Les Otten is the third official Republican candidate for Governor of Maine. So as I did with the other two, I am checking his website out first. First thing is take a glance at his website: http://www.lesotten.com/
I thank you for returning to the blog. Alright, now first thing I noticed was the amount of color and pretty pictures. I felt like I had opened up a kindergarten school website. The bitterness I have against the simplicity of appealing to children shall be placed aside. The website is appealing, and thus shows an artistic element to his campaign not as obvious on either Matt or Bruce's websites. This artistic creativity will be a strong benefit for the campaign trail.
Now to the issues page. The statements you see first are almost word for word repeated when you click on the link, with some extras added here and there. On his energy page, let me give you the exerpt:
We need to create opportunities and let private enterprise lead the way out of Maine’s energy crisis to build a model that will be emulated throughout the nation. Maine needs a stated goal of energy independence. Ultimately, if Maine declares energy independence, and takes meaningful steps in that direction, the industry will follow.
Excerpt done. Alright it seems contradictory to me to say we need to let private enterprise lead the way and then say in the next sentence that if Maine's {government?} starts to move for energy independance, the free enterprise industry will follow. The rest of his energy page is a duck hunt for alternatives other than oil. Les has a thing against oil industry. Its very obvious. Moving on.
His section on jobs focuses on tourism (and only tourism.) Yes, tourism is our largest industry, but this month (record amount of rain) has proven even having great landscapes doesn't mean the tourists will come. I don't know why but I feel slightly less approving of Les Otto's approach. Just from my basic knowledge of economics, and archaic phrases, don't put your eggs in one basket. I personally feel Maine should diversify, while strengthening, its industries. Les places strong emphasis on the tourism industry while not mentioning the other parts of our state.
Onward to his section of efficiency. This is the first time I've seen efficiency as an issue. It is often an underscored approach to issues, but never an issue all its own. Thats my guy reaction to the one word: efficiency. Now I read the rest of it.
His section on efficiency starts out covering the state's failed budgets. Then five paragraphs cover how we as individuals should lead healthier lives. Otto, if you read this, efficiency and obesity don't seem to go together for me. Connect it to your efficiency through lowering costs of healthcare, please explain how lower costs for healthcare will increase efficiency of the states budget. Wow, I feel like a critic. Wait, your running for governor of Maine. I live in Maine. Your accountable. Woooo, power trip. Alright one more page to go.
Otto's page on leadership is by far his strongest page. It clearly outlines good guide lines for policy. They are as follows:
• We need to declare that Maine is open for business.
• We need to take advantage of Maine’s renewable resources to solve our energy crisis from within.
• We need to take full advantage of our tourism assets.
• We need to prepare our workforce and attract businesses that will keep our kids in Maine.
• We cannot continue to defer hard budget decisions to the next governor.
Now that is the best part of his website. That said, his website fails for a person running for governor, or a candidate for anything really. No specifics at all. Generalized overviews of things that are not made relevent to our lives that lack a plan, and a vision. The website lacks cohesion to his purpose for running and what he will do for us.
Now, a quick look at his 'support' page brings you to donate money. That is the whole page. Time for this madman to rant. However I will save it for another blog later tonight. Thank you for reading and come again soon for a meal you didn't order, but I didn't screw up.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Monday, June 29, 2009
Emergency Honduras Update
I have confirmed through various news sources (a vast majority) that Venezuelan troops are stationed in Nicaragua. What I have yet to confirm is a battle between Nicaraguan, Venezuelan troops against civilians in a town called El Paraso (Paraiso?). If the battle did take place, the civilians most likely lost. Anyhow, the speculation over possible truths or rumors could take up a whole million years worth of blogging. However, the Venezuelan troops, either being there before this or going there in response to the violence in Honduras, are on high alert. We will see how this continues to develop.
Cancer Treatment
The future of cancer seems to be heading towards more treatable, 99% survival rates. A new treatment, used for the past two years in mice, has had a 100% survival rate. It does a one two punch, where one nano cell disables the cancer cell and a second targets and kills the cancer cell with chemotherapy. It will focus chemotherapy, unlike today where it attacks both kinds of good and bad cells. In the next few months human trials are going to begin, and it will be interesting to see how this moves forward.
