In the 70s the government created the clean air act to regulate the pollutants that could cause damage to human health. Now the Environmental Protection Agency is proposing a list of carbon dioxide and other greenhouses and adding to the Clean Air Act. The EPA is afraid that impacts would cause serious health problems and increase the risk of more natural disasters. The EPA feel s if they declare global warming a health threat they could make better use of the Clean Air Act. There are other supporters and also those that criticize the plan.
Barrack Obama wants the EPA to review what Bush did when he denied California and other states from the right to control auto emissions along with other pollutants that are a major source of greenhouses gases. The Supreme Court supported the federal government to regulate the greenhouse gas under the Clean Air Act which Bush administration didn’t want to regulate. The Obama administration wanted to put mandatory limits on heat trapping emissions which he addressed to congress. There are critics out there that say that if smaller sources from gas station to power plants with a lot of federal rules. The supporters believe that the clean air act could be changed to exclude smaller ones and concentrate on larger facilities like power plants.
I agree it will require a lot of new permits and it might slow the economic recovery but if they try to work on the large plants that throw out a lot of pollutants. At least it will be a start to control the problem. How do we regulate the small places like gas stations that throw out pollutants without putting them under heavy restrictions? I think it is important to keep the green house gas under the control and keep our air clean. If don’t put restrictions on companies they will continue to throw out pollutants.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
Obama's Plan for the Mexican Border
This article is discussing Obama's consideration to deploy troops to the U.S./ Mexican border. President Obama stated this past Sunday, “Obviously there have been calls to increase National Guard troops on the borders”. The troops may in fact be National Guard troops that Obama will be deploying. President Obama believes the U.S. should continue consulting with the Mexican government as much as possible. Obama believes the U.S. should work on reducing the demand for drug and reducing the cash flow and gun distribution and he voiced that the violence along the Mexican American border is creating a serious threat to any communities that reside along the border; Obama said this problem has “gotten out of hand.” Obama also believes we should increase our personnel, surveillance equipment in order to help Mexico in their assistance to us.
I'm glad that the President is working on fixing this issue, however I feel like there are more pressing issues, such as with our current economic status, that he personally (along with several other expects) should be working on. obama even stated that he does not feel there is a threat with this issue so I am wondering why he himself is dealing with this issue and not with more pressing issues that do in fact cause a threat to the American people. Regardless, of the so-called pressing importance of this issue, I am pleased to see that he is trying to carry out such a cooperative relationship with our neighbor, Mexico.
I have not been following this particular subject, but it would be interesting to see how long it took President Obama to react to the issue and how long it will take for him to stop considering his options and to react to the issue at hand.
I'm glad that the President is working on fixing this issue, however I feel like there are more pressing issues, such as with our current economic status, that he personally (along with several other expects) should be working on. obama even stated that he does not feel there is a threat with this issue so I am wondering why he himself is dealing with this issue and not with more pressing issues that do in fact cause a threat to the American people. Regardless, of the so-called pressing importance of this issue, I am pleased to see that he is trying to carry out such a cooperative relationship with our neighbor, Mexico.
I have not been following this particular subject, but it would be interesting to see how long it took President Obama to react to the issue and how long it will take for him to stop considering his options and to react to the issue at hand.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Obama 'to increase Afghan force'
US President Barack Obama plans to send an extra 4,000 US troops to Afghanistan to help train the Afghan security forces, US officials say.
The war continues to go on. Iraq is still doing it's thing, rebuilding and so forth. The surge seemingly worked the country is making some serious progress, depending on your definition of progress. Afghan, which has been on the back burner in some people's minds, continues to wage forward with the "War on Terror" still rolling. Obama seems to believe that more forces are needed there:
"US President Barack Obama plans to send an extra 4,000 US troops to Afghanistan to help train the Afghan security forces, US officials say."
To me, this doesn't seem to make much sense. This country is currently stuck in an economic disaster because of the wars we are waging over seas. The money we are pumping "to spread democracy around the world" is over done and pointless. This country needs to get itself straight at home and realize that being an empire would eventually lead to failure as we are facing now and countless other countries have faced before us. We need that money to fuel our own economy instead of trying to stablize an area that will never be stable, no matte how much we want it to be.
