I SAY NO!!!

A few weeks ago we discussed in class the need for drilling for natural gas and a new technology called fracking. Fracking is the propagation of fractures in a rock layer by a pressurized fluid. Some of the chemicals they use can contaminate water by leakage, and can be harmful to the environment.

I know this has already been blogged about, but last week I went home and learned something very disturbing. Oil companies plan on “dumping” said chemicals and diesel chemicals in to holding pits only 5 miles from my home in either direction. Whats even more disturbing is the fact that the chemicals will be stored in a cliché pit that will have no liner. The reason they will have no liner is because the diesel chemicals will eat away at the liner.

I have talked with several biology professors at schreiner and several governmental groups like the Railroad Commissions to find out exactly how this could impact the environment. The railroad commissioners assure me that the town hall meetings we have been having is gain understanding and express our concerns to prevent the company from obtaining the permits. Furthermore, they assure me that if the company obtains the permits (which it probably will) the EPA will have many requirements for them to uphold.  Having had discussions with my professors, they tell me that it depends on which chemicals they will be dumping if it will be harmful or not, and they believe that the caliche pits will not only not be good chemical holders, but they will also not be good filters for any leakage. 

What I have yet to mention is that these pits will be sitting over an aquifer and if this aquifer gets contaminated, it can contaminate all the way to the gulf of mexico (about 50 miles) affecting hundreds and thousands of homes. I don’t know about the everyones opinion on this, but I am very against this. It can harm the environment, decrease property values, and hurt our agricultural community. 

Please give your feedback. 

U.S Poverty

          In class we have talked about all kinds of issues from environmental situations to technology wars. When thinking about how many countries cannot keep up with technology because of cost, it made me think about how many of those countries are also  in poverty. Not only did it make me think of just the third world countries, it even make me think about all of the Americans in “my own back yard” who are living in poverty right now.    

            In 2010, more than 46.2 million Americans lived in poverty (ABC News). With that number cited there, you might be asking yourself what is exactly does living in poverty mean? According to Yahoo News, The Census Bureau in 2011, defined poverty as "any individual living on an income of  less than $11,139, or any family of four living on less than $22,314. But that measure, developed over 40 years ago, is inexact at best. It doesn't include non-cash benefits-things such as food and housing subsidies—that can play a key role in supporting families. Nor does the Census definition take into account the large differences in the cost of living in different part of the country, or expenses such as child-care" (Yahoo News). The U.S is not the only country being affected by poverty rates, everyone around the world is.

            Poverty in the U.S. does not look as bad when compared to third world countries, like those on the African continent. The U.S. has many safety nets for those in poverty. The U.S. tries and hides the facts to everyone around the world including those in the United States that many U.S. citizens do live in poverty. I believe that we try to hide it because we are trying to live up to the expectations of the U.S. being a strong country, and we do not want to show weakness. Although the U.S. tries to hide it, the government also has many different ways of helping families out that are in need. For example, the U.S. sets up subsidized housing, welfare programs such as food stamps, Medicaid, and WICS for single mothers and infants.

            The children of America are very important to the government, and it also provides multiple ways to make sure that every child that attends school does not go hungry while learning. The government does not want to punish the children for their parent’s economic status, so students whose

parents do not make a large income can receive free breakfast and lunches. This program (The National School Lunch Program) helps many children in public, nonprofit private schooling and residential child care across the nation. This program keeps some kids from starving. A number of children only get those two meals a day from school because their family cannot afford to buy food.          

            One question you might be asking yourself, is race an issue in the total number in poverty? I did find the percentages of people on welfare by race, as of 2012. The list included Blacks first at 39.8%, then Whites at 38.8%, then Hispanic at 15.7%, other ethic groups at 3.3%, and Asian at 2.4% (Statistic Brain). 

            Living in poverty can also be a mental state. It is up to the families as to how they are going to live, and not every family is up to working hard and getting off welfare. Welfare to some is just an entitlement replacing achievement. A major factor that I think that helps explain most poverty in the United States is that lack personal motivation. For example, some kids who live with their families have too much family support when it comes to money, so when they have to go out in the real world, they end up failing. Other things to consider are the dropout rates, the availability of care programs that we have to offer, and the economic class system. It all goes back to lack of motivation, without motivation to do anything, you just get stuck in poverty and rely on the government for a handout. Poverty in the United States will never be eradicated but “stuck in poverty” has more to do with mental state than monetary state.  

Spreading of Technology

I will be discussing the programs that give computers to third world countries.  It seems like a great idea and there are a lot of positives but what are some negatives?

A negative could be that it exposes the children to different types of cultures and the older population might not be ok with that.  Also, if the government of the nation does not like what is being looked at on the computer that too can cause friction between the population and the government.

What are your thoughts on these type of programs? Are they all good?

Scaled Down Population Statistics

While on Pinterest, I found a link to the diagram to the left. It shows varying statistics based on the world being only made of 100 people. The statistics are the same as with the current population, just on a much smaller scale.

Honestly, I found the statistics shocking. When it is on a larger scale it doesn't seem like that many people. But when it is only on a scale of 100, it suddenly looks so much larger.

The statistic I found most surprising was the one on college education. In today's time it seems that everyone goes to college or is in college. My friend pointed out to me that this diagram is based on the world, not just America. In America, it may be true that most go to college, but when averaged with the rest of the world's population, it is only a small percentage.

Another statstic I found surprising was the one with the nationality divisions. It often seems that North America is the powerhouse of the world, and that the majority of the population is in that region. But Asia's population is much more dense than North America's, so it makes sense that Asia is at 61/100, while North America is only 13/100.

What is your opinion? Do you think this is an accurate diagram? What is most surprising to you?

Shoes Movement, Helpful or Hurtful?

