth but let the truth be manipulated through simplicity.
jonathan garcia
12/4/2013 03:08:30 pm
Today in class we watched a youtube video by van jones where he spoke on garbage patches and envirobmental justice.The garbage in the water is said to be as big as texas.He spoke on disposability,to help prevent garbage.he always spoke ob how people dont take time to help the envirnment like we do with people issues.we would give people the death penalty,but not throw trash away.van joylnes said we traah ourselves.The solutiob is to work as a collective.Everyone needs to help for a common cause.Also in class,we talked about how the have a mountain of garbage used for skiing.since we dont have much solutions for all this garbage.Do yoy think the garbage has covered peoples homes.
Cindy Tran
12/4/2013 03:09:04 pm
Today in class we watched a video on Van Jones and his discussion of environmental justice, the idea of disposability, and cancer alley. He starts of by explaining how plastic hurts the people, especially the poor, although it will affect everyone sooner or later. Mr. Jones then brought up a disturbing point on how our society, when thinking about saving the environment they tend to commit and think of multiple of ways to recycle and become eco-friendly, yet when it comes to prisoners and our state's incarceration system we automatically come to an assumption that the crime the person committed deserves some good ol' jail time. So my question is:
Matias Chapman
12/4/2013 03:14:53 pm
This week we've covered a lot of content regarding spending priorities as well as exposure of pollution in the oceans and communities of both animals and humans alike. Considering the Guns n Butter radio show, there's a striking lack of legitimacy surrounding budget priorities. Albeit the issue has been in the open for years, the show seriously illustrated how lobbying can help bring your company money from the govt for anything you can legitimize. Why programs like the Dept of Energy don't see more lobbying from renewable energy industry is baffling. But the bug problem can be helped. Proper lobbying and ads can help the low-pollution industry find footing and help curb our incredible pollution issue.
Jessica Rios
12/4/2013 03:17:57 pm
Today in class we watched a video that really caught my attention. I was not surprise to hear that California had the biggest incarceration rate. What I found most interesting was the point of how us Americans care so much about helping the environment but are so quick to put someone behind bars. Us Americas are very selfish and only care to help in an issue if it relates to us or is impacting us. I spoke out in class for the first time for the issue on how people are so quick to judge or to put those they see as criminals, without them knowing the honest truth. As well has how many people are being impacted by haveing there loved ones in jail. I say this because am going through this situation at this moment. So my question is how can we change or make more Americans aware of this on going issue?
Joaquin Torres
12/4/2013 03:18:37 pm
On Monday we spoke about the same day voter registration law in California. I think that the whole process will help out voter turn-out and will potentially help democrats more because the majority of people identify as democrats even though they often don't vote. I think that's the same reason why republicans oppose the measure, not necessarily because of the possibility of voter fraud. If voter fraud were a real concern, it could be detrimental to both parties, so the concern is not justified.
matias chapman
12/4/2013 03:19:10 pm
Questions: what do you think it would take to successfully lobby against big oil and reduce the volume of plastic pollution we create?
Hiba Khurshid
12/4/2013 03:37:29 pm
Today we talked about the giant garbage patch in the middle of of the Pacific Ocean. But there are also many garbage patches all over the world. These garbage patches are a product of human carelessness. Van Jones made a really good point about how the environment and politics are connected. THe people who are the most affected with a sick earth are the poor because they are stuck in their situation. Poor neighborhoods are the worst off, being underneath highways or being razed down to build shopping malls and stadiums. Both of those things are using up resources faster than the earth can replenish them. If we just stopped using petroleum and using more renewable resources. The plastic would be made less because there would be less demand. But corporations have a huge role in our government because they have the most money. Poor people don't have the time or money to fight them. Many of them have a hard time putting food on the table and paying rent.
Cindy Tran
12/6/2013 03:17:52 pm
Hi Hiba, I totally agree with you. But the thing is, this fight against pollution and big corporations isn't just the fight of the poor. Since Van Jones had made a great point that this detrimental disposable cycle will in fact affect everybody, I believe it is safe to say that it is our fight too. So we must act fast and change our ways. Not to help just ourselves but everybody else.
