International Women's Day

March 8th marks the date of International Women's Day, which is celebrated around the world and in some countries is marked as a national holiday.

I think womens rights, especially throughout history is really interesting so, thats one reason I decided to blog about that today. It was first proposed by Clara Zetkin at the second International Conference of Working women in 1910. It started the next year. It was a huge success and as governements began to recognize the holiday, it has remained a large part of the world today.

Today, IWD is marked by speeches and meetings to celebrate the strides made by women all around the world. It is usually marked by a theme every year which can vary depending on the country or region. This year, the theme of the United Nations is Equal Rights, equal opportunities: Progress for All. The UN has also recently started their campaign UNiTE to end violence among women. The idea is that though women in most developing countries support and feed the family they have little politica and social representation and opportunities.

President and Mrs Obama addressed IWD to disscuss the progress of women all over the world throughout history. As the president spoke to encourage women around the world and commend the women who helped to make those great strides, he still recognized some of the gender inequality that still exists and pledged to help support the advancement of the equality of women.

Overall, I feel that the strides we have made as women are significant, and the strides we will make are also significant. We simply must remember no to feel superior, that we are a part of the future-- not the ruler. I think often as women we feel that we have been supressed so long that we now deserve to be superior, although when you think about it, the more powerful we get the more we become like men-- the ones we used to criticize.

I'll take a a 'peace' of that prize...

President Obama received the Nobel Peace prize today. Many say that the prize has been awarded to soon, and the Nobel committee even agrees! They are hoping that this award is more of an encouragement in the direction of peace, rather than to award something he has already done.

I personally think it was a very poor decision, I don't think he has done anything that he deserves it for. It is actually worse for the president I think. It sets the standard extremely high, and it sets the president up for failure. I also think he should not be awarded because he is the president. It is the job of the president to create peace. This president has not done much more than many others to set the tone for peace. It seems nonsensical to reward the very person we expect to set a peaceful tone.

Thorbjoern Jagland, chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, does agree that the war in Iraq and Afghanistan was great concern when considering Obama for the award, but was reassured when the Obama administration immediately reassessed the situation, and changed their strategy. Many world leaders commended Obama for his achievement, while others think its premature and much too early to predict how things will go. In his speech, Obama said that he was humbled to be apart of this great community of people, made up of the previous winners. He plans to travel Oslo to accept the prize.

I think that we should be careful of how much we expect of this- I don't think we will know what kind of problem we've got ourselves into. We have put all our faith into one man and one administration. We can't expect everything to change in one term. It will take time. And time, I'm afraid, is running out almost as fast as our money.

"I intend to leave after my death a large fund for the promotion of the peace idea, but I am skeptical as to its results."
Alfred Nobel

as the world turns...

I decided it was time for a short update of the world today. Whats happening, whats going to happen, what could happen. So, here we go:

War In Afghanistan-

President Obama met with his cabinet to discuss the direction we are taking in the War in Afghanistan on Oct. 7. This was the 8th anniversary of the war. He received a request for more troops, up to 40,000, from Gen. McChrystal and is seriously considering sending then, but is concerned about the effects. The war is becoming a growing concern as it drains US resources and kills US soldiers (over 800). It has lasted longer than anyone has imagined.

*http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/07/years-obama-weighs-afghanistan-options/

War in Iraq-

Obama has announced that the war in Iraq will be over by Labor day of next year. This is still unsure however, as even supporters of this are skeptical of the success. I'm not sure if we can effectively leave like this. We don't know when the people will be able to effectively protect themselves and their borders- as mentioned by Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis. There is no way we can just leave them. We worked so hard to free them, we couldn't just get up and walk away.

Swine Flu-

The swine flu pandemic has been sweeping through the nation at an alarming pace. Doctors and Health Officials are scared that people will be too frightened of the unknown to get the vaccination. We have already met the average deaths for a normal flu season, and we it is only October! The flu is targeting children and pregnant women- people don't really know what to do. So many people are unsure of whether or not the drug is safe. Many would rather just take their chances. This really concerns health care providers because they believe by the end of the season so many deaths could have beeen prevented.

so its war....

President Obama is not doing so great with the war.

Just thought I would state the obvious there. It seems that the Pres. is not doing what he promised. He can't really make up his mind on whether or not he should remove the troops. I give him credit though... This is a really hard decision. There is a lot more involved in this than we know. Most people said- "Vote for Obama! He's going to get all the troops home! he will end this silly war!" WRONG! President Obama might have said those things, the people may have believed him, he may even have believed it, but there were some that knew. Naive Obama would get into office and see that there was a little more to this that he knew. Think about it: the president has so much more top secret information than the public, now who do you think is in the best position to make a well informed decision? it may not be the right one, but it definitely is the best he could do with the information that he was given.

Thats one thing that really frustrates me about people. They always think there way is the best. I'm not saying I don't think like that sometimes, but we need to remember that we are not the final expert on everything! we are not always the most informed or the most educated. The people in government, no matter how much we disagree with their decisions, have more education and information than us. That combination is the key to making the best decisions.
Don't get me wrong, I think its important that people regulate the government and keep track of whats going on. Its also important that they question decisions that they make, but its just as important to remember we are not the final authority on the subject.

