The negative effects of a lack of high speed internet on the Field’s household would be the slow speed of loading websites and they would miss out on normal everyday events. The family would have to give up television or their electricity to gain access to high speed internet. I don’t think the trade-off would be worth it because, personnally, I’d rather have lights and electricity as opposed to high speed intrernet connection. Go play a board game.

3.) If some people think the internet is a waste of time or not worth the money, should the government give it to them anyway? Why/why not? 

         I think the govenment should provide the people with internet even if they don’t use it because the government should provide the people with any possibility. The government should provide it so that the people could have the option of internet and can choose wether or not they want to use it.

More than one of every 100 audults (article of the week 17) are in jail or prison in the United States of America. I just don’t understand why so many people are being put in jail. I guess because of how I was raised, I just cannnot wrap my mind around why people would do half of the things that they are in jail for and it hit me. What if they aren’t supposed to be there. What if they are really innocent? That would stink.

Anyways back to the article. All the people – guilty or not – are costing the U.S. government a lot of money. Wether it goes to keeping up the jails or to paying the judge a wage or paying the executionist to execute the criminals – truly guilty or not. And that just blows.

I don’t like jails.

~CM

I am applauding these countries right now whose CO2 emissions have decreased in the past two years:

NIGER, CHAD, GHANA, PANAMA, COLOMBIA, GUANA, BOLIVIA, COTE D’IVOIRE, MAURITANIA, WESTERN SAHARA,  MOROCCO, SOMALIA, GABON, CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC, RWANDA, ZIMBABWE, LESOTHO, SAUDI ARABIA, JORDAN, NEPAL, BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA, PORTUGAL, BELARUS, NORWAY, LAOS,  AND PAPUA NEW GUINEA!

That’s all I found on the world map. And if you know that your countries or another countries emissions have also gone down applaud them too! We all know it’s hard. Especially now that everything’s automatic.  It seems like everything runs on something that ends up emitting CO2 but no one is asking you to stop it completely. We are simply asking you to reduce the amount you are using.

If everyone does simple things to make sure that they aren’t wasting anything then it really adds up. When you think about it we are all like a drop of water in the ocean. If every drop reduces its size in half then the ocean would only be HALF as big as it is now. That is a HUGE difference! If we all work together, we can make that happen!

We just have to watch our carbon footprint.

You may just be one drop in the ocean, but together we can make some waves!

Made at Wordle.net

~CM

~CM

~CM

   The green roofs will help the environment because it’s life is “typically much longer than the life of most buildings’ roofs. It will also save them money in the long run. I think it would take advertisment to catch on in more places because I had never heard of this before I read the article.

2.) I am not meaning as extreme, but what can our class do to reduce our carbon footprint?

   We can recycle more and learn how to tell what goes in the recycle bin and what goes in a trash can. We could also use less electricity, maybe like when we have all the computers out we could turn most of the lights off because we can all see with the computers on. These are just a few of the plenty of ways to reduce our carbon footprint.

~CM

   The difference is payment. Taking care of a friend’s children is just a nice deed whereas when operating a day care the person would usually collect a payment. There is a big difference.

2.) Does Michigan’s law apply in this case? Should the law be changed? If so, what changes should be made? If not, why not?

   Unfortunately, Michigan’s law is just broad enough to apply to this case. I believe the law should be changed. Maybe they could just change it to no one may care for unrelated children in their home for more than four weeks each calender year (while accepting payment) unless they are licensed day-care providers.

3.) Has the law improved the safety of the chilren in this case?

   Not in this particular case because the children are going to have to either stay home alone an hour before school, or their mom or dad may have to quit their job and find one that starts at least an hour later.

4.) How does the law affect working women?

   It affects them because they would have to either leave their children at home or they may have to quit their job in order to care for the children.

5.) Should decisions about the care of children be up to parents or the government? Explain.

   It should be up to the parents because they know what they need. It wouldn’t make sense to have the government to make the decisions because they don’t know about normal parents schedules. The only people who know about ordinary parent’s schedules would be the ordinary parents themselves, so it only makes sense that the parents would make decisions about the care of children.

~CM

   People put off spending money because they want to save it just in case something happens. For example, if a person loses their job they would either be extremely thankful that they saved their money or wishing they had. So most people try not to spend as much during a recession.

2.) How and why do stimulus programs try to encourage people to spend money now that they would otherwise spend later?

   Stimulus programs try to give you incentives to spend money now instead of later. They tell you that they will give you discounts or pay for some of it. They do this because they are trying to get the economy going. They are just trying to get the economy started (or stimulate the economy) by encouraging you to spend money now that you would have spent later.

3.)Why does Alan Blinder consider such a stimulus ineffective if it is only “pulling up” spending my one month? “We knew it would spur sales, and it did — in a fast and furious way.”

   Alan Blinder considers such a stimulus ineffective because he had pictured it being longer than just one month. he said it spurred sales in a “fast and furious way” meaning it came and went pretty fast and he didn’t think it had a very long term effect.

4.) Does this tell us wether Cash for Clunkers was effective?

   This doesn’t come right out and tell us wether or not Cash for Clunkers was effective. It just gives us both the up and the downside to the program and allows us to form our own opinion about the topic.

5.) Why is there disagreement as to wether the program was effective?

   There is disagreement because people can have different opinions. For example, I think it didn’t work too well but some of my friends may think it worked perfectly fine and then some people think it is good and bad and choose to remain neutral. You can look at this topic from all types of directions which causes disagreement as to wether the program was effective.

~CM