ShowMeMo's Blog

More and more it seems as if people are ditching their land-line telephones in favor of exclusively using cell phones. Obviously, there are advantages and disadvantages to both home phones and cell phones, but I believe in this day in age, with the technological capacity cell phones possess, there is no need for a land-line phone.

 A large amount of people have their cell phone with them at all times, home or away. They can be reached at nearly any time necessary. Cell phones are portable and convenient. With most cellular services, long-distance calls are provided free of charge. Additionally, with wireless phones, voicemail and caller ID come at no extra cost. There are all kinds of extra services available as well including text messaging (very popular), Internet and a built-in camera. These are features that are not provided with a home phone.

 I live with three roommates in a house here in Columbia. We all have wireless phones. We do not own a land-line phone. Our bill for cable and Internet is already around seventy bucks a month. If we had a home phone, the price would be around one hundred dollars. All of us are easy to reach by cell phone and there is no need for us to purchase a non-cordless phone.

 The one advantage of owning a land-line phone is emergency service. With a home phone, the emergency services can locate the exact name and address of the caller. With cellular phones, emergency services can only approximate a location of the phone to within a range of 50-300 meters. So if somebody were having a heart attack in a large apartment complex and calls 911 via cellular phone, the paramedics would be able to locate the building but not the exact apartment number. However, I have a feeling that if somebody is coherent enough to call in an emergency from a wireless phone, he or she would be able to identify themselves and give the authorities the proper address.

 All in all, cell phones provide easy accessibility, affordability and more capabilities. Land-line phones are becoming a thing of the past. So if deciding to ditch that land-line phone and just stick with the cell phone, the answer should be an emphatic “YES!”

 What do you think?

 Do you own a land-line phone, a cell phone or both? Why?

 Have you ever considered getting rid of your land-line phone and just going with a wireless phone?

I was watching the Colbert Report last night and he challenged Paul Simon to write a folk song on the credit crisis.  I thought why not give it a try.

 

Come gather round people and I tell you what's been sown

and about all the people losin their homes

our government thought it wise to leave banks unchecked

and now the poors lives have been wrecked

 

They say that there's still time to correct

and that in the end it will all be for the best

they say they know it's their job to protect

the poor and the cold and all the rest

 

but they knew what they were doing when they placed their bets

it was money they sought

and so they left souls to neglect

and when the earth fell from beneath their feet

they talked of regret

but overlooked their deceit

 

they couldn't support the lives that they led

and so it was they who began to beg

and the poor just turned their heads

we've been living this way for awhile is all that they said

 

and the poor sang in chorus a song of rage

you haven't earned your bailout

you haven't earned your pay

you dug your own hole now accept your collapse

I probably should have titled this story tongue and cheek.  I hope it's excessive and overt metaphor will make everyone laugh as much as it made me laugh.

When I woke this morning you were gone.  I got used to rolling over every morning and seeing you.  I couldn't help but wonder where you've gone.  Are you shining on other continents, who's orbit brings them closer to you?  I don't want to believe it, but my friend told me you and Australia are really cozy.  How could you do this sun?  You were warm only last week.

I want to talk to you sun, but now whenever I see you you're so cold.  I remember when I used to sit by the columns, under your gaze, and enjoy a good book, but now your rays just aren't the same.  You're so cold.  Is this what I should expect in the future?

When I got out of class today I wanted to look you up, but you were already gone.  I guess this means we won't be seeing much of each other anymore.  I don't understand why you've moved on.  My friends tell me it's just a part of life.  They tell me everyone goes through it.  They call it "northern hemisphere weather patterns".  What does that even mean?  I'll tell you what it means: it means you broke my heart.

I am sorry sun.  I shouldn't yell at you.  I'm sure you have your reasons for leaving.  I just can't understand right now.  I am thankful for the times we had together.  I only wish I didn't work so much, so I could've enjoyed your company more.  I promise you sun, that if you and I ever meet, I won't make that mistake again.  I'll just enjoy all the world under your beautiful rays.

Martin Luther King, Jr. once said he had a dream where his children would live in a nation where they were judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

 Today is that day.

 Barack Obama is the President-elect of the United States of America.

This is the biggest step forward for our country since the great MLK’s “I Have A Dream” speech. Having an African-American being elected president is one of the top 5 greatest accomplishments in the history of America.