Its definitely something to think about.

~K.C.

Re: Chicago, 2016

And the winner is...... Rio de Janeiro! The decision was made in Denmark this week that the Summer Olympics will be held in Rio de Janeiro in 2016. Its disappointing in some ways and a little exciting in others. The exciting part is that the Olympics have never been held in South America and the city is very beautiful and perfect for the season. The disappointing part is that it would have been so fun to have it in Midwest America. To bring people from all around the world to the heart of America and let them see it.

President Obama and Michelle went to Copenhagen themselves to promote their hometowns bid for the 2016 olympic host. They, along with the entire city of chicago were very disappointed that they did not win.

My personal opinion is that there may have been some anti-America sentiment. It seems like other countries gang up on us. The fact that Chicago was so low in the scores says a lot I think. Its like the other countries represented on the Olympic Committee were against the idea of having the Olympics in America. Of course it is only fair that other countries get to host the olypics too, Its just that, well, I don't know. It seems especially worse for some reason. Like the other countries just don't like us having an advantage, or having something they don't. America isn't very popular right now in other countries. It seems best for us just to lay low for a while.

Although I'm disappointed I'm still excited that the Olympics will be held in beautiful Rio, and I'm excited that other countries will have th opportunity to host the games. I can't wait to see how everyone does. And in the mean time, the first Youth Olympics are going to be held in Singapore, 2010. (for ages 14-18)

Well, now I'm really excited. Guess I'll just have to wait with everyone else.

~K.C.

Chicago, 2016

2016: the date for the next summer Olympics is ready, but we just don't know where it will be. A few cities have made it to the finals, Chicago being one of them. I don't really know why I'm writing about this other than the fact that it would be amazing! It is just what America needs to raise the bar on what others think of us. It would bring everyone to the heart of America - the Midwest.

The finalists for 2016 are Tokyo, Chicago, Rio de Janeiro, and Madrid. I think the two most likely to get it would be Rio, because they have never had an Olympics in S. America, and Chicago because, well, just because I think it would be a good place to have it.

The Olympic committee is meeting in Copenhagen Denmark Oct. 2 to decide on the final city. President Obama will be meeting them there to promote his hometown.

The modern Olympic games started in 1796, in revolutionary France. This was very significant because it introduced the metric system into sports. Other than these obvious historic facts, the Olympic games have always been important because of how they connect the countries and keep them tied together. No matter whats going on in the world the countries always get together to enjoy and compete in the Olympics. For example: during WWII Hitler even came and competed with the countries he was fighting against. To be included in the Olympics is to be accepted into the "clan". It's also significant to see who gets picked to host the games. It can often show bias(etc...) about who is chosen. The games are a very serious thing among the nations. It is our way of competing, showing out strength without starting a war.

No matter what this is something we can all get together and do together. It will be interesting to see who gets picked to host the games in 2016.

I'll follow up later-

~K.C.

"O say can you read..."

Tests, tests, tests.... Do we put too much pressure on our kids to do well in government testing? We have the ITBS, the ITEDS, the ACT and the SAT, the PLAN test, and the PSAT.... we pack these tests into a very short period of time- more than most can handle. Of course they do handle it, many of them very well actually.

In this month of October alone there is the ITEDs-Oct. 6-9 ~ the high school general testing where the government views the Junior year scores. Also for juniors is the PSAT- Oct. 17~ makes them applicants for National Merit Scholars, and finally the ACT- Oct. 24 ~ which allows them into colleges. All these tests are packed in for studying and testing. After a while your eyes are permanently seeing bubble-sheets!

National testing is important for some reasons. It does give a good picture of how are students are doing, but there are definitely more accurate ways of telling.

National tests are so time consuming and boring. Did you know that when your body feels like it is put in an emergency or a stressful situation, it shuts down? It releases adrenaline to give you energy, but it turns off everything else that is taking up extra energy. For example- your digestive system. When you are taking a test that you are unsure of or aren't prepared for (stressed) your body stops digesting food, among other things. Your body needs to be focused and unstressed- we should definitely be looking for alternatives.

I guess I'm just trying to say we shouldn't put so much emphasis on tests that don't give us the best picture of our students abilities. Other options may be a teacher writing up grade and behavior analysis types of papers, using the people around theses students everyday, who know the students, to give them the best picture of their abilities.

Looking from the practical side though, I understand testing is the cheapest and easiest way. It's also the most fair and unfair way to learn about the students. Its fair in the way that every student gets the same test and they get compared to people who took the same test. Its unfair in the way that it is not matched for each individual person.\

With such a capable nation it seems like we could come up with better ideas.

~K.C.

liar, liar, pants on fire...

One quickie on the governor from South Carolina...

The governor seems to be soliciting quite a bit of flack for his outburst during the Presidents speech last Wednesday. Although I think his outburst was inappropriate and not in the correct setting we should try to look at it from his point of view.

