What's in a Name

This week in the headlines an issue surrounding the different names being used to describe ISIS, ISIL, Daesh or the Islamic State. Noting that most of the time the terms Islamic State or ISIS/ISIL are accompanying the caveat of “self–declared” or “self-described”. With the recent the tragedy in Paris, the use of the term Daesh by the French president Francois Hollande caught the medias attention and the debate regarding how we label this group has gained momentum.  Secretary of State, John Kerry, has been calling the group Daesh for a year now, while the US media and President Obama still continue to call it ISIS or ISIL or the worst of all, the Islamic State. Should we be giving these groups the idea of assumed statehood?  I do not believe so, not when you think about the power behind a name.  Alice Guthrie made an excellent statement during her interview with PRI’s Nina Porzucki; she said,  “The victim should choose the name, not the criminal”. I could not agree more with her opinion and I do think that we should refer to the group as something other than a state. If the term Daesh is offensive, believed to sound similar to other negative Arabic words and the terrorist group despises being called Daesh, why are we not doing so? We should not give them the accreditation they are looking for and even if the “play on words” is a petty, passive aggressive, psychological demeaning of their name, it may take on a bigger connotation abroad. We definitely should not play into their egos and if using terms that refer to statehood like rights, then we should discontinue them immediately. How about Daeshbag?! I have a feeling they won't appreciate this name either.

I could not agree more with my classmate and fellow blogger, Jennifer Patel, on her stance to fight global climate change.  Attention to global warming and natural disasters in correlation with industrialization are increasingly shedding light on the issue; while scientists continue to research and examine the evidence, reveal their findings to the public and hope their efforts are not debunked by skeptics.
The question my colleague initially asks “should we fight for global climate change?” is a war I could put my name behind, one that will have to be fought with intellectual tactics. A war does not have to be with guns and human casualties, it can be a strategic war against forces unforeseen and yet to come, as our planet responds to our growth and development.  And just as she suggests most people understand the concept on a basic level. The media has done a decent job acclimating the masses on key terms and the basics on how individuals can do their microscopic part, but it is failing at actually providing the public with concrete and effective comprehensive understanding of our direct influence on our environment.  
Although scientist are warning we might be reaching the point of no return and traditional methods, like recycling, in which Ms. Patel suggests should be a mandatory requirement in every city, are now under study to “conduct a detailed life cycle analyses on recycled goods” to see if the benefit of recycling out weigh the economic and environmental impacts.  It’s important to remember that it took a long time to accumulate this much excess carbon and our attempts to curb pollution now, won’t be felt for years to come.
And what we think we are doing to correct the problems might have to be questioned and looked at with a critical eye in order to improve our efforts. 

so true

How America Was Made

Instruments which are set up to safeguard rights become the very whip with which the free are struck. - Voltairine de Cleyre (1866-1912)

Daylight Saving Time; Is It Really Saving Anything?

Sunday, November 2 at 2 a.m. once again we will be forced to turn our clocks back to standard time.  By most, the "fall back" of daylight saving time is the darling in this twice a year procedure, where the dreaded “spring forward”is always looming around the wintery corner to steal it's hour back. 

What if we didn’t “fall “out of daylight saving time?

What would happen if we kept our clocks just how they are?

There are movements out there to do just that, end daylight saving time, or staying on a permanent daylight saving time like Arizona, Hawaii and the like. While supporters argue for the intention of it’s validity and they bolster about its attributes, ranging from saving energy via lighting to having more daylight for outdoor activities. 

The internet is inundated with articles illustrating the history of DST and the logic behind its inception with Ben Franklin wanting to save candles to its application in WWI and WWII attempting to conserve resources.  But we no longer need burn candles for light and longer days shift energy consumption to people turning on their air conditioning instead of a light.

While studies have shown several negative effects on an individual’s cognitive and emotional wellbeing disrupting the body clock and there is an increase in heart attacks and car crashes. We still go through this ritual of resetting our clocks twice a year forcing our natural state to align with this arbitrary standard of time keeping.

Farmers have always been staunch opponents of the daylight saving time and oddly they are the group of people that most believe we adopted the DST for, which is much the opposite.

So why do we still have daylight saving time? Who does it benefit? 

The economy! Of course! 

With more daylight house you can shop more, or golf more. It appears golf  and barbecue weigh heavy, as well as the Chamber of Commerce on behalf of small businesses lobby to keep daylight saving time.