The middle east, for thousands of years, has been a hotbed of conflict. Again, America needs to get off of its high horse and settle itself at home. "Eventually, the US hopes Afghan security forces will take over security operations and allow foreign forces to draw down". Eventually? What does that even mean? This war has continued far too long for reasons that can't justifiably be explained. My friend will be sent out to Afghanistan shortly after summer. Needless to say, he's excited to get his chance to go fight for this country. However, I'm scared that he will die for a cause that can't be justified. He would argue with me all day about this and he certainly has the right to, but as of now my personal belief is to come home and let's figure our own problems first.
It's up to Obama to end this War on a better lexicon than the "War on Terror". That could be the difference between liking his decision and dismissing it.
The war continues to go on. Iraq is still doing it's thing, rebuilding and so forth. The surge seemingly worked the country is making some serious progress, depending on your definition of progress. Afghan, which has been on the back burner in some people's minds, continues to wage forward with the "War on Terror" still rolling. Obama seems to believe that more forces are needed there:
"US President Barack Obama plans to send an extra 4,000 US troops to Afghanistan to help train the Afghan security forces, US officials say."
To me, this doesn't seem to make much sense. This country is currently stuck in an economic disaster because of the wars we are waging over seas. The money we are pumping "to spread democracy around the world" is over done and pointless. This country needs to get itself straight at home and realize that being an empire would eventually lead to failure as we are facing now and countless other countries have faced before us. We need that money to fuel our own economy instead of trying to stablize an area that will never be stable, no matte how much we want it to be.
The middle east, for thousands of years, has been a hotbed of conflict. Again, America needs to get off of its high horse and settle itself at home. "Eventually, the US hopes Afghan security forces will take over security operations and allow foreign forces to draw down". Eventually? What does that even mean? This war has continued far too long for reasons that can't justifiably be explained. My friend will be sent out to Afghanistan shortly after summer. Needless to say, he's excited to get his chance to go fight for this country. However, I'm scared that he will die for a cause that can't be justified. He would argue with me all day about this and he certainly has the right to, but as of now my personal belief is to come home and let's figure our own problems first.
It's up to Obama to end this War on a better lexicon than the "War on Terror". That could be the difference between liking his decision and dismissing it.
U.S. Economy
The effects of our economy have caused businesses and people to act in ways they might not have years ago. Through the ups and downs of the market, it has been difficult to determine exactly where the safest place is to invest, now in late March of 2009. Just from reading the USA Today daily, one can see the difficult times people are feeling in the majority of industries. An article written by Bruce Horovitz, from the USA Today money section brought an eye to chain restaurants forced to restructure their menus to keep up with demand. Comparable to fast foods, one can get an entrée for fewer than ten dollars; a price for dinner not even 1992 could handle. As restaurants struggle for business, as does the dairy industry, with their price dropping below four dollars for a gallon of milk. A barrel of crude oil, once going for the high $140’s and better was once down in the low $40 not two months ago, and now climbing to the low $50 range at the close of yesterday’s market. With such an unsteady oil market, businesses that truly depend on such a resource seem to be questionable at this point in time.
Being a young investor in the market, I try to read and re-read what people across the board have to say about our economy. There are those outlooks from billionaires who differ greatly from the perspectives of middle class workers losing their 401K packages; all of which are valid impute to the progress of the market. There are other markets that have caused their very own downfall. For example the airline industries, which have given out far too many “frequent-flier miles” and has become difficult to generate profits which has forced them to reorganize. I have gained a sense of “spring cleaning” going on in the market over the last couple of months, yet I don’t feel as if it is such a bad thing. In times like these, organizations truly see who, what, and where money is being lost, giving them the opportunities to fix them if they would like to compete in this competitive capitalistic market.
I feel as if our President of the United States has still, a lot on his plate to handle. No matter Republican or Democrat, we are giving our trust to President Obama. We now need a commanding leader who can remove the once dominate superpower from a time of recession and become a commodity to the rest of the world yet again. As the President has stated, the push for alternative energies will be a part of the future that cannot be overlooked. Just from driving down I95, from the visible eye, one can tell there are far too many smoke stacks emitting who knows what, and many 300,000sq feet manufacturing buildings vacant looking for tenants. Haven outsourced all of our manufacturing across seas to receive cheaper labor costs, we as American’s must not forget our patriotic pride.
With over a trillion dollar budget projected for the next year, the need for such an investment to prosper is crucial for our country as a whole. As seen in the 1930’s, governmental spending can stimulate the economy and especially lower the unemployment rate. What was also learned from that governmental spending in the 30’s was that once it was cut the worst times ever seen was witnessed do to the unexpected blowbacks. President Obama obviously has the approval or our county, and we are all hoping that his actions will speak loader that his words.
