Ethics Law isn't without its Loopholes

Tittle: Ethics Law isn't without it's Loopholes.
Author: Robert Pear.
Source: www.nytimes.com
Date of Publication: April 20, 2008.

Vocabulary:
-Loophole: noun, a mistake in the way a law, contract, tec. has been written which enables peolpe to legally avoid something that the law or contract had intended them to do.
-Lobbyist: noun, a person who tries to influence a politician or the government and for example, persuade them to support or oppose to a law.
-Draconian: adjective, formal, (of a law, punishment, etc.) extremelly harsh and severe.
-Niebble: verb, to take small bites of something, especially food.
-Spotty, adjective, not complete, good in some parts but not in others.
-Cumbersome: adjective, slow and complicated.
-Burdensome: adjective, formal, causing worry, difficulty or hard work.
-Spigot: noun, any tap or faucet, especilly one outdoors.
-Liken, verb, formal, to compare one person or thing to another and say they are similar.(phrasal verb: to liken something or somebody to something or somebody).

Main ideas:
-The optimistically named Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 was supposed to prevent Lobbyists from securing undue influence by taking members of the Congress to intimate dinners at fancy restaurants. But Loobyists had already come up with a way around the new law.
-Even as they try to figure out what the law requires, Lobbyists are working to preserve the acces and influence they have in Congress and Federal Agencies.
-For decades, Lobbyists have registered with Congress, but compliance and reporting requirements have been spotty. They had little to fear if they understated their expences or misinterpreted their activities.
-This month, the controller general of the US will audit a sample of Lobyists' reports and can demand evidence to verify their accurancy. The new law quadruples the maximun civil fine to $200,000, and provides up to 5 years in prision for failure to comply.
-Under prior House rules, lawmakers and their aides could accept gifts, including food and refreshment, from virtually any person or organization if the item had a value less than $50. New rules ban most gifts from lobbyists and their employers.
-How much the gift ban has driven up Lobbyists' contirbutions will not be clear until july, when Lobbyists must file a new type of report listing money they contributed to a congressional candidate, an event honouring a member of the Congress, a charity designated by a lawmaker, a presidential library or an inaugural comittee. As part of the report, Lobbyists and their employers must sign "certifications" attesting that they have read and adhere to the new gift rules.
-Lobbyists cannot pay meals to a member of a congress or buy to them practically any gift, but they can make political campaign contributions. Thti is perfectly legal. People who make campaign contributions, have an opportunity to get face time with a member of the Congress at find-raising events.
-One of the consequences of the gift ban is to drive more and more social interaction between Lobbyists and congressional officials into campaing find-raising, which is no subject to most of the gifts rules.

Personal Reaction:
According to the article, the new Ethics rules related to the activity of Lobbyists in the US, has many loopholes. It places too much emphasis in the gift ban and makes a detailed explanation of which types of gifts are legal to be given to a lawmaker, and which ones not. But it fails in expressing rules which could control the Loobyists' activity in itself.
I don't understand the point of the gift ban if the new Congressional Ethics Rules cannot assure "honest leadership and open goverment". Eventhough it is said to be early to arrive to any conclusion, most of the people related to the analysis of the rules predicts a failure in some points of them.
The question that arises in front of me when reading this article is if Lobbyists do really achieve their goals with the gifts and the money they give to members of the Congress. It is hard to believe for me that politicians end up being persuaded in the end by such people., because I think that politicians are more likely to find Lobbyists' activity beneficial for them than the other way round. For this same reason, maybe the idea of focusing so much in the gifts ban is presicely to persuade Lobbyists to invest more cash in political campaigns.

Happiness

Happiness is for me a state, maybe one of the most dificult to reach in life and well-known for not lasting forever. It would be great to make of it a permanent way of life but specialists often say that in life not everything is happiness. This state tends to be naturally quieted by moments of some feelings contrary to it.
In my personal life what brings happiness to me, is freedom. The freedom of being onself without restricition is more than a human right to me. It's what helps us to satisfy our need of happiness in life.
What happiness is to us can vary from person to person. You can find joy in something that someone else can find boring. And at the same time what entertains others can appear not interesting to you. For this reason, the only way in which we can be really happy is through the freedom of choosing from all the options in life, the one that really matches us.
To have the opportunity of choosing is the key to happiness, then. Through it we can follow the way we want to. And that opportunity can not have other consequence than making us feel well. To be free enables us to be loyal to our thoughts and to our ideas, and even to our likes and dislikes. Without the chance of choosing, we are restricted. We turn into controlled beings. And then is when happiness situates far from us.

