Olson

Bush is in the House!

2004-11-04T09:02:00.000-08:00

After receiving the newsletter “Kerry Concedes Defeat; Bush Wins Second Term” from The Washington Post, I was very relieved. Although I did not vote, I had my hopes up that Bush would win a second term in office. It was a close call in Ohio, which almost ended up being like the 2000 election with the drama of the Florida ballots. However, after Kerry realized that he would not win, he called President Bush and conceded.
Although I wasn’t able to vote, due to the fact that I am still registered in my home town and had a test scheduled in one of my classes so that I could not go home, I anxiously watched the news to see who won. When I finally quit watching, Bush had 210 electoral votes compared to Kerry’s one hundred and some votes. However, since there was controversy over Ohio’s polls, the winner was not determined last night. I, as well as everyone else, I’m sure, was disappointed in this. Having to wait to find out who our next President will be just causes the anticipation to rise since that person will control our country for the next four or eight years. However, I was overly excited to find that Bush will continue with a second term in office.
As with every election, some will be disappointed with the results while others will be grateful that Bush won. Although both men have certain qualities that would make them great leaders, I feel that Bush has the needed experience because you can’t change leaders in the middle of a war. Bush may have caused one of the biggest controversies by going to war; yet, you can’t just pull them out like Kerry had planned. You have to finish what you started.

What about us?

2004-10-19T10:28:00.000-07:00

Until just recently, I was unaware of the fact that by the time we are eligible to receive social security, there won't be any. Therefore, it is very hard to believe that the Social Security Administration has just issued an increase in Supplemental Security Income. According to Martin Crutsinger, "more than 47 million Americans receiving Social Security will get a 2.7 percent increase - an extra $25, on average." However, he did also indicate that most of the additional money will be spent on Medicare premiums. Granted, those who receive SSI will need the money to keep pace with the increasing cost of living, but what will we use when we become of age to receive social security? All of the money taken out of our paychecks is used to support the generations ahead of us. Yet, at the rate we are going, nothing will even compare to what we will need to survive. Therefore, I'm sure we can all agree that something or someone needs to be placed into action. It has been mentioned that it would be possible for social security to be set up as independent accounts with each person receiving the money deducted from his or her check. That is a great idea, but when would that be placed into effect, and who would still receive what little money is left from current social security. Those who are somewhat older will be less fortunate in that they have less time to work towards saving their social security. As for us, we have already lost part of what could have been our own. Social Security is very beneficial. However, it doesn't benefit everyone. What ever happened to equality for all? Something needs to be done in order to assure our generation that we will be taken care of. I think its great that the older generations are being taken care of, but how will we, the ones who are helping to support the older generations, survive when it comes down to our turn?

Bush v. Kerry

2004-10-04T15:22:00.000-07:00

Although I did not watch the presidential debate between Kerry and Bush, I have heard many others’ opinions about it. After reading the article posted by Richard Reeves, I wish I would have watched, because all he talked about was how badly President Bush preformed. Reeves quoted Peter Canellos, "Bush's repetition seemed insistent rather than firm, and his body language -- sighing, clenching his teeth, rolling his eyes -- suggested a man on the defensive." Reeves mentioned that Bush seemed on the defensive as his opponent mentioned issues on the war in Iraq. Yet, doesn’t everyone usually take the offensive when running up against your opponent? Because you are up against one another, you often feel offended when they make references to the decisions you have made. After all, an opponent is also referred to an “antagonist or competitor.” Therefore, it is human nature to get angry. I agree that Bush should keep his cool a little better. However, I can see why President Bush would be on the defensive. I have heard many people discuss how poorly Bush does on debates, but that doesn’t mean that he is a bad leader. Within his article, Reeves also criticized Bush by saying “The only people we know the president listens to are members of his small court, led by Vice President Cheney, who has been pushing the preposterous for the past three years.” He claims that Bush only listens to his cabinet members and that he is like the boy in a bubble who is protected by them from all of the harm and voices outside. Yet, the cabinet is a committee of senior government advisors. Therefore, they are the ones who “advise” him. Why wouldn’t he listen to them? President Bush is doing the best he can in office. He made a decision to go to war, and he is dealing with the consequences of everyone’s scrutiny, which is why he probably took the defensive on this issue during the debate. Yet, not everyone is born to do well in debates. Kerry may have done a better job on the debate than Bush, but I don’t think that he has the right leadership skills to be president. Therefore, Bush remains the winner in my book!

