YOU CANT BLAME ANYONE FOR SEEKING A BETER LIFE BUT IF THERE WAS AN INDIVDUAL TO POINT FINGERS AT YOU CAN DO IT TO PRESIDENT BUSH. PRESIDENT BUSH IS SUPPOSE TO TAKE STEPS TO IMPROVE ECONOMIES WHEN HE SEES FAILURE AMONG THEM.ACCORDING TO THIS DOCUMENT IT SEEMS THAT HE FEELS TRAVLING BACK INTO TIME TO FIX PROBLEMS IS MORE IMPORTANT. THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT THE WAR IN IRAQ.
The war in iraq,The mess the U,S faced in the Middle East and Afghanistan, and the threat of terrorism within our own borders, are not a result of the policies of this administration alone. Problems have been building for many years, and have only gotten much worse with our most recent policy of forcibly imposing regime change in Iraq. We must recognize that the stalemate in Korea, the loss in Vietnam, and the quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan all result from the same flawed foreign policy of interventionism that our government has pursued for over 100 years. It would be overly simplistic to say the current administration alone is responsible for the mess in Iraq.
By rejecting the advice of the Founders and our early presidents, our leaders have drifted away from the reproach against entangling alliances and nation building. Policing the world is not our calling or our mandate. Besides, the Constitution doesn’t permit it. Undeclared wars have not enhanced our national security.
The consensus on foreign interventionism has been pervasive. Both major parties have come to accept our role as the world’s policeman, despite periodic campaign public speaking stating otherwise. The media in particular, especially in the early stages, propagandize in favor of war. It’s only when the costs become prohibitive and the war loses popular support that the media criticize the effort.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/American_Empire/BushI_Iraq_LFE.html
Thursday, December 13, 2007
my opinion
I think we’ll eventually see a reversal of the 200-year-long cycle of people moving from farms and small towns to big cities. Food production is going to be a big problem when oil-and-gas-based agriculture is no longer possible, and we will have to reestablish a more meaningful relationship between urban places and a more productive agricultural land. (We will have to get much more of our food locally in the decades ahead.)
Our mega-cities will contract substantially. The fortunate ones will densify around their old cores and waterfronts — though sea level rise may affect many harbor cities. This process of contraction is likely to be problematic and disorderly. In America, there is certainly the potential for ethnic conflict.
Categorically, our colossalProcess will not be sustainable in a post-oil future — and despite the wishes and yearnings of many people, the truth is that no combination of alternative fuels will permit us to continue living at this scale. Some of our cities will not make it. Phoenix, Tucson, and other Sunbelt cities will dry up and blow away. In Las Vegas, the excitement will be over. Other mega-cities will have to downscale or face extreme dysfunction, New York ecitement will be flushed away. One thing that almost nobody is paying attention to: the skyscraper will not be a viable building type in our energy-scarce future. Six or seven stories must be the practical limit in a new age when electric supply is not necessarily as reliable as it has been in our time. Cities overburdened with mega-structures will have a severe liability.
The suburbs, for the most part, are toast. They have three possible outcomes in the twenty-first century: as slums, salvage yards, or ruins.
Our mega-cities will contract substantially. The fortunate ones will densify around their old cores and waterfronts — though sea level rise may affect many harbor cities. This process of contraction is likely to be problematic and disorderly. In America, there is certainly the potential for ethnic conflict.
Categorically, our colossalProcess will not be sustainable in a post-oil future — and despite the wishes and yearnings of many people, the truth is that no combination of alternative fuels will permit us to continue living at this scale. Some of our cities will not make it. Phoenix, Tucson, and other Sunbelt cities will dry up and blow away. In Las Vegas, the excitement will be over. Other mega-cities will have to downscale or face extreme dysfunction, New York ecitement will be flushed away. One thing that almost nobody is paying attention to: the skyscraper will not be a viable building type in our energy-scarce future. Six or seven stories must be the practical limit in a new age when electric supply is not necessarily as reliable as it has been in our time. Cities overburdened with mega-structures will have a severe liability.