Gov. Wilson has been working on this bill for quite a while. He has been trying to get some more specific language in the bill to verify that illegal immigrants will not be benefit ting from this bill and that our tax money will be used for us and us only. However the Governor has not been successful, (who knows why... perhaps some people want to spend our money on illegal immigrants), and I could see why he was defiantly getting frustrated (I know I would).

Although a lot of ruckus has been raised about his outburst, not much has been said about the validity of his statement.

~K.C.

The deficit...

dunt dunt dunt duhhhhh..... dunt dunt dunt duhhhh... (Beethovens victory theme), this might be what comes to mind when you think on the mess our country is in when it comes to our money (or lack thereof). Because we are in a mess, no matter what you say we are in a mess. No one can decide how it should be done, who should do it, how are we going to make sure everyone is benefited, and perhaps most importantly how are we going to pay for it...? HELLO! is anyone there? we don't have the money. Its not that hard of a concept. Think of it in kindergarten terms.... you have 6 chocolate chip cookies, you eat 4 cookies so now you only have 2. You want to matchbox car that Bobby will give you for 4 chocolate chip cookies so you go ask Susie if you can borrow 2 cookies. Now you have -2 cookies. You can't eat any because you don't have any and even if you did you would have to give them to Susie. Its not that hard!! we don't have the money so we cant get any. Until we can get ourselves out of debt we cant do anything. People dont realize how dangerous it is not to have money. We make enough money in a fiscal year that we coud pay off our defecit but we spend so much of it we can't even provide jobs, or health care for people! If we could just hold off the spending except for the most neccesary (like salaries and millitary => no extras) we could pay it off by the time Obamas out of office! then think what we could do next! we could keep the money we make we could budget and and save up for stuff like kids do. Theres a reason we teach this stuff to our kids - "you want that toy, then you need to save up your allowance..." we do it because thats how its supposed to be done. You can't spend what you don't have.

We are $11,807,630,438,251** in debt.

We earn 14,466,112,000,000*- thats fourteen trillion, four-hundred and sixty-six billion, one-hundred and twelve million dollars!

I don't really see why we couldn't pay this off with some careful planing. We make THE MOST money as a nation, in the world!!!! thats a lot of money! I understantd its hard but if we cut out the unnecessary stuff and didnt try to pass anymore bills that would spend money we could do it. I wish someone in Washington had this kind of motivation to do this.

As a nation we think we need to have more money to have a national health care plan, we need money to get rid of our clunkers, we think we need things more than we really do.

"Christmas is the time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell government what they want and their kids pay for it."
Richard Lamm

We could do it. I wish we would. If this is what we think it is to live in America, than its sad really because it doesn't have to be like this. It should be our priority not to have our children paying for our mistakes.

~K.C.

*http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GNI.pdf

**http://www.deficitsdomatter.org/

THE speech

"The strength of the United States is not the gold at Fort Knox or the weapons of mass destruction that we have, but the sum total of the education and the character of our people."

Claiborne Pell
US Democratic politician (1918 - )

On September 3rd, President Obama announced that he would be giving a speech to school students to welcome them back to school. This however was not how it was taken by many people. Almost immediately after he announced this conservatives were already reacting with either "sure, ok" or "NO! He’s trying to indoctrinate our kids!" ... Well, although I am a conservative thinker I don’t necessarily think this was his intended plan.

in⋅doc⋅tri⋅nate
1. to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., esp. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.*
2. to teach or inculcate.
3. to imbue with learning.
*emphasis added

Synonyms:
1. brainwash, propagandize.

“indoctrination." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 10 Sep. 2009. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/indoctrination>.

Now this is the dictionary definition of indoctrinate- although this may be what people (particularly far-righters) are claiming he was trying to do I don't think he was trying to “brainwash” the children of America. However, I did listen to some of the speech and I did notice some things… Before you jump to conclusions let me explain- I had already heard all the controversy and knew what some people were expecting, with this in mind I tried to listen openly and think about everything that he was saying. Since he was intending to make it casual and smooth, just a pep talk, it would be easy to not notice anything. However, when I was listening to this speech I noticed he talked a lot about striving to do well to support your country, that your education is the future of this country. This may be true, but we don't live for our country. This country was made to serve the people. The view that we all put everything we have back into our country is the socialist view of nationalism. Now I'm definately not saying that Obama was trying to make the kids all nationalists and that he was trying to brainwash them, because its true- however far we take our education is as far as our country will go, but we don't live for our country- we live for the ideals and morals and vaues that our country represents: liberty, justice, equality, independance, etc... But we don't live to gratify the state.


I believe that we live in an amzing country, a country founded on the principles and ideas that all men are created equal, where justice is upheld as best as we can at all costs, and where we live by our personal freedoms. We believe in second chances and we accept all that we live among.
Is there a better nation? I don't think so.

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."

Ronald Reagan
40th president of US (1911 - 2004)

~K.C.