 Obama’s ability to inspire hope and confidence in the people of America is unparalleled. In a country that is enduring struggles in the economy, in healthcare, and in education, Obama represents opportunity. He has actively uplifted the spirits of the population, giving each person hope for new beginnings and a chance to succeed.

 This is not only a victory for African-Americans but for the United States as a whole. Obama is a unifying figure that people should rally around. It seems that a majority of the voting population as taken notice. By winning in a landslide decision, the victory not only means that we are ready for Obama to induce change, but that we are ready for US to create change.  Obama makes everybody feel important. He epitomizes optimism. He garners respect. He has allowed the public to realize that each and every voice makes a difference. That in these tough times, we can endure and overcome. The people of the United States will persevere.

 Obama characterizes what a democracy is. A government for the people by the people. Everybody has a say.  And although there will be struggles, he will listen to the opinions of Americans and work with us to overcome whatever adversity we are faced with. Obama realizes that he alone cannot right the wrongs of our great country, but through the sum of all our parts, America is destined for improvement.

 Additionally, while it is understandable why McCain supporters would be upset, the gloom and doom outlooks they depict are unfathomable. I have heard outrageous quips, entertaining thoughts such as leaving the country, fearing all money will be lost, and panicking from an irrational idea of a nation headed for socialism. Some even more despicable racist remarks have been floating around. These comments are ignorant, uninformed and disturbing.

I urge all McCain backers to graciously accept defeat and instead of making groundless claims, rally around Obama and be the change you want to see in the world.

 I realize that Barack Obama is no savior and he won’t work any miracles. Struggles will arise and certain problems will remain unsolved. However, Obama is a step in the right direction. He exemplifies what the United States stands for. He personifies the qualities that the United States was founded upon. He adamantly illustrates a promising platform of liberty, hope and change. With Obama, we can make this country better. Our dire situation will vastly improve.  A new dawn of American leadership is upon us.

Yes We Can.

It’s down to this: Barack Obama or John McCain?

 Who will be the next president of the United States? We should know within the next 24 hours.

 It’s been a pleasure covering the election the past couple of months. Predictions, analysis and debate have pervaded the journalistic realm. Being part of the MyFoxSTL community has introduced me to a wealth of political opinions and various conversations. It has opened my mind to differing points of view and has helped to teach me that politics is more than just black and white, it’s all shades of gray.

 I look forward to the weeks following the election as well. We can debate whether the right choice was made, how the president’s policies will actually effect the issues we found to be so important, and what direction our country is headed. We can argue all the what-ifs.

 Before this semester, politics had not really been a focus in my life. Being surrounded by such creative minds with powerful opinions, I have enjoyed much of what I have become immersed in. I now am able to discuss politics in any forum in an interested and informed manner. Politics are now extremely attractive to me.

 Let’s Go  Barack!

 

 

 

As of late, my attention has been brought to an issue that may have been slightly obscured throughout the course of the presidential campaign and that is the nation’s energy crisis.

Since gas prices recently have not been nearly as outrageous as in months past, oil and fuel have made fewer appearances in the rants and raves of the American public. But simply because less attention has been given and prices are stabilizing does not necessarily mean the problem has entirely evaporated. Actually, it’s very far from it.

This past September, the ban on offshore drilling was lifted by Congress allowing the U.S. to begin sourcing oil domestically off the nation’s coasts. And although this move by Congress will begin to eliminate and discourage relations with the Middle East regarding oil supply, it may very well hinder or interrupt policy makers and leaders’ efforts to push for the development of alternative fuel sources.  

What kind of directions do you foresee the energy crisis taking with either McCain or Obama? Both stated they have their own respective plans for offshore drilling if elected. What, in your opinion, is the most important aspect of the energy crisis most deserving of the new administration’s attention?

In political spheres these days, an overriding theme seems to be the impassioned support for Barack Obama from young people. The Democratic presidential nominee’s platform has drawn praise from all age groups, but an abnormally large rally cry has been heard from this “Facebook” generation, especially the college crowd.

 Now, what exactly about Obama is it that appeals to today’s youth?           

 Well, glad you asked because I’ve got some answers.

 First off, Obama is young. At the age of 47, this ambitious senator from Illinois would be the 5th youngest president in the history of our great country. Young people today can better relate to Obama and his fresh outlook on politics. Republican presidential nominee John McCain is 72 years old and is out of touch with issues important to America’s youth.