Honduras In Focus
I'm going to make a prediction that tomorrow's headlines, and the future reporting of the situation in Honduras, will focus on what the military is doing. The articles will start with describing what the military did, then add a few small paragraphs, by which time people will not bother to finish reading since it will be little details, on what the "new" government is doing. The only thing new is the president. However, you will see headlines about the clash of the military and protestors.
I fully condemn the strong use of the military as the force to stop the violent protests. What needs to be made clear is how the protests became violent, then the military acted. The first reports I saw today showed the fires and barricades set up by the protestors with the military standing at watch. This lasted for about eight hours before the military acted against them.
I will not support the use of violence against the protestors, but I also do not support the protestors methods of holding protests with the specific purpose of confronting the military forces at the presidential compound. The media blackout is also what I am against. However, while these violations make the new government violators of the nation's constitution and reduce their legitimacy, Zelaya's government is no more legitimate. It violated the Constitution and needed to be removed. The first mistake of the new government was ordering his exile instead of his impeachment.
This is not a blank check to the new regime, and the 60 injured so far, and possibly 1 dead (reports conflict over death by a truck accident or an intentional death by being run over, 9 reports, and its a 2 for intentional, 7 for accident) are deplorable results. For a solution, an emergency presidential election within a month. A new president. Zelaya may not run, and Roberto will agree to return to his post in the Congress and not run for president himself.
More as I hear it, the current government is losing my support with its heavy handed approach to keeping order, but I know the previous president has no place in the country at all.
I fully condemn the strong use of the military as the force to stop the violent protests. What needs to be made clear is how the protests became violent, then the military acted. The first reports I saw today showed the fires and barricades set up by the protestors with the military standing at watch. This lasted for about eight hours before the military acted against them.
I will not support the use of violence against the protestors, but I also do not support the protestors methods of holding protests with the specific purpose of confronting the military forces at the presidential compound. The media blackout is also what I am against. However, while these violations make the new government violators of the nation's constitution and reduce their legitimacy, Zelaya's government is no more legitimate. It violated the Constitution and needed to be removed. The first mistake of the new government was ordering his exile instead of his impeachment.
This is not a blank check to the new regime, and the 60 injured so far, and possibly 1 dead (reports conflict over death by a truck accident or an intentional death by being run over, 9 reports, and its a 2 for intentional, 7 for accident) are deplorable results. For a solution, an emergency presidential election within a month. A new president. Zelaya may not run, and Roberto will agree to return to his post in the Congress and not run for president himself.
More as I hear it, the current government is losing my support with its heavy handed approach to keeping order, but I know the previous president has no place in the country at all.
Lies, Rumor, and Crisis
The War in Georgia was the first time I saw how the media bias worked on issues outside of the United States. Now, with Honduras, I see it again. Aljazeera has reported that the Honduran military is choosing the next president, while the truth is the Honduras Congress voted in Roberto Mitcheletti as the successor until January when the next president, following the scheduled November election, will be inaugurated. The military is not behind the removal of the president of Honduras. It is the checks and balances system within the Republic style government of Honduras that has protected its constitution.
So why have the military arrest him? Because his personal bodygaurd was too much for the local police to handle on their own. The military fought a twenty minute gun battle, reports on casualties I've yet to find, before they arrested him. The military sent him to Costa Rica. The referendum on the alteration of the Honduras Constitution that would allow former President of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, was timed within six months of a presidential election. The timing was unconstitutional but the president insisted on the referendum. I will go as far to say that he violated the constitution and was, upon resisting the Supreme Court and Congress, illegitimately in power. Due to this illegitimacy, he was removed from office and replaced.
I am not saying the way the military is conducting the shift is good, they are doing quite the botch job actually. However at the end of the day the military is still following orders from the government, not its own commanders. They are told to do something from the Supreme Court, Congress, and new President, and they will. Their generals still follow the orders, instead of making them. That is what makes this accusation of a coup entirely wrong.
The protestors outside the Presidential house were not prevented by the military at the house from burning tires and protesting in the street outside. This is not Iran. Another note, why has the world attention diverted onto Honduras' Constitutional dilema from Iran's massacres of protestors? Why has the world defended, in contrast to Russia's invasion of Georgia, a leader who is very critical of the United States and a strong ally of Venezuela?