The suburbs, for the most part, are toast. They have three possible outcomes in the twenty-first century: as slums, salvage yards, or ruins.
click on the link
this indivual has vulnerable information that stands a 100 % behind my blog and other information i interpreted http://youtube.com/watch?v=g8vRSBzWz4o
GOVERNMENTS THEORY IN IMPROVING URBANIZATION
The Government believe that the only way to lesson urbanization is to promote and better rural areas.which means to stop transfering surplus rural workers to agricultural jobs, and in so doing steadily decrease the promotion of urbanization. That will help decrease rural residents' ability and let farmers also enjoy the benefits brought by the country's economic prosperity. Urbanization will bring huge numbers of rural residents into cities and towns.
But there has not yet been a consensus among officials, academics and interested groups on which model of urbanization . in adddition With the authorization of the city government, the group negotiates with villagers on the land they want to develop. When the agreement is approved by the villagers' congress, the village's self-governing organization, the group gets the right to develop the land, which is owned collectively by the villagers. In return, the group gives a monthly allowance and a house to each household as well as compensation for occupying the land. Some residents also become employees of the group. Arrangements are also made for medical care, pensions and other social security issues, which are currently only enjoyed and beneficial.
But there has not yet been a consensus among officials, academics and interested groups on which model of urbanization . in adddition With the authorization of the city government, the group negotiates with villagers on the land they want to develop. When the agreement is approved by the villagers' congress, the village's self-governing organization, the group gets the right to develop the land, which is owned collectively by the villagers. In return, the group gives a monthly allowance and a house to each household as well as compensation for occupying the land. Some residents also become employees of the group. Arrangements are also made for medical care, pensions and other social security issues, which are currently only enjoyed and beneficial.
NOT EVERYTHING GOES YOUR WAY ..SO SHOULD YOU ADAPT TO SOCIETY?
Americans had to learn not only to plan their cities but also to live comfortably in the fast-growing communities that they erected. They needed to adapt their lives to the urban pace and to develop institutions to bring order out of the seeming chaos. In a city like Newyork(the biggest city), rates of accidental deaths and homicides began to drop after 1870 as city dwellers learned to control recklesss behavior and pay attention on the streets.
whichbrought a decline of spontaneous mobs and endemic drunkenness at the same time that the saloon developed as a stable social institution in immigrant neighborhoods.Cities developed community institutions that linked people in new ways. Apartment buildings offered a new environment for the middle class.Department stores, penny newspapers, variety show theaters, and baseball provided common meeting grounds and interests for heterogeneous populations. Department stores such as A. T. Stewart's, John Wanamaker's, Marshall Field's, and others of the 1860s, 1870s, and 1880s made emerging central business districts acceptable places for women as consumers and helped to introduce women into the religious labor force. Ballparks and theaters were shared spaces where allegiances and jokes crossed ethnic lines. Ethnic banks, newspapers, and mutual insurance societies offered training in American ways at the same time that they preserved group identity.
http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/ChinaFood/argu/trends/trend_30.htm
whichbrought a decline of spontaneous mobs and endemic drunkenness at the same time that the saloon developed as a stable social institution in immigrant neighborhoods.Cities developed community institutions that linked people in new ways. Apartment buildings offered a new environment for the middle class.Department stores, penny newspapers, variety show theaters, and baseball provided common meeting grounds and interests for heterogeneous populations. Department stores such as A. T. Stewart's, John Wanamaker's, Marshall Field's, and others of the 1860s, 1870s, and 1880s made emerging central business districts acceptable places for women as consumers and helped to introduce women into the religious labor force. Ballparks and theaters were shared spaces where allegiances and jokes crossed ethnic lines. Ethnic banks, newspapers, and mutual insurance societies offered training in American ways at the same time that they preserved group identity.
http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/ChinaFood/argu/trends/trend_30.htm
IS IT A PATTERN ?
American urbanization has followed the same demographic pattern found in every urbanizing society for the last two centuries. The word "urbanization" itself refers to an increase in the proportion of national or regional population living in cities. For the first six thousand years of urban life, no society was long able to maintain an urban percentage greater than from 5 to 10 percent. Starting in late eighteenth-century England, however, one nation after another experienced an accelerating shift from rural to urban population. After several generations of rapid urbanization, the process leveled off toward a new equilibrium in which about three-quarters of the population lived in cities and many of the rest pursued city-related activities in smaller towns. The result, when the urban proportion of a population is graphed against time is an s-shaped curve that turns up sharply for perhaps a century and then tapers off.