Being a young investor in the market, I try to read and re-read what people across the board have to say about our economy. There are those outlooks from billionaires who differ greatly from the perspectives of middle class workers losing their 401K packages; all of which are valid impute to the progress of the market. There are other markets that have caused their very own downfall. For example the airline industries, which have given out far too many “frequent-flier miles” and has become difficult to generate profits which has forced them to reorganize. I have gained a sense of “spring cleaning” going on in the market over the last couple of months, yet I don’t feel as if it is such a bad thing. In times like these, organizations truly see who, what, and where money is being lost, giving them the opportunities to fix them if they would like to compete in this competitive capitalistic market.
I feel as if our President of the United States has still, a lot on his plate to handle. No matter Republican or Democrat, we are giving our trust to President Obama. We now need a commanding leader who can remove the once dominate superpower from a time of recession and become a commodity to the rest of the world yet again. As the President has stated, the push for alternative energies will be a part of the future that cannot be overlooked. Just from driving down I95, from the visible eye, one can tell there are far too many smoke stacks emitting who knows what, and many 300,000sq feet manufacturing buildings vacant looking for tenants. Haven outsourced all of our manufacturing across seas to receive cheaper labor costs, we as American’s must not forget our patriotic pride.
With over a trillion dollar budget projected for the next year, the need for such an investment to prosper is crucial for our country as a whole. As seen in the 1930’s, governmental spending can stimulate the economy and especially lower the unemployment rate. What was also learned from that governmental spending in the 30’s was that once it was cut the worst times ever seen was witnessed do to the unexpected blowbacks. President Obama obviously has the approval or our county, and we are all hoping that his actions will speak loader that his words.
Friday, March 20, 2009
"Government in the Sunshine Week?" What about our Media?
This might be a little off-topic, but I think that in tough economic times all is fair. First off, let me direct you to this interview with Jim Cramer and Jon Stewart. Now, now, I know Jon Stewart hosts a show that is notorious for having viewers who are pot heads and liberals (or worse....both!), but I think Stewart is probably one of the most level-headed political analysts out there, with a hilarious wit to boot (if you thought Colbert was funny, just pick up some literature by Stewart). So, please, sit down and watch the interview, as I really, really enjoyed what the two tackled in their conversation.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=220533
But let's put things in perspective here: we all know that the government should have transparency to its citizens, because after all, people should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people (hey, thanks, V for Vendetta!). But people like Cramer leave a lot of room for criticism, which of course goes without mentioning those lovely folks at AIG, Bernie Madoff and oh the list just goes on. When is it time for citizens of America to start taking control of their own economy? It seems so much like we're sitting back and going for the ride as government and the economic giants get to take action themselves. Additionally, Barack Obama is here to save us, right? Now I'm not going to be one to say that government needs to control the media. But why is it that we allow economics to become entertainment? I don't think it's ironic to think that C-SPAN is boring as hell. There are always political shows out there to voice opinions on political issues, which is fine. But when it comes to economics, you'd think things might be a bit more black and white. And, finally, the lack of oversight on the bailout money should enrage us as a nation.
What Stewart has to say about the media making bucks off of economics as entertainment reciprocates just as much to the people who watch these shows. What can the citizens of America do to these media giants to demand that they not toy with our money, and quite frankly, our livelihood? There are plenty of ways to do your own research to find who owns what company and what their political views are (there's a whole fiasco concerning a guitar company called Danelectro, for instance, and many people are boycotting their products indefinately because the owner is donating so much money to support California's Proposition 8). Perhaps there should be a "media in the sunshine week," because I think it's very obvious how much impact the media has on each and every one of us, despite how we like to point fingers at it, as well as the government.
I'm not going to sit here and say that I have the answer of how to fix media irresponsibility, especially considering their apathy for the well-being of their viewers. Nor do I really have the exact means of how to fix problems regarding the bailout, government oversight, and so on. But I think that it's really time more Americans had a voice, and I think Stewart's words in the interview have the capability of being that spark that us Americans need.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=220533
But let's put things in perspective here: we all know that the government should have transparency to its citizens, because after all, people should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people (hey, thanks, V for Vendetta!). But people like Cramer leave a lot of room for criticism, which of course goes without mentioning those lovely folks at AIG, Bernie Madoff and oh the list just goes on. When is it time for citizens of America to start taking control of their own economy? It seems so much like we're sitting back and going for the ride as government and the economic giants get to take action themselves. Additionally, Barack Obama is here to save us, right? Now I'm not going to be one to say that government needs to control the media. But why is it that we allow economics to become entertainment? I don't think it's ironic to think that C-SPAN is boring as hell. There are always political shows out there to voice opinions on political issues, which is fine. But when it comes to economics, you'd think things might be a bit more black and white. And, finally, the lack of oversight on the bailout money should enrage us as a nation.