Domestically I inquire:
Why is it that Hillary Clinton can call this a coup, yet the State Department does not formally list it as a coup and shut off all aid to the country?
Why did Hillary say we are not demanding that Manuel Zelaya be returned to power yet we signed onto a statement by the Organization of American States that did?
Globally I question:
How can Zelaya say he wants to alter the Constitution because it favors the countries elites in a way that allows him to remain in power, and thus elite, longer?
Then why does Hugo Chavez place his military on high alert and say he is willing to defend Zelaya from this rebellion of the poor when it is the elite that Zelaya stated he opposed?
Conclusion:
I believe Zelaya, regardless of the details of how he was removed, presuming non-violence is preferred option by the military, should not be president of Honduras. As the military is following orders from the Supreme Court and the Honduras Congress, this is not a coup. The military is following orders from a civilian government. It has a job to do and will do so. Five days, the same time it took Obama to critisize Iran, should be given to this new government to determine if it is legitimate as I claim, or if the military will make a grab for power that they have not done yet.
So why have the military arrest him? Because his personal bodygaurd was too much for the local police to handle on their own. The military fought a twenty minute gun battle, reports on casualties I've yet to find, before they arrested him. The military sent him to Costa Rica. The referendum on the alteration of the Honduras Constitution that would allow former President of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, was timed within six months of a presidential election. The timing was unconstitutional but the president insisted on the referendum. I will go as far to say that he violated the constitution and was, upon resisting the Supreme Court and Congress, illegitimately in power. Due to this illegitimacy, he was removed from office and replaced.
I am not saying the way the military is conducting the shift is good, they are doing quite the botch job actually. However at the end of the day the military is still following orders from the government, not its own commanders. They are told to do something from the Supreme Court, Congress, and new President, and they will. Their generals still follow the orders, instead of making them. That is what makes this accusation of a coup entirely wrong.
The protestors outside the Presidential house were not prevented by the military at the house from burning tires and protesting in the street outside. This is not Iran. Another note, why has the world attention diverted onto Honduras' Constitutional dilema from Iran's massacres of protestors? Why has the world defended, in contrast to Russia's invasion of Georgia, a leader who is very critical of the United States and a strong ally of Venezuela?
Domestically I inquire:
Why is it that Hillary Clinton can call this a coup, yet the State Department does not formally list it as a coup and shut off all aid to the country?
Why did Hillary say we are not demanding that Manuel Zelaya be returned to power yet we signed onto a statement by the Organization of American States that did?
Globally I question:
How can Zelaya say he wants to alter the Constitution because it favors the countries elites in a way that allows him to remain in power, and thus elite, longer?
Then why does Hugo Chavez place his military on high alert and say he is willing to defend Zelaya from this rebellion of the poor when it is the elite that Zelaya stated he opposed?
Conclusion:
I believe Zelaya, regardless of the details of how he was removed, presuming non-violence is preferred option by the military, should not be president of Honduras. As the military is following orders from the Supreme Court and the Honduras Congress, this is not a coup. The military is following orders from a civilian government. It has a job to do and will do so. Five days, the same time it took Obama to critisize Iran, should be given to this new government to determine if it is legitimate as I claim, or if the military will make a grab for power that they have not done yet.
California
Shame on you all. From the governor, to the legislature, to the people and even the illegals, you screwed up. You ruined your state and now turn your backs on those who need help. I sure hope you help the people you are making homeless when you see them begging door to door. Fifty years you have had the same situation, and now you reap the rewards of your failure. The people refused to be even higher taxed (being some of the highest taxed already) and the response is a complete suspension of the safety net. What the hell are you spending the rest of the money on? If your state has incredibly high taxes, and you have no state safety net, where the hell is all that money going? Seriously, wherever it is going I think I am certain it isn't helping the people of California. Cut the crap, not entire programs helping those who need the most help. You have actually driven me to work on creating a priority list of people who need to be helped by the government in times of need. Single mothers with jobs, sorry, but not as sad a story as the disabled blind guy down the street living under the box. For your state to have made me think of which people to help, while being the 6th largest economy in the world, is appalling. In the land of the free, the United States, such a situation is the result of pure incompetence. Fifty years you had the problem, and all across the state from the top to the bottom nobody fixed it. Shame on you all.