Here in Texas, HB 150 was an attempt to abolish DST and have a straight standard time, but failed to do so. There was HB 363 which would set up a task force to conduct studies on the efficacy of continuing with daylight savings time, and it has not come up for a vote as of yet.

The debated conversation is definitely taking place with momentum growing in the movement to abolish daylight savings time all together.

Personally I think we should find a permanent standard time and stick with it.  Arizona and Hawaii already have a single time and never switch. Maybe we could find one that fits more of the natural rhythm of the environment and our human needs, which have changed drastically since daylight savings time was first implemented. We need a standard that is updated and congruent with the evolution of our lives today.

Marijuana Reform in a New Light?

Chris Weigant, a political writer and blogger has been a contributor to the The Huffington Post since 2006, posted a blog titled Taking Marijuana Reform Seriously in which he points out how finally the “war on weed” is gaining some ground in political debates and conversation. Public opinion increasingly in favor of ending this war and reforming the policies that make it illegal are pressuring candidates to He brings to light the moderator’s lack of research and need for more direct questions, but gives applause that the issue is being approached with much more interest than ever before.

Weigant convincingly gives examples of dialogue used by politicians to maintain an ambiguous attitude towards federal legislation regarding marijuana reform. He shines light on some steps that could easily be ordered by the president (bypassing Congress) to downgrading marijuana’s federal classification.  He shows the absurdities of the Schedule I and II lists and how a simple downgrade could realign this argument into a productive solution.

What I really liked about the authors commentary was his ability to provide the questions he wishes the moderators would ask, along with follow up questions. I felt as though he was well informed and the validity of his questions would have some concrete response with possible steps forward in the struggle to end this senseless war.

Along with quotes taken from the recent Democratic debate and the president’s apathetic approach to policy change, Weigant contrasts these, with widespread public acceptance and demand for legalization attempting to illuminate the fact the conversation on reform is gaining ground.  I would speculate that his intended audience would be of like minded citizens who also consider the asinine laws and incarceration rates surrounding the “war on weed” as ridiculous and also to encourage those in the position of interviewing public officials to do some research and ask solid questions and demand substantial responses.

Supplementary to Weigant’s blog, I stumbled on this editorial on The New York Times site Congress and Obama Are Too Timid on Marijuana Reform, providing a little more affirmation the conversation is happening.

Of Course They Have it Wrong! Duh, They're Presidents

"Both Mr. Putin and Mr. Obama Have it Wrong on Syria"

This article from The Washington Post’s editorial section I found intriguing. Considering the Post generally leans to the left and has endorsed Obama in the past two elections, it caught my attention that they were not just agreeing with Obama on the issue, just because they disagree with Putin. They did a sufficient job giving details to why they believe each president was lacking.They were adequate at trying to give relevant information in a space meant for small doses of information due to the lack of attention span. They hit some keynotes from the meeting Putin and Obama attended regarding the Syrian invasion. Suggesting that the Putin plan, even though it was not a favorable one by any means, was better than no plan at all. 

If the Post was trying to make an underlining statement and hold Obama’s “feet to the fire”, as John Stewart calls it, they denounce his lack of a plan and recall the back stepping he did with the chemical weapons. It is apparent they do not agree with the course of action Putin wants to take but they do give him credit for having a plan and putting it into action.

I do believe this article was suppose to make us think a bit more inquisitively about the fundamental question, is a not having a plan just as bad as having a well, bad plan.

I also think that most online websites use captivating images and catchy tag lines to draw our attention, even if the article is less than stellar, they still get credit for your click.

This could be addicting!

Sounds a bit like fantasy football mixed with a hedge fund. The title of this blog caught my eye. Yes, People are Placing Bets on Politics. Here's How.  appeared on NPR's webpage and it describes this intriguing story about a guy, John Phillips who started this website where you can gamble and place bets on a wide variety of political and financial situations. Described as a simple "yes" or "no" platform. Well, curiosity got the better of me and now I have a Predictit account-UGH and one of those emoji faces.
I stopped myself before loading any money onto the site and will return once I've completed this...just incase I become engrossed.
The article even questioned the legality, but so far permission has been given by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission with restrictions and limits to the total trade amount. Appears the University of New Zealand is studying its technology and using the information for research.
Go figure the highest winner on the site is a 19 year old. Maybe this will encourage more younger people to stay up on current affairs political and financial. Gives me much hope for our future and I look forward to showing my kids the site as well.