A shift in the debate over Global Warming

Tittle: A Shift in the debate over Global Warming.
Author: Andew C Revkin.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/weekinreview/06revkin.html?_r=1&oref=login
Date of Publication: April 6, 2008.

Vocabulary:
-Cap: verb, to cover the top or the end of something with something.
-Prod: verb, to try to make somebody do something, especially when they are unwilling.
-Bluntly: adverb, in a very direct way, without trying to be polite or kind.
-Stifle: verb, to prevent something from happening.
-Curb: verb, to control or limit somenthing, especially something bad.
-Lick: verb, infromal, to easily defeat somebody or deal with something.
-Overhaul: noun, an examination of a machine or a system, including doing repairs on it or making changes to it.
-Deploy: verb, formal, to use something effectively.
-Avert: verb, to prevent something bad or dangerous from happening.

Main ideas:
-In the last few years, most of the focus of the debates over Global Warming has centered on imposing caps on green house gas emissions to prod energy users to switch to nonpolluting technologies.
-Now, with recent data showing an unexpected rise in global emissions and a decline in energy efficiency, scientists are saying that whatever benefits the caps approach yields, it will be too little and come too late.
-The economist Jeffrey D.Sachs (Earth Institute, Columbia University) says that if we try to restarin emissions without a new set of technologies, we will end up stifling economic growth. Our current technology cannot support both, a decline in carbon dioxide emissions and an espanding global economy. What is needed is a development of advance low carbon technologies.
-Proponents of treaties and legislations say that cap emissions don't disagree with this call to arm for new, low carbon technologies. But they say the cap approach should not be ignored, either.
-Joseph Romm, member of a non-profit group for legislation to restict greenhouse gasses says that if we don't start aggresively deploying the technology we have now for the next quarter century, then all the new technologies in the world won't avert catastrophe.
-Roger A. Pielke, a political scientist at the University of Colorado, emphasizes that the recent rise in emissions points the need for government to push aggresively for technological advances instead of waiting for the market to force reductions in emissions.
- Mr. Sachs points to several promissing technologies (capturing and burying carbon dioxide, plug-in hybrid cars and solar-thermal electric plants). Each will require a combination of factors to succed: more applied scientific research, important regulation changes, appropiate infraestructure, public acceptance and early high-cost investments. A failure on one or more of these points could kill the technologies.
-In short, what is needed is a major overhaul of energy technology financed by large-scale public funding of research, development and demostration projects.

Personal Reaction:
In the fight against Global Wraming's consequences, time is key. It is a critical factor. Debates continue to occur all over the world without any parctical result, at time at which counties such as China and India keep on developing into the modern world. And in a way in which they will soon become the dominant producers of greenhaouse gasses.
There's no plan or idea which is useless when taking about saving our planet. The problem is how to make them work, and more important, how to make them work quickly. The only way colud be through the co-participation of every entity that should assume responsibility for our climate change problem.
As the article states, we cannot wait the market to promote and consumers to buy planet-friendly products if governments do not support them with adecuate campaigns. At the same time, we cannot expect the industry to reduce gas emissions if there are no laws or regulations truly approved in which the people can base on.
The real fact is that while scientists, economists, politicians and students of energy policy continue discussing the problem, our planet keeps on suffering the long term effects of global warming. Thant's why time should be the first factor to be taken into account in climate debates so as to force the results to appear as soon as posible.

Living in the structured society

Somentimes I get really shocked of how many things we are capable of doing in our lifes, just to please other people. A famous argentinian singer says in a song that the things we do in a compulsory way, end up taking out the happiness from our hearts. And the truth is that we can end up sometimes doing things that we really hate to do.

From styding to getting married, there are decisions that we can take just to prevent somebody else from worrying or getting upset with us. It semes hard to understand how hypocritic we could be. And worst than being synical with the rest of people around us, what is really wrong, is being synical with ourselves. We can left aside our own feelings and betray our thoughts and ideas just to fix in the society, in the family or in our group of friends.

The necessity of belonging to a group, of being part of something and of feel supported, can push us to be somebody who we really are not. It seems like if we are silenced by the fear of being pointed just because we think differently or do not share certain common thoughts. We are always supposed to think in a way, behave in some other and solve things out as normal people would do. The problem is that what is normal to you can be anormal to the rest. In just one second if your ideas do not match with what everyboby thinks as normal, you can become a phenomenon among the people around you. And, with any doubt, your ideas and behaviour will be judge then.

Our decisions are always conditionated by cultural and social patterns of behaviour. And most peolpe seem to agree with this as an important elememt so as to enable our co-living. And I generally used to do as well. I used to think that this is right. But recently, I have started to have a feeling of rejection towards this so much structured socienty in which I live in.