Honduras
The events taking place in Honduras are not a coup. They are the legitimate upholding of the nation's Constitution ordered by the Supreme Court of Honduras. Former President Zelaya violated the nation's constitution by having a referendum vote to overturn the Constitution within six months of a presidential election. His reason for the overturn was to remove the ban on re-elections (so he could stay in power.) The planned Novemeber election will go forward, and I urge the U.S. to defend the nation's legitimate leadership now in power. Should Venezuela invade, as they have threatened by placing their armed forces on high alert over the incident, we should defend Honduras.
Zelaya says the Constitution should be overturned because it benefits the countries elites. Hugo Chavez, the reports I've read, says he defends Zelaya against a revolt by the region's poor. This makes no sense to me. Our leaders in the United States have called it a coup and deny any involvement in its occuring. While I know we had nothing to do with it, this was not a coup. More as I get it later. Thank you for reading.
Zelaya says the Constitution should be overturned because it benefits the countries elites. Hugo Chavez, the reports I've read, says he defends Zelaya against a revolt by the region's poor. This makes no sense to me. Our leaders in the United States have called it a coup and deny any involvement in its occuring. While I know we had nothing to do with it, this was not a coup. More as I get it later. Thank you for reading.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Harness A Possibly Cheap Energy Source: Manpower
Wind power is unreliable, as in it won't work 100% of the time (since the wind isn't always blowing outside of D.C.'s congressional halls). So I say put the generators, with handles instead of the long wings, in prisons.
I know the gut reaction: cruel and unusual.
Pay attention, my plan doesn't end there. I understand that this has been attempted before and that the prisoners endured intolerable conditions. However that does not mean we can't try again with improved conditions. People work in power plants all the time, why not prisoners? Here in Maine we have the highest electricity costs in the North East. This would be an effective way to lower costs immensely. Monetarily, creating the electricity would be free with my plan. The prisoners would be payed, but in credits, which I'll address later.
Now this work would not be required. It would be open to non-felons and felons who have had 10 years of good behavior. The yard, or the library doesn't pay the prisoner and so they earn nothing from it except pride just knowing they didn't sit in their cell all day wasting away.While long term that may help them, it doesn't give them something then and there to hold on to and it isn't a gaurantee of success once out of prison. This could give them something tangible. The payment, the value earned would be credits towards early release or parole. They would be earning their freedom. Freedom throughout history has never been free. An effort to gain and maintain freedom has always had a cost in effort, bravery, and even blood. This only calls for effort towards earning their freedom.
In the process of doing this they do not forget what it is to earn something. The prisoner could spend the credits towards better conditions: from private rooms, more time in the yard, or even an extra serving at the lunch the options are limitless. Or the prisoner could put them towards their release. Maybe even if they commit their credits towards release and nothing else it could be treated as a savings account and earn interest. What does this allow the prisoner to do? It allows them to not forget how to survive in society.
Recidivism is one of the plagues of our current criminal justice system. One of the stand-out social stereotypes, even if overplayed, does apply. It is the one of criminals leaving prison not knowing how to function in society. Prisoners are those who have been deemed dangerous enough to seperate from society. I believe prisons should be isolated societies where the prisoners are seperated from the mainstream, but not so much so that they forget how to live.
With this work being a choice for the prisoner, it is not forced labor. Giving the prisoner choices makes certain they keep the sense of freedom and how to use it. It is not a blank check of freedom, because they are still being punished, but it makes sure they keep control over enough freedom to know how to survive when they finish their sentence. It would also give them a career opening into electricity when they leave because they (using their credits and passing a test) could even earn promotions to operate other aspects of the power plant then just moving the turbine to make it work.
If anyone disagrees with my plan let me know.
I know the gut reaction: cruel and unusual.
Pay attention, my plan doesn't end there. I understand that this has been attempted before and that the prisoners endured intolerable conditions. However that does not mean we can't try again with improved conditions. People work in power plants all the time, why not prisoners? Here in Maine we have the highest electricity costs in the North East. This would be an effective way to lower costs immensely. Monetarily, creating the electricity would be free with my plan. The prisoners would be payed, but in credits, which I'll address later.