What Stewart has to say about the media making bucks off of economics as entertainment reciprocates just as much to the people who watch these shows. What can the citizens of America do to these media giants to demand that they not toy with our money, and quite frankly, our livelihood? There are plenty of ways to do your own research to find who owns what company and what their political views are (there's a whole fiasco concerning a guitar company called Danelectro, for instance, and many people are boycotting their products indefinately because the owner is donating so much money to support California's Proposition 8). Perhaps there should be a "media in the sunshine week," because I think it's very obvious how much impact the media has on each and every one of us, despite how we like to point fingers at it, as well as the government.
I'm not going to sit here and say that I have the answer of how to fix media irresponsibility, especially considering their apathy for the well-being of their viewers. Nor do I really have the exact means of how to fix problems regarding the bailout, government oversight, and so on. But I think that it's really time more Americans had a voice, and I think Stewart's words in the interview have the capability of being that spark that us Americans need.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Confidence in a Tough Economy
Over this nation's history great leaders have stepped up to motivate and calm this nation when things seemed to be getting out of hand or we just needed to hear a clear voice. We look to our president for advice and encouragement, kind of like what a son or daughter asks from their parents. At this moment in time the American people are also asking this of Obama. He is responding back. In an article written by the AP and posted on www.foxnews.com, things are"not as bad as we think". This comes as unemployment rises and the economy steadily declines.
However, that's not really the point. We need people to calm down to start making smart, worth while decisions. That is the point that Obama is trying to make.
Again, we beg the question of how many roles does the president really have to fill? Is his job really doable? On top of the economic crisis, he's been having to fight hard for Gay's Rights as well as fighting for Embryo Research. These are just a couple of the many issues that the president faces. At times, it seems that we are asking too much from the president or maybe that we are ready to put the blame all on him if things fail, even though its the congress and his committees that are doing a lot of the work. The nation is not in a complete craze yet but things could start turning that way if people don't start seeing some improvements. Obama, then, has the job of pleasing the people and saving what seems to be a spiraling nation from economic disaster. Is that really in the job description or just another one of those implied powers?
Building confidence is also a double edged sword. This nation doesn't need anymore "false" hope. It's tough for the people to hear promises but see none of them really work out. Or to promise one thing but do another. We've somewhat already had that with the past president. Obama also knows he is walking a fine line. Sometimes all the people want to hear is that everything is going to be alright. Other times, they want to know they will be alright. He has to be careful in his wording and decision making to accomplish both.
However, that's not really the point. We need people to calm down to start making smart, worth while decisions. That is the point that Obama is trying to make.
"A smidgen of good news and suddenly everything is doing great. A little bit of bad news and 'Ooohh, we're down on the dumps,"' he said. "And I am obviously an object of this constantly varying assessment."
Again, we beg the question of how many roles does the president really have to fill? Is his job really doable? On top of the economic crisis, he's been having to fight hard for Gay's Rights as well as fighting for Embryo Research. These are just a couple of the many issues that the president faces. At times, it seems that we are asking too much from the president or maybe that we are ready to put the blame all on him if things fail, even though its the congress and his committees that are doing a lot of the work. The nation is not in a complete craze yet but things could start turning that way if people don't start seeing some improvements. Obama, then, has the job of pleasing the people and saving what seems to be a spiraling nation from economic disaster. Is that really in the job description or just another one of those implied powers?
Building confidence is also a double edged sword. This nation doesn't need anymore "false" hope. It's tough for the people to hear promises but see none of them really work out. Or to promise one thing but do another. We've somewhat already had that with the past president. Obama also knows he is walking a fine line. Sometimes all the people want to hear is that everything is going to be alright. Other times, they want to know they will be alright. He has to be careful in his wording and decision making to accomplish both.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Obama takes a stand in the right direction: stem cell research advances
Recently on March 9, 2009, the NY Times printed an article about President Obama and the new direction his administration is going in regards to stem cell research. This has been over the latest years a very controversial topic. In the Bush Administration stem cell research was not given any recognition nor profits to advance their research and now presently, Obama is lifting those strict limitations and giving researchers more room to explore. Part of the controversy is cloning, but President Obama is quoted by saying, "It's dangerous, and profoundly wrong and has no place in our society or any society," (Obama, 09). However, like the dangerous drawbacks to stem-cell research, there are also several positive ideas that could come of it including, reintegrating science into public policy and also by possibly helping to cure diseases.
