Political Commentary
After reading Nate's blog just a few minutes ago, I got the great idea to respond to what he talked about and bring up some other political ideas of my own. Sorry Nate, but this probably will be longer than would be prudent to fit into a comment box.
First off, I would like to say that I agree with your comment about politics becoming too egocentric for our government to function properly. Remember that Thomas Jefferson (a "founding father" if you will) said that we should have a "revolution" every 20 years or so and replace the current form of government so that the old one could not be corrupted. Well, a revolution may not be what we should do, but the idea I think is still very viable. If it could only work without as much turmoil that it would cause. As for politicians who look out for people not of the upper class, there are some, just few and far between. One died in a plane, as is the case of Sen. Paul Wellstone, or they leave the government because it has become all about money, Sen. Mark Dayton.
I also just read up on the transportation bill in question that you talked about as well. As an environmental engineering major, a major branch of civil engineering, I was at first happy to see the dollar ammount spent since that means there will be a lot of civil engineers who will not have to worry about having enough work and it goes to show that no matter what the kind of financial situation the country is in, there will always be work for civil and environmental engineers. After looking at the article more closely, I am starting to feel like the bill is more than a little wastefull. While I agree that everyone should have new and safe roads to drive on, quite a few of the projects listed under the 1,000 page bill are totally un-related. For example, there is about $3 million going towards making a documentary on infrastructure advancements in Alaska. Wasnt this supposed to be a bill for builing better roads? At least the federal government is not in charge of handling the projects, they're giving money to each state and letting the state's decide which projects need more money and so forth. the downside to this system is that the ammount of money each state recieves is dependant on how much of a gas tax each state has, so the more of a gas tax, the more money a state will get. Good for your state of WI, but bad for my state of MN. I always wondered if we would ever get punished for having less of a gas tax than WI, and now I know that we are. I guess another impact that someone could suggest might happen from the improved roads is more driving, causing the gas prices to go up again. It's a vicious circle isnt it?
I'll try to keep my comments on the energy bill short. Yes, I agree that giving more money to the oil companies is a horrible idea, but in the article it mentions a new generation of nuclear power generators, and then dismisses them. Why?!? Even though I'm an environmental engineering major like I stated earlier, I'm a huge supporter of nuclear power. Its clean, efficient, and doesnt produce green house gases. The only downside is what to do with what is produced. Eventually it needs to be handled, even if you run it through a different nuclear reactor. Even with this drawback, I still feel that it is the best opportunity, and I hope that the country does not miss its chance to do this and greatly reduce our thirst for oil.
That's the news from Rollingstone. Thanks for reading.
Otto III
First off, I would like to say that I agree with your comment about politics becoming too egocentric for our government to function properly. Remember that Thomas Jefferson (a "founding father" if you will) said that we should have a "revolution" every 20 years or so and replace the current form of government so that the old one could not be corrupted. Well, a revolution may not be what we should do, but the idea I think is still very viable. If it could only work without as much turmoil that it would cause. As for politicians who look out for people not of the upper class, there are some, just few and far between. One died in a plane, as is the case of Sen. Paul Wellstone, or they leave the government because it has become all about money, Sen. Mark Dayton.
I also just read up on the transportation bill in question that you talked about as well. As an environmental engineering major, a major branch of civil engineering, I was at first happy to see the dollar ammount spent since that means there will be a lot of civil engineers who will not have to worry about having enough work and it goes to show that no matter what the kind of financial situation the country is in, there will always be work for civil and environmental engineers. After looking at the article more closely, I am starting to feel like the bill is more than a little wastefull. While I agree that everyone should have new and safe roads to drive on, quite a few of the projects listed under the 1,000 page bill are totally un-related. For example, there is about $3 million going towards making a documentary on infrastructure advancements in Alaska. Wasnt this supposed to be a bill for builing better roads? At least the federal government is not in charge of handling the projects, they're giving money to each state and letting the state's decide which projects need more money and so forth. the downside to this system is that the ammount of money each state recieves is dependant on how much of a gas tax each state has, so the more of a gas tax, the more money a state will get. Good for your state of WI, but bad for my state of MN. I always wondered if we would ever get punished for having less of a gas tax than WI, and now I know that we are. I guess another impact that someone could suggest might happen from the improved roads is more driving, causing the gas prices to go up again. It's a vicious circle isnt it?
I'll try to keep my comments on the energy bill short. Yes, I agree that giving more money to the oil companies is a horrible idea, but in the article it mentions a new generation of nuclear power generators, and then dismisses them. Why?!? Even though I'm an environmental engineering major like I stated earlier, I'm a huge supporter of nuclear power. Its clean, efficient, and doesnt produce green house gases. The only downside is what to do with what is produced. Eventually it needs to be handled, even if you run it through a different nuclear reactor. Even with this drawback, I still feel that it is the best opportunity, and I hope that the country does not miss its chance to do this and greatly reduce our thirst for oil.
That's the news from Rollingstone. Thanks for reading.
Otto III
posted by Otto at 4:10 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home