Now this work would not be required. It would be open to non-felons and felons who have had 10 years of good behavior. The yard, or the library doesn't pay the prisoner and so they earn nothing from it except pride just knowing they didn't sit in their cell all day wasting away.While long term that may help them, it doesn't give them something then and there to hold on to and it isn't a gaurantee of success once out of prison. This could give them something tangible. The payment, the value earned would be credits towards early release or parole. They would be earning their freedom. Freedom throughout history has never been free. An effort to gain and maintain freedom has always had a cost in effort, bravery, and even blood. This only calls for effort towards earning their freedom.
In the process of doing this they do not forget what it is to earn something. The prisoner could spend the credits towards better conditions: from private rooms, more time in the yard, or even an extra serving at the lunch the options are limitless. Or the prisoner could put them towards their release. Maybe even if they commit their credits towards release and nothing else it could be treated as a savings account and earn interest. What does this allow the prisoner to do? It allows them to not forget how to survive in society.
Recidivism is one of the plagues of our current criminal justice system. One of the stand-out social stereotypes, even if overplayed, does apply. It is the one of criminals leaving prison not knowing how to function in society. Prisoners are those who have been deemed dangerous enough to seperate from society. I believe prisons should be isolated societies where the prisoners are seperated from the mainstream, but not so much so that they forget how to live.
With this work being a choice for the prisoner, it is not forced labor. Giving the prisoner choices makes certain they keep the sense of freedom and how to use it. It is not a blank check of freedom, because they are still being punished, but it makes sure they keep control over enough freedom to know how to survive when they finish their sentence. It would also give them a career opening into electricity when they leave because they (using their credits and passing a test) could even earn promotions to operate other aspects of the power plant then just moving the turbine to make it work.
If anyone disagrees with my plan let me know.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
God Exists
Let me explain the rather sudden turn around of my doubts. I spoke to God. Well, he spoke to me. Short and sweet, and I quote: "You should follow what makes you happy. It is up to you to decide." I was thinking about whether or not I really want to pursue a political career and balance the social battle of loving Josh, my true love. Of course I will never doubt my relationship with Josh, but I was concerned about the trouble being a politician would carry for our relationship. My alternative future choice was to become a writer, and pursue the creation of my vision for Atlantis in writing and in a movie.
My decision has already been made. The whole process took five minutes to go through. May not seem like long, but something within me, something eternal, was sparked. Not only was my belief in God solidified, but my belief in the guarantee of America's promise for the pursuit of happiness. This happiness is granted by the immense number of freedoms allowed to those who live in America.
To tie in to something occuring in the world that you may care about, the people of Iran are pursuing happiness. At least they are trying. They seek the happiness granted with freedom. I support them and I am still looking for Barack Obama to support them as well. Iran has killed innocent people. Those people died free, they died showing the power of freedom. Freedom inspires those who do not have it, and it brings a just punishment of fear to those who try to prevent it from being in the hearts of those who seek it.
My decision has already been made. The whole process took five minutes to go through. May not seem like long, but something within me, something eternal, was sparked. Not only was my belief in God solidified, but my belief in the guarantee of America's promise for the pursuit of happiness. This happiness is granted by the immense number of freedoms allowed to those who live in America.
To tie in to something occuring in the world that you may care about, the people of Iran are pursuing happiness. At least they are trying. They seek the happiness granted with freedom. I support them and I am still looking for Barack Obama to support them as well. Iran has killed innocent people. Those people died free, they died showing the power of freedom. Freedom inspires those who do not have it, and it brings a just punishment of fear to those who try to prevent it from being in the hearts of those who seek it.
The Race for Governor
Yesterday I was able to speak to Matt Jacobson, his website is as follows: http://www.jacobsonforgovernor.com/
At the Bangor GOP meeting he spoke, and is the second running Republican candidate for governor of Maine. My initial gut reaction: too idealist. Now this may be a good or a bad thing, but he believes Maine has a goal to reach, a vision of connecting with the world and being world-class in as much as possible. His goal for Maine is noble and I agree with it, however the fundamentals and practicality of some of his ideas seem to be business, not asministratively, possible. However there is still time.