Urban growth in the United States has clearly followed these three stages of gradual growth, explosive take off, and maturity. First, the era of colonial or pre-modern cities stretched from the seventeenth century to the 1810s. Second, the rise of the industrial city dominated a century of rapid urbanization from 1820 to 1920. Finally, the third era of the modern city has run from 1920 onward. At each stage, the available technologies of communication and transportation shaped the internal patterns of cities and their distribution across the continent.
http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/population/urbanization.htm
Urban growth in the United States has clearly followed these three stages of gradual growth, explosive take off, and maturity. First, the era of colonial or pre-modern cities stretched from the seventeenth century to the 1810s. Second, the rise of the industrial city dominated a century of rapid urbanization from 1820 to 1920. Finally, the third era of the modern city has run from 1920 onward. At each stage, the available technologies of communication and transportation shaped the internal patterns of cities and their distribution across the continent.
http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/population/urbanization.htm
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
STATISTICAL DATA
The increase in the proportion of the population residing in towns, brought about by migration of rural populations into towns and cities, and/or the higher urban levels of naturall increase resulting from the greater proportion of people of childbearing age in cities (this, in turn, reflects patterns of migration). Urbanization indicates a change of employment structure from agriculture and cottage industry to mass production and service industry.This backs up the view that urbanization results from, rather than causes, social change. This is most notable in the development of capitalism and its attendant industralization. It is said that the development of the landless labourer and the concentration of wealth into a few hands encourages urbanization. Others argue that urbanization is the inevitable result of economic growth, with the rise of specialized craftsmen, merchants, and administrators. A further view stresses the importance of Age range economies; cities offer markets, labour, and capital with a well-developed infrastructure, all of which increase their comparative advantage .
WHAT PEOPLE FAIL TO SEE
These people, however honorable their reasoning, fail to see the good things that have come from urbanization. Many more people can read and write today because of the opportunities that lie in large cities. Not only are more people literate, but more people also have access to better medical care. Urbanization has also significantly increased the middle class worldwide, which many economies have benefited from. People that fight against urbanization can not see that it is just the result of a maturing human race and that although there are definite drawbacks (pollution, crowding, etc.) but the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages.NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO URBANIZATION
In Many people today are campaigning against urbanization. They claim urbanization has hurt the environment and that people have, all in all, not benefited from it. They blame urbanization for polluting the environment and destroying natural habitats for animals. The most striking is an immediate rapid change that is accompanying urbanization ,the rapid change in the is traditional local services, and small-scale industry give way to modern industry the urban and related commerce with the city drawing on the resources of an ever-widening area for its own nourishment and goods to be traded or processed into manufactures.As cities become larger more specialized goods and services are brought to the local market and surrounding areas, which function as a transportation and wholesale hub for smaller places, and accumulate more capital, financial service provision, and an educated labor force, as well as often concentrating administrative functions for the area in which they live in.
WHY MIGRATE TO THE BIG APPLE?
So why are all of these people deserting the farmlands and heading for the ‘Big Apple’? The reasons are copious but there are a few that are dominating. Some of the “push” factors (those are the factors that push people out of rural areas) include the deteriorating quantity and quality of agricultural lands, poor market transportation and the lack of supporting institutions for agriculture (i.e. credit for small scale farmers). In addition to the push factors there are the “pull” factors (those are the factors that pull people into urban areas). Some of the pull factors include the access to better jobs, education, healthcare, and higher living standards. So basically it comes down to people wanting to escape adverse rural conditions and seize the opportunities that are found in large cities
DEVELOPED OR UNDEVELOPED
Countries are classifies as either ‘developed’ or ‘undeveloped’. Developed is the term used to describes the countries that have already been urbanized (aka- world powers), whereas undeveloped is the term used to describe the countries that have yet to be urbanized. There are a total of 131 developed countries, which means that 61 countries are undeveloped. About 16 million people migrate each year to urban areas from rural areas in developing countries which accounts for about one half of recent urban growth.
IT IS TIME FOR A CHANGE
For the majority of human history most people have lived in rural areas. However, in the past fifty years an irregularity has occurred. For the first time in history the majority of the population now live in urban areas due to urbanization (The process of human movement and centralization towards and into cities and urban areas, with the associated industrialization, urban sprawl. This is a result of people moving from rural surroundings so the city, a natural population increase in cities (births minus deaths), and the reclassification of previously rural areas that have been built up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)