What I Appreciate About Our Government

Of all things that I am grateful for what country does and can do, I often forget to mention what things I am proud of what our government does.
Sorry
I tend to have focused on it's faults, instead of it's good things.
In reality, I have often been more proud of my country, our government and even the attempt of our politicians. I tend to support much of what my country does but, for some unusual reason, I have not lately.... usually due to mistakes made by politicians who think they're better... Or have greater intelligence....  I have unfortunately focused on it's numerous negatives instead of mentioning the great things that our government does. Now, although any government solve any social ill, issue, cultural movements or force people to change all of their habits, there are plenty of good things and ideas that have helped society.

First.....
Government cannot help every issue.
Government should be a last resort (unless it's an emergency, like horrible weather and natural disasters)
When government doesn't work, that sector/industry/program should be cut out and a different solution should be tried.

Now....
Our military is the best in the world! 
Government is excellent to help you out when there is no charity to help you.
It helps veterans when they return home and helps them out, during the transition back into "civilian life."
It has helped people get out of some "cracks" in society.
It has protected many of your rights from being violated by others or even other government organizations.
It ensures that contractual obligations are fulfilled when something was wrong during the transaction.
My current Senator, although we may disagree on several issues, is often willing to listen to the people she represents.
Humanitarian Aid, although controversial to many sides of the fence, is something I am proud of.
The FDA, although controversial, arguable has prevented numerous pharma companies from selling useless/harmful items to those that had no clue....
The EPA, although controversial, protects the environment in numerous ways...
The IRS, although controversial, has big shoes to fill by collecting taxes and regulating all of the hundreds of pages of tax code.

There are plenty more, and I'll add more later!

Hurricane Katrina Response. What happened (with sources)

This is soley about the reponse of the Hurrican Katrina. That is it.

        Hurricane Katrina was a large response from the US. There were many faults that happened, but some people were blamed when it wasn’t their fault. Bush was put to blame when he had nothing to do with the response. It was a failure on many, many hands but for some reason…people were blamed. You can start at this source. There are many sources at the bottom that prove this. (http://articles.latimes.com/2005/sep/27/nation/na-rumors27) 

Politics: Plato vs Aristotle. An Essay. (updated May 27)

NOTE *[The power struggles in humanity have not started in the 1960's. They have not started when the United States Constitution was being written. The struggles didn't start when the feudal system was the main system of governance(in Eurasia), either. These ideas have started when the greatest of intellectuals of human history were slowly chipping away at ideas, conventional wisdom while influencing the political area around them. Plato and Aristotle, although close being a mentor and mentee, shared their differences with rulership...or lack thereof. This was a paper written about some of their differences. Essentially, a large government/powerful rule or something smaller with more power for the people?]*

    Ancient philosophy sparks a great deal of interest in even modern politics. Plato and Aristotle’s political views share similarities but also vary in many ways. Plato thought a single ruler, with vast knowledge, could rule over a large city while knowing what’s morally best for the people. Aristotle believed that a city-state should be governed by an elite group of experts, better known as an aristocracy. I will argue that both of these views benefit towards modern society but also have major flaws that could not work in present times. Plato’s major flaw is that entrusting one individual, no matter their expertise in policy, cannot be trusted due to the nature of a human’s lust for power. The flaw with Aristotle is that he believed everyone should uphold their values to benefit the state versus themselves, which economically doesn’t benefit the community as a whole. 

         Plato and Aristotle shared some similar views in the political arena but a closer look reveals how much they truly differed. Plato was a man who believed that the ordinary citizen should be governed by only a few people, namely the philosopher kings. In regards to governance, Plato believed governing was a craft and therefore “only persons with a particular nature are suited to pursue expertise in governance” (Brooks 53). This supports that Plato believed a ruler was only a person that could be handpicked from a group of a perfect family line.

Wealth Inequality. Who should make more? (will be updated soon)

     There was a time that the United States had a prominent ability to allow its citizens to gain wealth. Not the few but the many. This was not due to social policy but by business men and women making money, hiring people, selling goods and services. Those people who were hired got a head start in life by getting a job. Just a job. Working for someone, or having your own business and making your own money. Voluntary transactions were a part of this. You never forced people to buy a Macbook Pro. They wanted one. You sold them the goods/services in exchange for money.
       Now, not so much. Now, it's not only harder (in some states versus others) to get a business license, you have to a large chunk of fees and there is more "red tape" to get to point A to point B. In another words, it's a pain in the butt to start a business more than it used to be.

Flouride In Your Water Supply. A small report...

Heated debate. Fluoride in your water. (Updated September 16th, 2013)
(to be clear, brushing your teeth with a toothbrush, fluoride toothpaste and flossing are the most sure ways to prevent dental caries. It does not matter if you "know" this person or that person that did, or did not, get dental caries. This little write up is about whether or putting fluoride in the water actually does anything)
      Some that want it propose that the "anti-fluoride" crowd are just plain stupid, illogical, crazy, conspiracy theorists, who think it will make everyone have hip fractures. I do not care about the studies discussing how fluoride can disrupt body-systems, or cause fluorosis. I don't care about those. I care about the efficacy of the conclusion that fluoride in the water supply actually reduces tooth decay. If it does, then by how much? Also, what about the underlying causes that reduce tooth decay?

     Instead of being put into the category of  "crazy" by the pro fluoride crowd that picks arguments about government conspiracy weirdos (8), I would prefer that people focus on one solid idea:
Does fluoridation of your water supply actually reduce tooth decay? Could it be from more use of tooth brushes since the 1970s in other countries? Think about how brushing with fluoride reduces cavities, twice per day (we know this is certainly a fact, which I don't need to discuss).

From the Portland Mercury (the pro-fluoride crowd), states this:
"The simple and reasonable case for fluoridation—which the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) definitively urges for the prevention of tooth decay in children and adults—is drowning under a hailstorm of counter-arguments that look, sound, and seem rational. Except that they aren't." (8).
What the Portland Mecurcy doesnt' realize is that I too, have also used the CDC as a source then checked the CDC's sources as well...