Despite this, personally Matt is very approachable. He seems, not as bluntly as others, to be annoyed, fed up, irritated with the state as it stands. He definately believes Baldacci has not done enough on the LNG Terminal situation and believes that should have been easy to accomplish with Canada. He did note that Canada does have an issue, and we should be sensitive to it, from a disaster which, after some research, I have been unable to find information on.
A note about the LNG terminal is that Canada has approved it, but the Passamaquody tribe has only recently sold the land where it was to be built. The discussion at the GOP meeting with a Maine state senator, a Maine state representative, and a candidate for governor, among all of us, did not even mention this. The group seemed to focus on the initial environmental opposition in Canada which approved the plan in 2008. I didn't know this until I looked it up, and hopefully you've learned something here too.
Finally in my initial reaction, the core Republican values got a different response. The basis of the Republican Party, and I'm sure the issue would be similar for Democrats, but for the Republican Party the focus on a reason for being seems to be lacking among its members. I'll list MY Republican values (based on a quote from Ronald Reagan) once more:
1. Limited Government
2. Lower Taxes
3. Strong Military
4. Pro-Growth Policies
5. Maximum Individual Liberty
In the next week I will be clarifying the missing parts of the Bruce Poliquin interview, and make a transcript of this interview and meeting that way a comparison can be made, however should another Republican candidate become known to me I will attempt to arrange an interview with that candidate before I post the other two. I have a little personal rule: get as many as possible up to three before posting. This way there can be fundamental comparisons, and examinations of differences between the candidates. Thank you for reading and have a good day.
At the Bangor GOP meeting he spoke, and is the second running Republican candidate for governor of Maine. My initial gut reaction: too idealist. Now this may be a good or a bad thing, but he believes Maine has a goal to reach, a vision of connecting with the world and being world-class in as much as possible. His goal for Maine is noble and I agree with it, however the fundamentals and practicality of some of his ideas seem to be business, not asministratively, possible. However there is still time.
Despite this, personally Matt is very approachable. He seems, not as bluntly as others, to be annoyed, fed up, irritated with the state as it stands. He definately believes Baldacci has not done enough on the LNG Terminal situation and believes that should have been easy to accomplish with Canada. He did note that Canada does have an issue, and we should be sensitive to it, from a disaster which, after some research, I have been unable to find information on.
A note about the LNG terminal is that Canada has approved it, but the Passamaquody tribe has only recently sold the land where it was to be built. The discussion at the GOP meeting with a Maine state senator, a Maine state representative, and a candidate for governor, among all of us, did not even mention this. The group seemed to focus on the initial environmental opposition in Canada which approved the plan in 2008. I didn't know this until I looked it up, and hopefully you've learned something here too.
Finally in my initial reaction, the core Republican values got a different response. The basis of the Republican Party, and I'm sure the issue would be similar for Democrats, but for the Republican Party the focus on a reason for being seems to be lacking among its members. I'll list MY Republican values (based on a quote from Ronald Reagan) once more:
1. Limited Government
2. Lower Taxes
3. Strong Military
4. Pro-Growth Policies
5. Maximum Individual Liberty
In the next week I will be clarifying the missing parts of the Bruce Poliquin interview, and make a transcript of this interview and meeting that way a comparison can be made, however should another Republican candidate become known to me I will attempt to arrange an interview with that candidate before I post the other two. I have a little personal rule: get as many as possible up to three before posting. This way there can be fundamental comparisons, and examinations of differences between the candidates. Thank you for reading and have a good day.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
A New Level Of Horror In Iran
From ABC:
An Iranian woman has given harrowing details of what she says was a massacre of protesters in Tehran's Baharestan Square on Wednesday.
Reports this morning suggest thousands of police and pro-government militia used guns, clubs and teargas to suppress a large opposition rally in the square.
Speaking to CNN, the unnamed woman said it was a "massacre".
"I was going to Baharestan with my friends ... to express our opposition to these killings and demanding freedom," she said.
"But the black-clad police stopped everyone ... they emptied the buses that were taking people there and let the private cars go on.
"We went on ... and then all of a sudden some 500 people with clubs ... came out of [a nearby mosque], and they poured into the streets and they started beating everyone."
The woman said the attackers started beating people on a pedestrian bridge heading to the square, with some people being thrown over the side.
"They beat a woman so savagely that she was drenched in blood, and her husband who was watching the scene, he just fainted.
