Friday, December 13, 2013
Diplomacy Does Not Solve Everything
I chose to criticize The Bemused Citizen blog on using diplomacy as a weapon of peace. First of all, I completely agree with making peace rather than bombarding countries with our military force. It is not the right way to handle every situations. But my problem with this article is that not every situation can be handled with negotiations. The article fails to show proof that the diplomacy will solve everything. Their has been some situations in other countries that America had to use military force such as Holocaust. We weren't going to wait till more thousands of people are dead. The military force is what created America to be one of the strongest and reliable country today. The other countries are out to get us and wants to see us suffer. The military force is the way to go in some situations to protect the Americans that relies on the government to protect us and make choices on what's best for our nation.
Sunday, December 1, 2013
Homeless Left To Starved
In the article As Homeless Line Up for Food, Los Angeles Weighs Restrictions written by Adam Nagourney writes about the problems with giving free food to the homeless and the collateral damage they have to deal with afterwards. The Los Angeles City Council's only solution is to ban the feeding of homeless people in public spaces or restrict the amount of food given to them. After 27 years of giving food to the homeless by the Greater West Hollywood Food Coalition to give the unfortunate ones food to keep them from starving to death. Somehow Its decided its not right because of the two calls from two Los Angeles City Council members to banned them from giving food to the homeless.
The article is biased towards the comfort of people who has money and power in the society. In one paragraph of the article, an actor says, "If you give out free food on the street with no other services to deal with the collateral damage, you get hundreds of people beginning to squat" then he goes on saying how his neighborhood is looking more like a mental ward. How can an actor call the unfortunate one's mental when their just trying to survive? I can understand the frustration but its not reasonable enough to want to starve people just because you feel uncomfortable with another human being. Also its hard to believe when the complaint is coming from an actor who has money and power.
My parents has always taught my siblings and I to always help each other out no matter what. Isn't that what were suppose to do? As a person we are suppose to want to help those in need and especially when they are at their lowest. How is banning food a solution? I thought as a government they are suppose to help situations better not make them worse. The author focuses on only the negativeness about the homeless. The homeless people are only perceived as collateral damage to the communities. What about the other homeless people who does not cause any problems? Nagourney only focuses on the problems. Also instead of complaining the two council members could have used its power, money and influence to make the situation better not get rid of.
If banning the food is their solution it is only making matters worse when numerous of people die on the streets because we decided not to help them. No one can understand the problems and struggles the homeless people go through everyday. We are not to judge and call them collateral damage. As humans we are suppose to help those in need not turn our backs.
The article is biased towards the comfort of people who has money and power in the society. In one paragraph of the article, an actor says, "If you give out free food on the street with no other services to deal with the collateral damage, you get hundreds of people beginning to squat" then he goes on saying how his neighborhood is looking more like a mental ward. How can an actor call the unfortunate one's mental when their just trying to survive? I can understand the frustration but its not reasonable enough to want to starve people just because you feel uncomfortable with another human being. Also its hard to believe when the complaint is coming from an actor who has money and power.
My parents has always taught my siblings and I to always help each other out no matter what. Isn't that what were suppose to do? As a person we are suppose to want to help those in need and especially when they are at their lowest. How is banning food a solution? I thought as a government they are suppose to help situations better not make them worse. The author focuses on only the negativeness about the homeless. The homeless people are only perceived as collateral damage to the communities. What about the other homeless people who does not cause any problems? Nagourney only focuses on the problems. Also instead of complaining the two council members could have used its power, money and influence to make the situation better not get rid of.
If banning the food is their solution it is only making matters worse when numerous of people die on the streets because we decided not to help them. No one can understand the problems and struggles the homeless people go through everyday. We are not to judge and call them collateral damage. As humans we are suppose to help those in need not turn our backs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)