Stacey Doyle
12/4/2013 03:39:45 pm
So on Tuesday we talked about Guns and Butter.We had an exercise where we would recreate our own version of the federal budget, this made me realize that there is no easy way of distributing all the wealth but it was surprisingly how much people did want to increase the funding of education, healthcare and other human resources versus the current funding of mainly military aspects. We also discussed why it is that people prefer the Butter over the Guns. The majority agreed that funding a military and all the other things that that implies (overseas, drones, bombings, private contracting, etc) is not necessary, it is actually mostly hidden to the public. We talked more about the private contracts that the government does, anything from individuals sent to kill or get rid or other people, to huge companies contracted to keep surveillance of american citizens. I think this is rather unconstitutional, it is our money that is being misused and basically used in our names. Critical question; What do you think of private contractors? Why is it that most of the money goes into military funding? Do you think that the actual budget should be available to the public in detail? it is our money after all
Chantel Luu
12/4/2013 03:45:31 pm
In today's lecture, we watched a TED talk featuring Van Jones on plastic and its connection with the environment and society. The fumes emanated from burnt plastic either from production or disposal is well known to be toxic. Places such as Cancer Alley, a poorer area along the Mississippi River from Baton Rouge to New Orleans, are extremely affected by these fumes. Cancer is the predominant killer within this area, hence the moniker. Jones goes on to say that getting an education, getting a good job subsequent to that education, and accumulating substantial wealth gives you choices--choices such as what to eat and where to live. The poor do not have such choices, and therefore must live within their meager means in poorer areas such as Cancer Alley. One pays for health.
Ingrid
12/4/2013 03:54:37 pm
Today in class we saw a video about the economic injustice of plastic. I honestly didn't know the journey of a plastic bottle when its thrown away and how its harming us. This effects especially poor people because they don't have many options and it sad to know that we are not doing much to change that. I was amaze to find out that they burn plastic in Asia (mostly) not knowing that it harms directly the individual that's doing it but also the environment and even if its across seas the pollution is everywhere. This has changed the ways I see this things now and I want to think about my future and the next generation. I want my kids and my grand children to live on a non polluted environment.
Edward Yang-Cabebe
12/4/2013 03:55:06 pm
Today in class we watched a TED talk by Van Jones on "Environmental Justice." He starts talking about how plastic hurts people. Poor people suffers the most from production and disposal of plastic, but others still suffer from burning of toxins in places like Asia which becomes air pollution for us, regardless of the cleaning of air we do. He also says that the idea of disposability we have is not good, relating this idea with incarceration of people, how people aren't really rescuing living beings and that we should extend out to it. As a follow-up to the video, Professor Crain asked the class what was missing or required for solutions to this problem. The person I talked with, whom I agree with, had said that people are only busy with their own agenda, not really caring for the bigger picture, and that we think that somebody else will do the job which should all change of we want to solve something like this.
Prasanna Kancherlapalli
12/4/2013 03:56:11 pm
Today in class we viewed a video on the effects of plastic on the environment by Van Jones. In production, use, and disposal of plastic, people are at risk from the chemicals it emits, primarily poor people. There are people whom can afford these less harmful products, who claim that the solution would be for these poor people to stop using such harmful products. However the problem is that the products that they can afford tend to be the cheaper, more harmful ones. He also made the point that, recycling bins really don’t do anything to save the environment, because they are brought, to countries in Asia, which does not have the same environmental laws that protect us in California. Therefore dirty production Is highly common in Asia. What I think is unfortunate is that there are people think that they do not have to worry, and that it’s only the people whom are poor or are in these countries that at risk. However, it becomes a snowball effect, as the chemicals from plastics will affect everyone eventually. These chemicals from production in Asia are spreading to California, where laws to prevent smog reduction are now rendered useless. Lastly he points out how California despite its concern for the environment, it has the highest incarceration rate. It shows how everything issue that affects us, be it social issues or environmental issues are connected. People really need to rethink the way their lifestyles because, the wrong choices can hurt both people and the environment. If we all chose to pick a more natural way of life there would be less pollution. But in order to do that, there must be changes in the inequalities between the rich and the poor.
Sara Hom
12/4/2013 03:57:52 pm
Hi everyone, this week we talked about the upcoming budget that we are going to have and I strongly disagree with it. I seriously don't think that we should be spending that much money on the military. We should be spending more money on making our country become a better place instead of putting money into fighting and violence. Before seeing this chart, I didn't know that the government was using out tax dollars to mainly fund the military and finding out angers me. I feel that the government needs to make more rational decisions on how our budget is spent and help our country advance with a better society rather than spend money on the military.
Ho Wai "Howard" Mok
12/5/2013 10:31:02 pm
Well, I have always known that most of the tax money go towards to military. It doesn't really make me angry, instead, I would just think why the country be so defensive more than proactive. It seems like it makes this country being so behind. It makes this country look like it only know how to defend when somebody attack us, without knowing how to make the first step. As professor Crain said, education is much more important. We should focus more on what we have learned, instead finding a way to survive.