 Another point. Obama lets the youth movement feel important. He is constantly thanking young people for taking a renewed interest in politics. Also, he often reinforces the significance of the youth vote. While campaigning across the country, Obama has made many stops at college campuses, leaving a positive, lasting impression on students who are debating which candidate to endorse. His focus on the youth movement has signified a symbolic passing of the torch to this new generation.

 Second, one central component to Obama’s platform is his drive for “change.” Currently, our country is in shambles. With Obama, there is an underlying truth to his message about change. He makes young people feel like they a make a difference in this country. He has today’s youth believing that they can positively influence, and even reshape America’s identity. With promises for new beginnings and a model that is both exciting and daring, plenty more are jumping on the Barack bandwagon.

 Additionally, Obama successfully utilizes channels that McCain has been unable to effectively conquer. Obama has used the Internet early, often and in full force. He has productively made use of YouTube, blogs and other Web forums, something that McCain has not capitalized on. With young people’s propensity toward gathering information on the Internet, Obama has surely benefited from his online presence. McCain’s admission of his inability to operate a computer does not help him, with young people being unable to relate.

 Lastly, Obama supports issues that are important to young people. He stresses education, citing the needs to reform the “No Child Left Behind” project and develop a system for training better teachers. In terms of higher education, Obama has outlined a model for college affordability. By creating the American Opportunity Tax Credit, he aims to make college affordable for all Americans. This universal and fully refundable credit will ensure that the first $4,000 of a college education is completely free for most Americans, and will cover two-thirds the cost of tuition at the average public college or university and make community college tuition completely free for most students.Furthermore, Obama opposes the war in Iraq. McCain endorses the war. While older folk may see McCain as a valiant man who fought for his beloved country, younger people will view him as man who will sacrifice lives for the agenda set forth by George W. Bush.

 Moreover, Obama has laid out an Energy Plan that will promote a healthier environment. He plans to add five million new “green” jobs over the next ten years, as well as ensuring that the percentage of renewable energy used in this country vastly increases over the next few decades.

 Now while Obama is no miracle or savior, he is a step in the right direction. At least in the minds of young people that is.

 

 

With the Nov. 4 general election just around the corner, it seems like most people have their minds made up whether they are voting for Barack Obama or John McCain.

 However, there are a few important issues on the Missouri ballot that many people are uneducated about, but definitely need to be.

 First is Proposition A. If it receives a “yes” vote, the proposition will amend Missouri law to repeal the current individual maximum loss limit for gambling, prohibit any future loss limits, increase the casino gambling tax from 20% to 21%, and create a new specific education fund from gambling tax proceeds generated as a result of this measure called the “Schools First Elementary and Secondary Education Improvement Fund.

 If voted “no,” there will still be a gambling loss limit and the Fund will not be created.

 I am going to vote “yes” for Proposition A. The state government will receive somewhere in between $105 and $130 million each year that will be used for elementary and secondary education, as well as $5-7 million for higher education and early childhood development. Education is one of the most urgent problems facing this country, and pumping money into state schools, more specifically inner city schools, will start us on the right path to recovery.

 Second is Proposition B. If it receives a “yes” vote, the proposition will amend Missouri law to allow the elderly and Missourians with disabilities to  continue living independently in their homes by founding the Missouri Quality Homecare Council. If formed, this council will increase the availability and quality of  home care services under the Medicaid program by recruiting, training and stabilizing the home care workforce.

 If voted “no,” the council will not be created.

 I am going to vote “yes” for Proposition B. The measure will have no impact on taxes. Currently, those employed in the homecare services system are severely underpaid. Even though is mostly an all-day job, the state only pays for 4.5 hours a day. If enacted, this law will provide an ample supply of  competent workers for the elderly or disabled as well as providing a source for a job market with a living wage. It also takes pressure of the hospitals and emergency rooms in Missouri. So, that’s a plus for the health care industry.

 Last is Proposition C. If it receives a “yes” vote, the proposition will amend Missouri law to require investor-owned electric utilities to generate or purchase electricity from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, biomass (including ethanol) and hydropower.

 If voted “no,” it will not require Missouri’s investor-owned electric utilities to generate or purchase electricity from renewable energy sources.