In an article released by CBS on their website they discuss the possible positive effects of stem cell research. Scientists have recently discovered a way to produce stem-cells without killing embryos. By doing so they're able to replace organs that may be infected with a disease to cure diseases including Parkinson's and Diabetes. The fear at first was that the body would reject the stem cells but because they're made with one's own skin, the body is able to recognize the new cells and adapt them into the body. This could be a great step for scientific research nation-wide, however the fear of cloning may always link in the back of our minds.
What are other countries doing and thinking internationally? Well according to the Herald Tribune in Vatican city they're doing the opposite of praising the advancement of science, and instead are slamming it due to its immoral stature. The Vatican thinks it's a step in the wrong direction. He is quoted by saying in conclusion, 'there will be "no stopping point" if humans are treated as mere objects of research,' (Vatican, 09).
In the past year Europe has advanced as far as doing stem cell surgery. In the BBC News they released a story about Surgeon's in Spain that performed a surgery on a woman's windpipe. They implanted an entirely new organ made with the woman's own stem cells. The woman had had a disease and thus had to replace it, thus they took a deceased trachea from a donor patient and combined it with chemicals that could clean it completely before transplanting it. Than applied the new stem cells onto the tissues and placed it into her body. As previously stated, by doing so the surgeon is able to trick your body to think that the new organ is a part of your body so that the body does not reject it.
It's in these ways that in our lifetime we will be able to see the advancement of stem cell research work in ways as to help cure diseases and create a new direction for science involvement in public policies. The more it is accepted internationally, I feel the more it will be accepted here in the U.S.
Drug Czar being Demoted
President Obama is removing the position of Drug Czar from a cabinet ranking office. The position of Drug Czar was first a cabinet member in 1988, because of Anti-Drug Abuse Act. Vice President Joe Biden first coined the title in 1982; he was somewhat of a zealot in his campaign against drugs. Biden said of medical marijuana “We have not devoted nearly enough science or time to deal with the pain management and chronic pain management that exists. There’s got to be a better answer than marijuana.” Ironically in 1989 Biden criticized then President Bush’s downgrade of the position of Drug Czar from cabinet level position. George W. Bush again made Drug Czar a cabinet position in 2001, now in 2008 drugs are seemingly less of an issue than they have ever been. The vice president announced the nomination of Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske as the new Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy; his position will no longer be a cabinet level one. Of this downgrade the administration says that it is “is fortunate to have a vice president with an unrivaled breadth of knowledge about federal drug policy," says an administration official. "Never before has there been someone with this level of knowledge who is as close to the president as Vice President Biden”. Is the downgrade of the position of drug czar a sign of changing perceptions about drug use and the best ways to deal with it? Many illegal drugs such as Marijuana could and do have medical uses, maybe the administration is taking step to a more tolerant policy on drugs in general. President Obama himself has admitted he tried cocaine and marijuana. Another reason possibly for the change in position is that there is just too much else to worry about. The war in Iraq, a failing economy etc... Etc... Is a War on Drugs really that important anymore? With so much brutality in the drug trade i.e. the Mexican Border, legalization could possibly stop much of that violence. In the end a person’s body is their own and should the government really be allowed to tell one what to put in it?
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Highways and Byways
Today’s new stimulus package with regards to new construction and infrastructure sparks an interest in my mind. Such projects are designed to create new jobs, strengthen highways and byways, as well as create long-term structures that are built to last. Having spent summers laying driveways, sidewalks, and other similar projects, a few things in terms of “long-run improvements” become questionable with the methods we use here in the United States. Our opinion of long-term investment, for roads anyways, here in the U.S. is a stretch to say they will last ten or more years. Whereas places such as France and England; an investment in such a project that will last sometimes three times as long.
My argument begins with the research of England’s department of works and engineering. Such methods of construction used in England are designed and actually hold their value for thirty or more years from the time of completion. Roads, bridges, and walkways are only as good as the ground they are built on. From the persons I have spoken with as well as the readings that coincide, England in particular, are far more advanced in terms of spending more initially for construction and far less often. With the extra monies spent on materials and labor up front, it allows for a lot less spending overall, and specifically far less frequently on reoccurring issues. Complex methods of compacting sub grades and base prep such as coarse gravels and crushed stone allows for the implantation of an asphalt road way that does not need to be replaced every ten years; a true long-term investment.
