A tax on Soda. Absurd…
Hey all!
Long time no post.
Newsflash with Supply and Demand! A new study by the American Journal of Public Health claims that when the price of soda goes up, the consumption of soda goes down. Is this a joke? Did the American Journal of Public Health actually spend time (and presumably money) to figure out the the law of Supply and Demand actually works on soda? I am afraid this is no joke.
There are two reasons why this is absolute absurd and repugnant.
- People actually spent resources to show that the principles of Supply and Demand actually work. Of course they work! Especially on something as mundane as soda. But this brings us to #2. The whole motivation behind this “Study” was to analyze the effect a tax would have on soda consumption.
- So a tax on soda huh? Why? It’s because the government wants to make us healthier! Isn’t that nice? or is it? Wait a second… I’m an adult, I can make decisions for myself. If I choose to drink soda, I should be able to do so without being punished for it. It is absolutely insulting for the government to think that I am not capable of making the right decisions for myself. Take your hands off of my soda. I average less than 8 hours of sleep a night, should I be taxed for sleep deficit? I enjoy doughnuts, should a doughnut tax be implemented upon my person?
What do you think?
Supplemental Reading:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/17/higher-prices-less-soda-drinking/
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/19/business/economy/19leonhardt.html
Elementary Particles
Hey everyone, here’s a nice change in pace for this blog. This again was for a composition class. It’s just a quick little essay about elementary particles.
What are the Elementary Particles and What Gives Particles Mass?
A Science Research Paper
The quest to understand the universe is an everlasting journey which will push humans to continuously strive to gain knowledge. Not only will humans try to understand their surroundings on a macro-scale, such as the cosmos; but also on a micro-scale, such as subatomic particles. It is because of this continued effort that we understand the concept that everything around us is made of atoms. Atoms are made of smaller objects: electrons, neutrons, and protons; each with their own specific jobs. In modern day, it is known that neutrons and protons are made of even smaller objects, each having their individual jobs. The objects that make up that compose these particles are made up of even smaller particles. The story end here though, as modern science denotes these particles to be the elementary particles, or particles which are not composed of anything else. Consequently these are the smallest division of matter, the building blocks of everything.
The elementary, or fundamental, particle was a concept first conceived by the Greek Democritus during the 400’s BC. His idea was that there exists a particle that is indivisible, which he named the atom. The modern day definition of an atom does not fit such a parameter, as it can be divided into smaller parts (Fundamental Particles). As technology advances scientists find more and more subatomic particles. For example Ernest Rutherford, through his experiment in the 1910’s, suggested that atoms have a nucleus and in the 1930’s the idea of a neutron emerged. The 1960’s was a time where particle accelerators found more subatomic particles smaller than the previously discovered particles (Wolfram, 2002, p. 1043). Since the 1930’s over 100 particles have been labeled as “elementary”; however, modern discoveries show that such elementary particles are indeed composed of smaller particles and thus contradict the meaning of elementary.
Modern day elementary particles are classified in the Standard Model (The Standard Model). The standard model is the scientific way to try to organize particles and interactions between particles. The particles are broken down into two categories, with the first category being called fermions. The fermions category contains 12 different matter particle types, meaning the particles are the building blocks of matter. Fermions are furthered cataloged where half are quarks while the other half are leptons (Quarks). Protons and neutrons are composed of quarks and an electron is an example of a lepton (Leptons). The second category of particles are called bosons. Bosons are labeled as force carriers and thus deal with interactions and force, not matter. The bosons class includes the photon and less known particles such as gluons, Z boson, and W bosons.
As noted the standard model can describe the interactions, or forces, between particles. Four types of forces are classified: strong, electromagnetic, weak, and gravity. The strong force is the force that holds together the nucleus of an atom. Electromagnetic forces are forces that involve the exchange of photons. The force responsible for a specific kind of fusion in the sun or for the ability to have heavy elements is the weak force (Fundamental Forces). Presently, the standard model fails to observe gravitational forces and thus fails to acknowledge what gives particles mass (An Additional Force). How can that be? Mass is a concrete concept right? If two random objects are weighed, the heavier object has more mass than the light object. Mass is a concept people use in their day-to-day lives. However, science presently is unable to pinpoint the origin of mass. This lack of understanding is a roadblock in the ever long journey of human knowledge. In the 1970’s Peter Higgs, Robert Brout, and François Englert theorized that directly after the Big Bang, particles lacked mass. They suggest that when the universe cooled down, a field was created and that it is the interaction between the field and a specific particle that creates mass. The field is called the Higgs Field and the particle is called the Higgs Boson. The scientists suggest that the stronger the interaction between the field and the boson, the more the mass (The Higgs Boson).
The theory of the Higgs boson has never been proven due to human’s inability to detect the particle. However, the detection of the Higgs boson may be in the near future. The European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) in Switzerland recently built the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the world’s largest and most complex particle accelerator (CERN Press Release 2008, October 21). This machine accelerates two particles to speed near the speed of light and then collides the two together. The result of the collision are smaller pieces of matter. One of the main goals of this particle accelerator is to find the origin of mass and answer questions to why some particles are very heavy, why some have a small mass, and why others have no mass. The LHC will try to prove or disprove the Higgs mechanism, which states a particles mass is directly related to its interaction to with the Higgs field (LHC).