 I am going to vote “yes” for Proposition C. The main reason is because it will not have an impact on taxes. Also, the required renewable energy sources must equal the following percentages in retail sales: 2% by 2011, 5% by 2014, 10% by 2018 and 15% by 2021. Of the total renewable energy sources required to be sold, at least 2% shall be solar sources. Also, any rate increase to consumers resulting from this measure must be no more than 1%. I don’t know about you, but I’m all for renewable energy. It provides us with a source of energy that is not from the Middle East, but rather from our beloved Missouri. It saves time and money. It is healthier for the planet. Now, I am not one of those “Save the Planet” nuts, but anything that will help sustain this earth that we live on is OK in my book.

 How will you vote on these propositions? Will they better our great state of Missouri?

With every election, whether it's local, state, or national, there are always those certain terms or issues sure to make their way into candidate debates. Healthcare reform always seems to make an appearance at one point another usually complemented by a brief dwelling over education costs. But the kicker evoking the majority of public response and commentary the ensuing day seems to be taxes.

This year's presidential election is no exception and tax plans may be the most prominent contender for hottest debate topic. In fact, I spent the summer interning in New York and was randomly assigned two roommates who were from considerably well-to-do families in the South. Obama had announced over the summer months that he had plans for major taxation for families raking in over $250,000 a year--an announcement sparking major upset in my temporary dormitory. My roommates who were Obama fans at the beginning of the summer were McCain fans at the end.

Obama's proposed plan objects to stick it the overtly wealthy man smoking cigars on his yacht and to help out the father of four out on the road for weeks at a time hauling a semi. McCain, on the other hand, hears and wants to help out the middle tier, while also trying to not upset his haughty Republican buddies.

Now as Missouri residents who overall are more likely to look like the truck driver drinking gas station coffee than the billionaire drinking scotch, what are your responses to the plans offered by the presidential hopefuls? Are the plans they are proposing accomodating to the needs of Missourians?

On November 4, Missourians will vote for their next Governor.  They have two choices: The Democrat Jay Nixon or the Republican Kenny Hulshof.  Their decision will affect the future of Missouri’s economy, healthcare, and college affordability.

Nixon is a Methodist family man and lawyer, who received his degree at the University of Missouri.  He’s served four terms as Missouri’s Attorney General prior to running for Governor.

Hulshof, like Nixon, is a religious family man who started his law career at the University of Missouri.  He even spent some time in the Attorney General’s office. 

But there are politics are much different.

Hulshof is far to the right.  He has a history of voting that proves it.   

On the economy he voted no to regulating the subprime mortgage industry. 

Hulshof is not part of the solution.  He is part of the problem.  Hulshof created the bubble that eventually imploded and caused the greatest financial disaster America has seen in 70 years.  He’s committed a mortal sin of politicking.

He also voted no to allowing stock holders to vote on executive compensations.  Hulshof thinks it is ok for corporations to take as much as they want from their stock holders.  It’s this lack of accountability that has bankrupted America’s economy.

On healthcare Hulshof voted no to increased funding for children’s medicare.  He voted no to reimportation of prescription drugs.  Do we want our children to be uninsured?  Reimportation of drugs would drive down the profits of pharmaceutical companies by creating competition with foreign distributors.  Again, one can see that Hulshof is favoring the corporate elites rather than the common man.

Now let’s look at Jay Nixon.  Nixon’s healthcare plan would insure the uninsured.  Hulshof may say what about the tax increase?  Nixon’s plan would cost the tax payer in one installment, but you’re going to pay that money anyway if you’re insured.  Your deductible covers the medical care of the uninsured. Insuring more people reduces your deductible. http://www.jaynixon.com/news/?id=0142 (from the Post Dispatch)

Nixon has good ideas on the economy too.  He would cap interest rates and empower the Attorney General’s office to investigate and prosecute corporate violations of law.  This is exactly what Missouri needs.  How many people can’t afford to pay their bills because of sharp increases in interest rates?  How many peoples’ mortgages suddenly shot up after originally low interest rates became extreme.  A lot of Americas problem is exploitation of common people by corporate elites, who set the agenda in Washington.  Nixon would fight on behalf of the people.

Finally, Nixon’s education plan would allow more children to attend to college while not bankrupting Missouri.  Under his plan Missourians would attend a two year community college.  After completion they would be eligible for a state scholarship that would cover tuition of a Missouri college or university.  His plan puts restrictions in place that would insure Missouri doesn’t waste money, while allowing focused students money for education.  His plan would allow motivated Missourians to compete in a job market they otherwise wouldn’t have access too.