Andrew Manzanero
12/4/2013 03:59:17 pm
The document “peak water:” talks about how important water is to every person, and it is important. According to the article, we, on average, consume around 4 liters of water a day. The article is talks about how farmers of today now pump out water from their wells at a much faster rate than what can be naturally replenished. Although water is very important to sustain all forms of life, I believe that using water at such a fast rate can be bad for the environment but at the same time I am not saying we should impose restrictions on how much water we should be able to get from the underground. There has to be a solution to this. My two questions are 1)what would you do if you were one of the farmers and 2)Do you think there should be any sort of restrictions on the water we take out from the ground?
Alexandria Kaping-Cooper
12/4/2013 04:26:52 pm
In response to your second question, I think it is beyond necessary that we regulate the amount of water we extract/consume. The truth of the matter is, at the rate of which we're consuming water (and not even for means of survival), we've now caused a continuing decline in the amount of the water available. Water supplies are already being privatized and eventually, when our water supply has declined, the owners of these water resources will be the first to capitalize on their property, selling our valued water at prices we simply won't be able to afford. Not only that, but consider people who live near and are completely dependent on those sources of water. As corporations attempt privatize these sources, they create water wars among the people dependent upon them. Within these wars, these people struggle to gain access to the only water source they've ever had. So, back to the main point, if we want to avoid such disasters-which have already begun to occur-then we need to start regulating our water usage NOW.
Ryan Provost
12/4/2013 04:00:24 pm
I was intrigued by one of Van Jones' points today in his talk on pollution because I had a similar conversation yesterday with a neighbor. With the lack of regulation overseas, all of the pollution efforts we have made here in California are undone. What could be a potential solution that perhaps the US could engage in to help these countries and their citizens?
Marlyn Serrano-Tobar
12/4/2013 04:02:14 pm
Today in class we started by watching a video were it thought us things we should know about Great pacific Garbage Patch. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is a wide swath of ocean where waste has concentrated because of the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre. Gyres are regions of the oceans where water rotates in a large circular pattern. That plastic waste in the oceans also poses more microscopic, long-term threats to marine life and the food chain. While plastics take a very long time to decompose, even hard polycarbonates biodegrade in the ocean environment. Some things we can do to help the environment is Stop buying water in plastic bottles. Instead, drink tap water from reusable bottles made from glass or steel, put lunch items in reusable containers instead of plastic baggies. Carry a reusable, metal fork so that you don’t need to use plastic utensils. This is easier said than done for me and the reason because I need to better inform myself about the environment because not only will help our Earth but it will also help the next generation.
Alexandria Kaping-Cooper
12/4/2013 04:04:14 pm
I really appreciated Van Jones perspective on the production of harmful products. Throughout my life, I've always considered recycling plastic to be a virtuous solution worthy of investment. However, Van Jones sheds direct light on the fact that recycling isn't just a form of continuance of our negative environmental impacts, but also an instigator even more environmental and social issues. By linking the manufacturing and recycling of harmful products with the harm of fellow human beings, we begin to recognize that the efforts of recycling really aren't a form of a solution to either environmental or social issues. So, my question is this: If the recognition of the linkage between harming our environment and harming ourselves is necessary to create viable solutions, how can we successfully spread this knowledge on statewide, national, and international levels?
Hakwoo Kim
12/4/2013 04:10:13 pm
Today, in class, we focused much on the video of Van Jones talking about Environmental Justice. He mostly talks about the use of plastic as an example, and he argues that the use of it is hectic to both environment and people. It was pretty new to me that the way we think we save the planet, recycling, is not actually improving the state of the globe but worsen it in a way that harms both humans and the nature. The way to recycle plastic involves burning of it, which produces harmful gases to the air that causes a lot health problem for people. The process of producing and recycling it, therefore, hurts them. The point was that this harmful effects are at a global level. Even though the users of it might be us, in the United States, the people who are severely impacted can be on the other side of the globe as the factories that produce it are located in poor countries. With this, he talks about the insufficiency of our effort to help the environment, whose efforts are limited to the domestic level. It is inefficient as our effort to improve the quality of it can be crossed out by the activities carried by those who don't care about these, as those "dirty" things travels through the globe. This video provoked kind of a new side of perspectives to look at the issue. When it comes to the environment, the focus should be placed on a global level rather than individual community or nation. He also points out one of the biggest challenge dealing with the issue was the suspicion of people on the solutions or the activities people do about this issue, and he argues this challenge can be a step to another level of change or movement.