If the LHC proves the existence of the Higgs particle, could there exist a smaller particle that gives the Higgs particle its mass? Is there a limit to how small an object can be? Currently science states that the smallest particle possible may be limited by the Planck Scale, but science evolves and changes over time (The Planck Era). If there is no limit to how small a particle can be, then how can the concept of an elementary particle be possible? If particles can be infinitely small, then there will always be a particle that comprises a bigger particle. This is a question that directly depends on technological advancements, and thus the concept of an elementary particle is not a concrete idea, but one that is continually changing over time. According to Stanford University, a particle is considered elementary if and only if “current experiments can tell [the particles] have no substructure” (Fundamental Particle) thus proving the definitions dependency on current technology. Will this be an everlasting battle of trying to find a smaller particle, or will there be conclusive evidence that the smallest particle was discovered?
Nevertheless, the discovery of the Higgs boson, if it exists, will be just another step towards the human understanding of the universe. Humans may never fully understand all concepts presented in this universe, but the power of curiosity will drive us to try. We refuse to be ignorant about the world we live in. And it is for that reason that we will build massive machines, such as the LHC, just to acknowledge the existence of minuscule particles. As technology advances more and more theories can be presented to try to prove scientific concepts. However, the more one knows about a concept, the more complicated the concept gets. For example the concept of mass seems fairly straightforward, but when trying to understand the origin of mass, human’s capabilities to do so, fail. On a macroscopic scale it is easy to comprehend that a bowling ball has more mass than an orange, but on a microscopic scale, it is much harder to quantify why some subatomic particles have no mass and others have a lot of mass. Currently the concept of the elementary particle plays a crucial role in solving such problems.
References
An Additional Force. Stanford University and the U.S. Department of Energy, Retrieved October 29, 2008, from
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/VVC/theory/add-force.html
CERN Press Release 2008, October 21. CERN inaugurates the LHC. Retrieved October 30, 2008, from Press
Release Web site: http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2008/PR16.08E.html
Fundamental Forces. Retrieved November 29, 2008, from Georgia State University Web site:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html
Fundamental Particles. Stanford University and the U.S. Department of Energy, Retrieved October 29, 2008, from
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/VVC/theory/fundamental.html
Leptons. Stanford University and the U.S. Department of Energy, Retrieved October 29, 2008, from
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/VVC/theory/leptons.html
LHC (2008, October 21). What are the main goals of the LHC?. Retrieved October 30, 2008, from The LHC in general Web site: http://askanexpert.web.cern.ch/AskAnExpert/en/Accelerators/LHCgeneral-en.html
Quarks, Stanford University and the U.S. Department of Energy, Retrieved October 29, 2008, from
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/quarks.html
The Higgs Boson (2008, October 21). Ideas. Retrieved October 30, 2008, from Origins CERN Web site:
http://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/cern/ideas/higgs.html
The Planck Era. Retrieved November 29, 2008, from University of Tennessee at Knoxville Web site:
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/planck.html
The Standard Model, Stanford University and the U.S. Department of Energy, Retrieved October 29, 2008, from
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/model.html
Wolfram, Stephen (2002). A New Kind of Science. Champaign, Illinois: Wolfram Media.
Book Review “Somebody’s Gotta Say It”
Neal Boortz, a popular syndicated radio host, hits hard against the illogical ideology thriving in America, with his New York Times Bestseller book, Somebody’s Gotta Say It. Without fear of repercussion, Boortz explains some of the biggest problems facing the United States using arguments based on facts and logic. Not afraid to upset, Boortz covers many controversial topics.
Boortz is a straight shooter who is brave enough to speak his mind and tell the truth, no matter how painful the truth may be. Nor does he succumb to the ridiculous rules of being politically correct in hope of not offending anyone. Pathos, logos, and ethos are all used in combination to connect with the audience. Putting the reader in a specific situation and explaining the consequences of the situations, evokes emotion. Using facts based on reliable sources and debunking any possible counter arguments with reason, shows the logic involved. And Boortz’s years of experience give him a high level of credibility in the political society.
It is a common misnomer labeling the book as conservative propaganda. In fact, Amazon.com lists Neal Boortz’s book under the subject “Conservatism”. How can Neal Boortz not be a conservative? Surely Boortz preaches some conservative ideology, such as limited government and lower taxes while exploiting the irresponsibleness of liberals. However, Boortz is a libertarian; in his book he criticizes the nonsense off democrats, republicans, and even his own libertarians. He does not discriminate against any political affiliation which shows his spirit of individuality. Radicals may label Boortz as a hate-filled conservative, but it is out of desperation. There is no data which quantifies any correlation of Boortz being hate-filled, but his opponents label him as such as they cannot logically debate with him.
What separates Boortz from many authors of political science books is his ability to not only address the problems being faced by using rationale, but also presents a reasonable solution to each and every problem. Using principles of economics, he explains different solutions to problems and why a specific solution trumps another. Being a talk-show host for a great deal of years combined with his law school education gives Boortz the credentials to write such a book. He knows the “ins and outs” of how the government works and understands the United States strengths and weaknesses.
Somebody’s Gotta Say it is an essential read if one wants to look at the problems the United States is facing; using critical thinking, instead of bluntly believing everything reported by the main-stream media. He deducted the reasons why the liberals control main-stream and why conservatives mixed with libertarians dominate the talk radio market. Being involved with the market itself gives Boortz even more credibility. Not only does the book provide great insight, but also has a high entertainment value. On the other hand, if one is easily offended or narrow minded, stay clear.