Lack of info or lack of interest?

2004-09-20T08:24:00.000-07:00

Posted in the Kansas City Star was the dispute of the Landmark tobacco case. Within the article, the Department of Justice accuses the tobacco companies who “defrauded and misled the American public for almost 50 years about the health risks of cigarette smoking.” As a smoker myself, I must ask the rest of you if you missed the big “Warning” on the package of your cigarettes when you went to light up.
Every since I can remember, I have always been told that smoking is bad, it’s addictive, and you can die. Even though I was aware of this, I still lit up. Yet, I was not alone in doing so. There are millions of us in this world. I admit that those who began smoking several years ago before they knew that smoking was addictive could have an argument. However, it is common sense that smoking is a bad habit that is harmful to your body. Although some may not have known the extent of the harmful affects, those of us who do now, have no excuse. I feel that we were not lied to. I think that all of us were aware of the affects that smoking could have on us. Yet, we continue to choose to harm our bodies. This argument, in my opinion, will only work for those who truly were unaware of the affects of smoking. Yet, it is hard to believe that anyone could be so naïve. I just feel that all of us understand the consequences as smokers. Therefore, I don’t see how the Department of Justice can accuse the tobacco companies of “misleading the American public.”

Religion and Controversy

2004-09-16T10:02:00.000-07:00

I recently read an article listed in the Washington Post titled “Openly Religious, to a Point.” Throughout the article, the issues of President Bush’s religious views are questioned. Some wonder what Bush’s religious views are because he “speaks softly” about what he believes. Yet, I don’t understand why it has to be spelled out for everyone. As the President of the United States, one has the duty to serve and represent the entire population of the U.S. If President Bush were to discuss his religious beliefs, then his reasons for enforcing political policies and decisions would always be questioned. People who hold different beliefs than the President would feel misrepresented because they would feel that Bush was going off of his religious beliefs. I agree that Bush probably agrees and disagrees with certain issues because of his beliefs, but that isn’t what always affects our thinking. Many people declare themselves of a certain religion. Yet, some of these people also disagree with certain aspects of a chosen religion. Therefore, one cannot strictly determine if someone, or Bush, makes a decision based on their religion or a view they hold. Because there are so many, religion should not play a role in the issues that develop America.
Each individual holds their own views; therefore, if Bush were to discuss his position on religion, many people would be offended when he makes decisions even if it weren’t based upon his religious beliefs. People are always going to look for an argument or reason to disagree. Therefore, I feel that religion should be left out of it.

Sixteen Year Old Murderers Aren't Adults

2004-09-07T07:56:00.000-07:00

In the state of Missouri, it is understood by most that one is considered an adult at the age of eighteen. When referring to “adult” we will mean mature and of legal age. Therefore, a sixteen year old male who shot and killed one man and seriously injured the victim’s fiancé in a carjacking would be tried as a juvenile, right? He’s only sixteen, which makes him a minor. One might think that should be the case, but why, then, are the courts debating to try him as an adult?
I find it funny how the rules always seem to bend in favor of the state government. Adults are supposed to be mature, meaning that they are grown-up, experienced, and or responsible. Consider this with the sixteen year old male. He’s obviously not what we would define as mature. More importantly, he isn’t of legal age which makes me ask why you can try him as an adult. Yes, he committed murder, and yes I agree that he should have to pay serious consequences. What I don’t agree with is how you don’t consider, for instance, a responsible sixteen year old supporting themselves and being an abiding citizen of the state of Missouri as an adult. Yet, when a sixteen year old kills someone, and proves that they are not mature or responsible, you deem them to be an adult? I’m not necessarily saying that the benefit of being regarded as an adult is unfair, because I wouldn’t consider it a privilege if I were the sixteen year old boy. However, as the responsible, independent, sixteen year old, I would want to be recognized as an adult because it would benefit me. Of course, this is not the case. It seems that the system is always working in your favor to hold back the ones who deserve the title, and lock away those who don’t.
As crime continues to grow and more and more minors begin to get involved, I believe that who you consider to be an “adult” needs to be justified. I agree that breaking the law has consequences, but your law indicates that one must be eighteen to be an adult. Therefore, it either needs to be followed or changed so that the rules apply to all and don’t have to be altered to fit your needs.