Shoes. Something we, in America, consider to be an everyday commodity. But in some parts of the world, shoes are a luxury. Shoes impact more of a person’s life than I originally thought. I knew there were health risks with not wearing shoes, such as injuries and infections. But it is more than that. For children, not having shoes to wear could mean not receiving an education, because in some schools, shoes are required to attend classes.

Toms is a popular shoe brand, with a variety of styles to accommodate men, women, children, and infants. But the company does much more than just shoe production. Toms has a “one for one” program, where every time a Toms shoe is bought, the company matches that and gives a shoe to a child in need. They provide shoes to children in countries such as El Salvador, Malawi, Peru, and Haiti. The corporation has grown over the last few years and now not only provide a one to one trade for shoes, but also a one to one trade for eyeglasses. Toms also assists in funding eye exams, and eye surgery.

By providing shoes to underprivileged countries, Toms is reducing the money families spend on shoes, allowing that money to be spent elsewhere. However, there has been a controversy over just how much good Toms is actually doing. A blog countering Toms approach describes their intentions as "good marketing, bad aid." While it is a noble mission, it is doing about as much harm as it is good. When shoes are given for free, it takes away from the local markets and removes jobs as shoemakers.

Regardless of whether or not you support the cause, Toms' marketing strategies, and the form by which they raise awareness is one to be modeled after. One Day Without Shoes, is a global event where people go an entire day without wearing shoes to raise awareness on the impact shoes can have on a child's life.

I want to hear your opinion, is what Toms is doing hurting or helping?

Bomb Threats

This week alone at Texas A&M University in College Station there have been many bomb threats called in. This post is very personal to me because I have a ton of friends that go to there. Since I speak to my friends daily, they have been telling me that despite the threats, class is still going on there. To me this was not only very concerning for the safety of all the people, but I almost cried at the thought of such violence. When I searched the news, I found an article that said that the reason why class was still in attendance is because the Bomb threats weren't credible. However, they took "measures" by heightening security. 

According to Texas A&M's website, a bomb threat is defined as "a verbal threat to detonate an explosive or incendiary device to cause property damage or injuries, whether or not such a device actually exists." Also, their protocol, if having received a call, is to evacuate buildings and classes. You can read more about their protocols here. 

While I am sure they had reason to believe that these threats weren’t credible it still concerns me that they continued on with class. I also believe that since this is the week before spring break some crazy student wanted to get out of class. But this does not dismiss the fact that the bomb threats could have been real. 

A few years ago in 2010, there was believed to be shooter in a tower. While it turned out to be nothing but a student with a toy gun, classes were dismissed, the campus evacuated, and police called in (cant find a link for this but I remember this myself). I remember calling my friends a million times to make sure they were ok. I was so worried to the point when one of them didn’t answer that I cried. 

My point is, is if this much effort is taken for a potential shooting, why not for bomb threats? A bomb could kill way more people than a gun could if both threats were real. Also, a bomb could destroy a whole building. 

To me, all of this unsettling and very scary to think of. I wonder if Schreiner had a bomb threat, how would security handle that? I would like to think security would take it very seriously. Also, I wonder if bigger schools are more likely to brush it off and smaller schools are willing to take it more seriously? Also, I wonder if this is more common in bigger cities? What do you think? 

Robo- Barbie

What is the next major advancement in technology? Man invented the wheel and now the iPhone. Robotic machinery was invented to serve mankind doing repetitive tasks accurately and with no mistakes.  The idea of robots though as substitute people has been advanced in Japan … robots no longer just being used in a utilitarian capacity but now becoming … real people, real people, friends, playmates maybe even replacements for children, husbands and wives. When your human child creates chaos they go to timeout; when the robot throws a rod they get repaired, reprogrammed or turned off. Who needs the aggravation of real life with real problems?

             Maybe Mattel’ s next big project could be Robo-Barbie and Robo-Ken. They would look like a full-sized child or even adults and will have many different features, which will allow the parents or the children to have endless fun. Robo-Barbie and Robo-Ken will be the next hot toy… a technological toy that everyone wants.

Picture you lying in bed late at night and one of those info-commercials comes on:

 “Do you have a young child that is just a handful and you do not have the time to take care of them? Do you have child that does not play with others very well? Or maybe you do not have time to take your child on a play date.  Don’t be concerned, don’t worry, we have just the toy for you!  Robo-Barbie and Robo-Ken are the toys you need, but get them while supplies last. Robot playmates are a safe economical replacement for peer pressure toys, clothes and expensive vacations. The Robo-Twins can even call your children, texting them the latest gossip and through Blue Tooth, send them the latest Hollywood and music news.

No longer will your children be faced with sex and drug enticements. The Robo-Twins are a great alternative to that crabby old best friend. The Robots can even babysit.

Barbie and Ken could also be a teacher, a friend, a lover. They could teach the alphabet and even read to you. You could load books on to their hard drive and they could read out loud to your child. While Robo-Barbie and Robo-Ken will surpass the Turing Test designed for adults, you will also come to love them as much as your children.

The new improved Barbie and Ken is a toy you can take anywhere and not worry about being lonely. They would have real life features like eyes that blink, a heartbeat, and even fake blood. You can choose from different sized Robo-Barbies and Robo-Kens. Choose the size, the color, the race, be the first on your block. You could even choose Baby Robo-Barbie. If you wanted to you could feed them and they could fake pee and poop, and you could change its diaper if you wanted. It would act almost like a real life human.” Or as the advertisement might say: “Maybe you don’t need real children; you just need Robo-Barbie.”

        Will robo-technology be an advancement to serve humans or a substitute for human interaction? Will humans find it easier to live with the perfect sister, son, or husband? Can robo-technology transplant Robo-Barbie in our affections where love has no downside? Can we create a robot with a soul? More questions than answers?