This election is simple if you want to insure that corporate America continues its unprecedented growth (unprecedented since the 1920’s) then vote for Kenny Hulshof.  If you want to insure that the average American has a chance to live the American dream then vote Jay Nixon.

As of late, I have been given two options for the next leader of my nation: Obama or McCain. I never really thought twice about my choice – as the t-shirt says – “Let’s Barack Out,” right? And I believe much of my generation agrees. He’s smart, he’s well mannered, his wife dresses well, he promises change. Obama represents the idealism and progress that us 20-somethings crave.

But a certain incidence occurred that, for the first time of the course of the presidential campaign, made me think twice about my presidential selection for 2008 and that incidence was a brief phone conversation with my mother.

I don’t often talk politics with my parents and really anyone for that matter. They always prove rather inefficient and it seems the parties involved almost always end up thinking of what they are going to say next, rather than listening to what you have to say first. But one afternoon a few weeks ago, my mother called me while I just happened to be half-watching CNN and its campaign coverage. Just out of curiosity, I asked my mother who she thought she would vote for, and after a few minutes of contemplation and miscellaneous ramblings of what she has seen and heard thus far, she responds with “I really think I’ll probably go McCain.”

Respectively, I responded with a disbelieving “really?” and an annoyed “why?” And after getting over my initial surprise and confusion by my mother’s response, I began to wonder if maybe she was on to something. Now, maybe if this decision had been with a senile 97 year-old or a drunk homeless man on the street, I would have put it out of my head never to think about again, but it didn’t. It came from my mother who I consider a considerably intelligent and competent individual. Pretty much the voice of reason for the entirety of my life – and she wants to vote for the Republican, for McCain, even worse, Palin!

Hearing this from THE voice of reason made me question, however, if in my political stances, I was being unreasonable? It really did make me ask myself if I really thought Obama was the most capable candidate or if I just liked him better because he wasn’t balding yet and would diversify the White House.  

I believe someone mentioned in class earlier this year, something along the lines of “when you’re young, you’ll be a Democrat and when you’re old you’ll be a Republican.” As backward as this may seem, I believe it’s true. Your priorities change, your experiences more abundant, your knowledge more expansive.

So am I urging my peers and other members of my generation to vote McCain now? Absolutely not. I’m still planning on Obama-ing on Election Day, but I encourage my fellow 20-somethings to engage in a similar experience as the conversation I had with my mother and, for a moment, put idealism on the backburner and bring realism to the forefront.
 
 

I’ve always liked rooting for the hometown kid. That’s why I’m rooting for St. Louis product Ryan Howard and the Phillies to beat the Dodgers and advance to the World Series. Same for Brad Davis and the Houston Dynamo. And David Lee and the New York Knicks.

 This being my third year in Columbia, I have become immersed in the community and consider it a second home. That’s why when it’s time to cast my ballot for the new governor of Missouri, I’m going to vote for the Columbia hometown kid, Kenny Hulshof.

 Obviously that’s not the only reason I am going to do so, but it’s an added bonus.

 Kenny Hulshof is the man. Being the underdog in the race against Jay Nixon, Hulshof just can’t play it smooth and go through the motions. He has to go out there, propose some innovative ideas, stir some emotions, catch voter’s attention and rally people around him.

 Typically, that’s what underdogs do. Come to think of it, I like rooting for underdogs too. This just keeps getting easier and easier.

 In all seriousness though, Hulshof should be our next governor.

 He has a reputable track record when it comes to easing the tax burden on the middle class. He was a key player in the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts that helped save $1.6 trillion in taxpayer money. He has also vowed to help small businesses.

 Another strongpoint in Hulshof’s campaign is the fact that he wants to look to sources in Missouri for oil and gas instead of relying on supply from the Middle East.

 Being a Catholic, Hulshof’s pro-life stance is a plus. With Saint Louis’ large Catholic population, this makes him a more favorable choice in this case. Unfortunately, Hulshof is for the death penalty, but so is his opponent, Jay Nixon. Not much leeway there.

 Healthcare is obviously a big issue in this campaign and Hulshof is adamant in his quest for quality, affordable and accessible care. He also believes in the system that focuses on wellness and prevention, ideals that are more important to the overall well being of Americans than care you can receive in a hospital.