Leyla Mousli
12/4/2013 05:02:16 pm
Today, we began class by watching a TED talks video entitled "Environmental Justice: Great Pacific Garbage Patch". This video was a speech given by Van Jones about how their is a strong connection between trashing our planet, and trashing our people. In the speech he stated "in a world where you trash the planet, you have to trash people first". This was so powerful to me, because it is so unbelievably true. He revealed to his audience the incredible correlation between the way you treat your people and the way you treat your environment. I appreciated the example professor Crain gave about how in Oakland highway 280 literally goes over the houses of people. There were many other topics brought up in the speech, one of them being the false sense of accomplishment, and the false sense of "doing something right" when we recycle. Many people are completely unaware of what really goes on when you throw a plastic bottle for example, into a recycling bin . What Jones stated is most likely the outcome is that these millions of bottles and items made of plastic are shipped overseas and burned, which releases extremely deleterious chemicals. Not to mention many of these bottles end up in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, which is basically what the title means, a giant patch of garbage in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. So after watching the video we were asked to create solutions for environmental and social issues and the solution that we came up with was education. I truly believe that if you were to educate people about what they are doing to the environmental and inurn to themselves, they would be able to make the right decision. Which brings up another idea that was mention in the video; the idea of biomimicry. The definition of biomimicry is the imitation of the models, systems, and elements of nature for the purpose of solving complex human problems. Many people are completely unaware of the idea of biomimicry and I believe if we were to educate people on the idea, they would begin to accept it and perhaps use it . Although the idea of spreading the knowledge is an excellent idea, the question is how can we successfully educate people about the correlation between social and environmental issues?
Ho Wai "Howard" Mok
12/4/2013 10:23:56 pm
We have did a 54321 exercise, that is actually a very good activity. If I can redo it, this activity would be my 1 memorable event that happened in class. This is great because I feel like the whole class is summarized for me what I have learned in the whole quarter. On the other day, we watched the ted talk for a while, I, personally, realized that how serious is the environmental pollution is, We always have a choice of not to use those hard-resolve-products versus choosing those more-polluted materials.
Jorge Talamante
12/6/2013 03:56:40 pm
We start off by electing a new president, a president that actually cares about the people.Trust worthy president, that actually makes a change in he country and the world. And not going to war with other countrys for no apparent reason. One other way to start off at is the people living here. Start thinking of things giving the youth a chance to go to college to help the world last longer.
Dong june kim
12/9/2013 09:21:07 am
yea i liked 5,4,3,2,1 activity in the class this week. this activity was pretty fun for me because i could share with classmate about what we have learned this quarter.
Chelsey Beckler
12/4/2013 10:40:58 pm
In relation to the Ted talks video, this article is a must read. It was written by a man who has made many trips into the ocean but claims that now his trips are much different due to the amount of trash in the ocean. Seriously, this article will definitely explain what a difference the trash is just making at the surface of the water. I could only imagine what it is like down below.
Tyler Bond
12/6/2013 05:21:28 am
For this weeks blog post I read the article “California lawmakers set for 5.3% pay hike”. Twelve of the legislators have refused the pay raise because it is unfair to citizens who are still recovering from the recession and they feel the money could be put to better use where I is needed more and where it could help our citizens of California more, such as in the education and section eights. I remember some years ago when the U.S. Congress voted not to accept a pay decrease. The decision for the California pay raise was accepted by the Citizens Compensation Commission. Jerry Brown did accept the pay raise. In class, we talked a lot about holding people accountable but it seems that ordinary citizens have very little control over the salaries of our elected officials. I think it would be fair if we kept the Commission but made the members be voted in by a public election instead by the governor. My question is how can we make a change to this problem?
Hoang Long Le
12/6/2013 03:39:50 pm
Governor Brown made it OK for voters to register on the same day of an election. This issue doesn't seem to be a very big issue to me since the harm of stealing vote. Sometimes the stolen vote end up being an abandoned vote. People don't want to vote so that vote end up being useless in the end anyways if no one takes it. The state can also benefit from this law because it allows people who wants to vote but did not get a chance to register register to vote on the same day. Now people don't have to steal votes so when we do counts to see how many people participated in the votes, it'll be more accurate. People now have easier access to vote on the same day that they register so they don't have to steal someone else's vote. I don't see any downside to this law but only benefits.
dong june kim
12/9/2013 09:24:24 am
I think our top main subjects to fund our country has to be an education, healthcare and basic needs. because young people/students are the future of our country. they are going to help our country grow much more faster and it also helps the country in good ways. Also i think health care should be the next one to be funded, because it is going to help low income people a lot by taking care of their health. Leave a Reply. |
Poli 1
Student Blog ArchivesCategories |
RSS Feed