We in the United States travel on roads that are far from comfortable each day. Whether it is frost heaves, washouts, pot holes, or deteriorating road conditions, we as American’s pay top dollar for such roads, as well as top dollar to get out automobiles fixed when the shocks, struts, or breaks go. If billions of dollars from this stimulus package will be dispersed throughout the country for road improvements and new infrastructure, shouldn’t these projects last? I find myself asking questions as to why we invest in such projects that are anything but long-term. Although initial cost for a place like England are far more alarming, have we ever stopped to look at how much money is lost due to poor construction and poor planning?
If companies need funding and bailout plans, it simply means what they we offering prior did not fully meet the needs our structure. Construction follows along the same line. Roads that cost millions and billions of dollars each year should probably be reassessed. There are other countries out there, such as England, who realized what is needed to be done in order to not spend outstanding amounts of money every ten years. Monies allocated for roadways and similar construction project are suppose to be considered long-term investments, not something that needs to be addressed only ten years after the fact. We as the United States have the capability and influence to create a more permanent method of travel that can endure the tough weather and ware from constant travel and salt applications. The one question I ask is, why haven’t we?
My argument begins with the research of England’s department of works and engineering. Such methods of construction used in England are designed and actually hold their value for thirty or more years from the time of completion. Roads, bridges, and walkways are only as good as the ground they are built on. From the persons I have spoken with as well as the readings that coincide, England in particular, are far more advanced in terms of spending more initially for construction and far less often. With the extra monies spent on materials and labor up front, it allows for a lot less spending overall, and specifically far less frequently on reoccurring issues. Complex methods of compacting sub grades and base prep such as coarse gravels and crushed stone allows for the implantation of an asphalt road way that does not need to be replaced every ten years; a true long-term investment.
We in the United States travel on roads that are far from comfortable each day. Whether it is frost heaves, washouts, pot holes, or deteriorating road conditions, we as American’s pay top dollar for such roads, as well as top dollar to get out automobiles fixed when the shocks, struts, or breaks go. If billions of dollars from this stimulus package will be dispersed throughout the country for road improvements and new infrastructure, shouldn’t these projects last? I find myself asking questions as to why we invest in such projects that are anything but long-term. Although initial cost for a place like England are far more alarming, have we ever stopped to look at how much money is lost due to poor construction and poor planning?
If companies need funding and bailout plans, it simply means what they we offering prior did not fully meet the needs our structure. Construction follows along the same line. Roads that cost millions and billions of dollars each year should probably be reassessed. There are other countries out there, such as England, who realized what is needed to be done in order to not spend outstanding amounts of money every ten years. Monies allocated for roadways and similar construction project are suppose to be considered long-term investments, not something that needs to be addressed only ten years after the fact. We as the United States have the capability and influence to create a more permanent method of travel that can endure the tough weather and ware from constant travel and salt applications. The one question I ask is, why haven’t we?
Monday, March 2, 2009
Abe Lincoln Number 1
It has been 200 hundred years since the birth of our beloved Abraham Lincoln. In February 65 historians ranked Lincoln as the number one US President. The Presidents in this article were ranked in 10catergoires and Lincoln was able to the top three in each of the 10 categories. Another study of this type was done in 2000 by CPSAN. Edna Medford points out that “presidential reputations are influenced by present-day concerns” Under Lincoln, Gorge Washington, FDR, Teddy Roosevelt and Harry Truman reached top ranking spots.
It is interesting to see that Lincoln takes the top spot out of all the presidents. One must ask the question if Abraham Lincoln would not have died would he still be ranked number one? As the years continue to progress and technology excels historians are able to discover new things that can unleash new theories. Who knows maybe one day Gorge W Bush will rank higher than 36.
Check the article out at
http://wcbstv.com/politics/us.president.rankings.2.935860.html
It is interesting to see that Lincoln takes the top spot out of all the presidents. One must ask the question if Abraham Lincoln would not have died would he still be ranked number one? As the years continue to progress and technology excels historians are able to discover new things that can unleash new theories. Who knows maybe one day Gorge W Bush will rank higher than 36.
Check the article out at
http://wcbstv.com/politics/us.president.rankings.2.935860.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)