 Lastly, with education, Hulshof maintains his support for pumping money into Missouri’s public schools. We all know how much our inner city schools need a lift.  On the issue of higher education, Hulshof is the only candidate who supports the innovative Lewis & Clark Discovery Initiative, which has generated $335 million for Missouri’s colleges, universities, and students without raising a single tax.

 All sounds good to me. Hmm, maybe I don’t have to rely on my hometown pride and love for the underdog after all.

Paul Krugman is my voice.

On Monday Krugman won the Nobel prize in economy for his work on international trade.  Krugman got his doctorate from MIT and in 1991 won the John Bates Clark Medal.

But Krugman is more than an economists.  He's an activist. 

That's a wierd dichotomy in America.  Generally, one is not an activist and an intellectual.  We picture intellectuals as aloof, writing books that no one will read, and we picture activists as rabid, uncontrolled lunatics.  What if one did comprehensive research, knew their area of study, and then stood up for the America people?  Brilliant.

Twice a week Krugman writes an op-ed column for the New York Times.  Most of the time he writes about economics, but he doesn't shy away from other topics.  A study once showed that Krugman was the most partisan journalist in America.  His response.  (apparently, the nobel committee agrees.)

In an interview with Slate magazine Krugman said:

"So, here's my worry: Democrats, with the encouragement of people in the news media who seek bipartisanship for its own sake, may fall into the trap of trying to be anti-Bushes—of trying to transcend partisanship, seeking some middle ground between the parties.

That middle ground doesn't exist—and if Democrats try to find it, they'll squander a huge opportunity. Right now, the stars are aligned for a major change in America's direction. If the Democrats play nice, that opportunity may soon be gone."

What a radical idea.  It's ok to stand up for what you believe in.  If you believe that Americans have a right to healthcare then simply say that.  If you believe economic regulation is the only way to ensure meritocracy then say that.  There is no need to be an anti-bush.  Bush won two elections because he took strong stances.  Meanwhile democrats where putting together slogans like "4 more years."  Just do your research, and be positive with your plan.

Krugman is right to say their is no middle ground between the two parties.  Where you come from effects the way you think.  I'm from a lower-middle class household, my dad works 3 jobs, and my brother and sister can't afford to go to college.  None of us have healthcare.  I got into college because I work about 80 hours a week, and I'll still probably be in debt most my life.  Is it really surprising I believe government should provide the essentials for every person to reach their true potential?  Is it really surprising I don't believe the American government does this?  If one financial hiccup wouldn't completely destroy my life then maybe I'd worry about gay marriage, national defense, or other cultural issues.  

But for right now all I care about is the economy, and Krugman's a noble laureate.

http://www.pkarchive.org/column/column.html (Kr
ugman archive)

The education system in this country is a joke. College tuition is through the roof, dropouts are increasing at an alarming rate and inner cities schools leave much to be desired.

 College costs are rising twice as fast as inflation. Increases in health care and energy costs look meek when compared to the rising college tuition rates. Since 1982, the price off attending a four-year university has skyrocketed 439%.

 The average family cannot afford that. With the struggling economy, the chances of obtaining a student loan are minimal. With salaries for college graduates falling, is it even worth paying the price for a college education? Achieving a bachelor’s degree greatly increases the odds of receiving a top-dollar salary, but is no guarantee of success. For most families, paying $100,000 for a degree can cause severe money problems and bring about widespread panic. Does either Barack Obama or John McCain have a legitimate solution for the problem? I sure hope so. The next president has to make it a priority to make financial aid easier obtain and create opportunities for free higher education.

 College affordability is just one of the many problems plaguing the education system in the United States.

 Four out of 10 high school students in America don’t graduate. According to 2007 statistics, the Missouri high school dropout rate is 7%. In Saint Louis, that rate swells to 10%.

 Alone in the Saint Louis Public Schools district, enrollment is down to 28,000 this year from 44,000 in 2000. Only 21,000 students attended the first day of classes in August, according to an article in the Saint Louis Post-Dispatch.

 A plethora of explanations can be provided to explain this appalling phenomenon: poverty, drug use, physical abuse, unstable homes, learning disabilities, etc. The list goes on and on.

 A premium needs to be placed on academic plans for middle school and high school students. More extracurricular activities need to be available to students to increase motivation to stay in school. Teachers need to take a greater interest in the well being of their students. And more importantly, parents must actively push their children to excel in school and in life.  