Response: The Science of Happiness

Having read "The Science of Happiness" by Mike Rudin, there are many interesting things which I consider to be truth in that article.

Although I believe is quite difficult to measure happines, I agree with Prof. Ed Diener (University of Illinois) when he says, that happines leads to a better life. I know by my own experience that there are strong connections between the feeling of happiness and how much healthy a person may be. At the same time as much happy you feel in life, more strong you will be to face problems and hard work.

I also agree with what Prof. Daniel Kahneman (University of Princeston) argues: money cannot make people happier. Once peolpe have reach a good standar of living, there is a tendency to seek for more since comparision with other peolpe is inevitable.. The act of comparing ourselves with others gennerally leads to the realization of what we still haven't achieve, and threfore, we start to feel unhappy. There's always be somebody richer and in a better social status than us. And as it is suggested in the article, the best thing to do is to choose objectively who we compare with and about what.

I have no doubt that "The Happy Formula" to which the article makes reference to, includes a set of ingredients that are vital to it and that there is no just one key to ahppiness. As the article suggest, family and friends are extremely important because not to be alone is a paramount aspect for every human being. We all need company and to feel supported.

As important as those ingredients is the belief in something bigger than us no matter which your religion may be. That gives sense to human life and helps us to answer to many existencial questions that may be difficult to responde.

The article also remarks the importance of having goals that you find enjoyable and the possitive influence that working on them may have in our search for happiness. It is avery real thought for me that our lives should develop for something. We need to live and not just to exist. We need to get involved, to be connected and to have values in life as well as we need to have plans and find the way to achieve them.

With a mixture of all of these, is precisely how happiness can be constructed.

To Relax: A difficult but necessary task. (Draft II)

We may all have experienced how difficult is to relax sometimes or may have heard people talking around about this fact, what makes of it a common problem nowadays. At the same time, it is well known that relaxing is necessary to our mental and physical health.

Eventhough we all know how important is to rest and to allow our attention and effort to become weaker, this vital necessity is often left aside. For some people, this occurs simple because they voluntary avoid to relax, and the aim of this behaviour may be to cope with the fear of losing control of situations. In this way they can turn up living their lives with a constant preasure that they put upon themselves; all this originated in a wrong idea that if they relax situations may escape from their hands.

Besides this intentional behaviour, not allow ourselves to relax can occur unintentionally as well. In many occations we end up making too much trouble of problems that do not deserve our full attention. This leads to an unnecessary waste of energy that could be invested in some other really important issues. It can also happen that we ruin moments that we were suppose to use for relaxation because we cannot just stop the rush of thoughts inside our minds.

To find difficulties in relaxing is a current problem nowadays. People generally use time that should be destined to resting and enjoying themselves to continue worring about some unsolved problem or task that they haven't finished yet. We all live so fast, so stressed and anxious thatt we even tend to think that to relax is a waste of time. A solution may be to accept thatt we are not machines and that relaxation is something healthy, especially after work or a big effort. To relax should be then, another activity included in our timetables, and not just left aside until we find extra time to spend in doing that.

How difficult is to relax? (Draft I)

Many of us may have experienced how difficult is to relax. And at the same time we all know how necessary is to rest, and to allow our attention and effort to become weaker. What currently happens is that this necessity is normally left aside in many times, because of the fear of loosing control of situations. In consequence, we can turn up living in a constant preassure that we put ourselves on us, just not to allow situations to scape from our hands.

This is wrong common thought, that affects almost every human being, based on the idea that if we torture ourself thinking about somenthing, we will control it and it will have the outcome that we wish. If not, if we forget and relax, the situation can develop through it ows course. And in fact is this second idea which is the correct one, eventhough it may be hard to believe, and not the first one. Things will end up in what they have to, and not in what we whant. It is truth that we can modify the future of situations, but not of all of them, and not in a complete fully way. And this is hard to accept.

In many occations we end up making to much trouble of problems which do not deserve our full attention.This leds to an unnecessary waste of energy which we could invest in more important issues. Sometimes we are not conscious of how much we ruin moments that we were suppose to use for relaxation because we cannot stop the rush of thoughts inside our minds. And we can end up unintentionally using time that should be destine to resting and enjoying ourselves, to continue worrying about an unsolved problem or a duty that we have not finished yet.

All this behaviour is quite common in the actual times. We live so fast, so stressed, so anxious that we even tend to think that to relax is a waste of time. We should accept that we are not machines and that to relax is something healthy, especially after work or doing a big effort. To relax should be another activity included in our timetables and not something left aside 'till extra time appear to be spent in doing so. Because that will be to rest important to the activity of relaxation.