 Furthermore, a focus on the improvement of inner city schools is imperative. Inequalities still abound in public schools. In an article in Harper’s magazine from 2005, I read a statistic that stated 82 percent of the public school enrollment in Saint Louis was either black or Hispanic. “Segregation” has not gone away. It is witnessed in the U.S. education system.

 Teachers in inner city schools are often poorly qualified and pay little to no attention to the academic progress of their students. Funds are limited, so quality textbooks are often unavailable to the students. Coming from underdeveloped neighborhoods, students have more on their mind than just school and have no penchant for learning.

 Government funding needs to be poured into these inner city schools. There has to be a system in place that recruits highly qualified teachers and rewards them for admirable work. Standards and progress charts need to be in place to gauge students’ performance. There needs to be money for textbooks, supplies and structural improvements need to be made to the actual schools.

 Now I realize that this is all blind optimism and will probably never happen, but a man can dream, right.

CNN money reported 6 out of 10 Americans believe a depression is imminent. 

That’s bad news because the stock market’s value is determined by peoples’ perceptions.  If everyone begins to sell then the stock market will crash.  The United States government is doing everything they can to prevent a complete collapse.  Besides the $700 billion bailout the federal reserve has also dropped interest rates by a half percentage point.

Unfortunately, it’s too little too late.  The government’s panic is only frightening the American people, making them more incline not to invest.

The bailout plan was a must.  Without the plan credit would be sparse, jobs would be lost; everyone would sell, and when people sell the economy crashes.  America didn’t have any choice but to intervene.  That’s the problem with the American economy.  America should have intervened earlier.  Americans have an almost religious belief in laissez faire capitalism.  But how many Americans have ever read anything on economy?  We’re fanatical without understanding how economy works.

When Bill Clinton deregulated media companies, allowing firms to control a larger market share.  Competition didn’t go up.  It went down.  Cable prices rose.  Think about the NBA after Michael Jordan.  Whenever Jordan was in the NBA there was no competition.  He was so much larger than anyone else he simply imposed his will.  That’s how economy works.  Someone is in charge.  Deregulation doesn’t encourage competition.  It encourages domination. 

And business does dominate in America.

Everyone talks about how “Wall Street” effects “Main Street” when Wall Street is hurting, but why don’t we talk about corporations conscientiously hiring illegal immigrants to drive wages down?  Why don’t we talk about corporations hiring more part time workers to avoid giving out benefits?  Why don’t we talk about corporate drug parties irresponsibly spending American money?  How does that money come back to the American people?  Are Columbian drug lords going to open up poppy seed bagel stores to share with America?  Probably not…there is more money in drugs.  Everything is skewed towards business.  For a long time the economy was great, but the people were miserable.

The banking industry is another example of business dominance.  The banking industry contributed millions of dollars in order overturn a 60 year old law that was absolutely vital to American security, solely so they could make more money.  A law ,mind you, that was passed in reaction to the first great depression.  Why would we make the same mistake twice?  It’s not as if people didn’t know there would be problems.  This article was written in 1999. http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/nov1999/bank-n01.s
html.  If you scroll down to the bottom you’ll see exactly America’s problem.  Here's another http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_bubble
_economy.  This recession/depression should have been avoided.

The above articles are not only an example of businesses’ power in America, but a glowing example of how business effects public opinion.  Americans don’t realize how much money effects the media they watch.  For example, how often do you see negative articles on America’s economic expansion into third world countries?  This is a hot topic of debate around the world, but you don’t see much about this in the American media.  In 1985, a public-television station lost its corporate funding because of a documentary called “Hungry for Profit” which was critical of corporate activities in the Third World.  After the documentary aired the chief executive of the company called the documentary “virulently anti-business if not anti-American.”  The London Economist said that “most people believe that WNET would not make the same mistake again. (Information from Noam Chomsky’s A Propaganda Model)

If business is going to exert that much power on American minds shouldn’t they be held to the same standard as the American government.  Shouldn’t we ask for the same balance of power? America's founders believed that decentralization of authority was the only way to avoid authoritarianism.  States have rights, (well they used to) and the three branches of government check one another.  But who’s checking American businesses?  What restrictions are in place to prevent business from ruining the American people?  Right now there are none; it’s time for a change.