"I also saw [the security forces] shooting young people.
"This was a massacre. They were trying to beat people so that they would die. They were cursing... they were beating old men.
"This was exactly a massacre. You should stop this. You should help the people of Iran who demand freedom.
"There were thousands of people on the street.
"I heard the shooting and we just ran away. I didn't see what happened but I'm sure people are dead there."
CNN said another source inside Tehran had described people being "shot like animals".
The witness went on: "In the previous days they are killing students with axes, they put the axe through the heart of young men, and it's so devastating I don't know how to describe it.
"This is horrific, this is genocide, this is a massacre, this is Hitler. And you people should stop it. It's time to act."
==========================================
The people of Iran are begging us to stand up for their freedom. Obama needs to stop avoiding the toe-stepping with the leaders of Iran and urge immediate embargoes on all oil leaving Iran. The regime must be shown there are consequences for violations of human rights. There are punishments for crimes against humanity. The world needs to act. Iran is acting in a way that defies, instead of sanctions, instead of nuclear suspension requests, it violates human rights.
Iran is acting while Obama stands to the side. We must act. We need to act. The people of Iran are asking for our help. We have a moral obligation as the leaders of the free world to act.
The world dislikes the United States because of the first failed Kurd independance promise, the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, the failed Mogadishu incident, the failed war in Vietnam. The promise behind all of them was freedom for the people. We failed.
We can redeem ourselves by coming to the aid of those who ask us to help them. South Vietnam didn't ask us to help them, Somali's needed help but they didn't request us to do it, and the Bay of Pigs was organized by us. Iranian are asking for us to fulfil our promise to lead the world into freedom. We are the shining city on the hill. We shine with the energy, the feelings of freedom. We can share this power source to the world at no cost by simply standing up for the rights of others.
Obama, do your damn job already. Hillary, either quit or do your job. McCain, keep up the good work.
An Iranian woman has given harrowing details of what she says was a massacre of protesters in Tehran's Baharestan Square on Wednesday.
Reports this morning suggest thousands of police and pro-government militia used guns, clubs and teargas to suppress a large opposition rally in the square.
Speaking to CNN, the unnamed woman said it was a "massacre".
"I was going to Baharestan with my friends ... to express our opposition to these killings and demanding freedom," she said.
"But the black-clad police stopped everyone ... they emptied the buses that were taking people there and let the private cars go on.
"We went on ... and then all of a sudden some 500 people with clubs ... came out of [a nearby mosque], and they poured into the streets and they started beating everyone."
The woman said the attackers started beating people on a pedestrian bridge heading to the square, with some people being thrown over the side.
"They beat a woman so savagely that she was drenched in blood, and her husband who was watching the scene, he just fainted.
"I also saw [the security forces] shooting young people.
"This was a massacre. They were trying to beat people so that they would die. They were cursing... they were beating old men.
"This was exactly a massacre. You should stop this. You should help the people of Iran who demand freedom.
"There were thousands of people on the street.
"I heard the shooting and we just ran away. I didn't see what happened but I'm sure people are dead there."
CNN said another source inside Tehran had described people being "shot like animals".
The witness went on: "In the previous days they are killing students with axes, they put the axe through the heart of young men, and it's so devastating I don't know how to describe it.
"This is horrific, this is genocide, this is a massacre, this is Hitler. And you people should stop it. It's time to act."
==========================================
The people of Iran are begging us to stand up for their freedom. Obama needs to stop avoiding the toe-stepping with the leaders of Iran and urge immediate embargoes on all oil leaving Iran. The regime must be shown there are consequences for violations of human rights. There are punishments for crimes against humanity. The world needs to act. Iran is acting in a way that defies, instead of sanctions, instead of nuclear suspension requests, it violates human rights.
Iran is acting while Obama stands to the side. We must act. We need to act. The people of Iran are asking for our help. We have a moral obligation as the leaders of the free world to act.
The world dislikes the United States because of the first failed Kurd independance promise, the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, the failed Mogadishu incident, the failed war in Vietnam. The promise behind all of them was freedom for the people. We failed.
We can redeem ourselves by coming to the aid of those who ask us to help them. South Vietnam didn't ask us to help them, Somali's needed help but they didn't request us to do it, and the Bay of Pigs was organized by us. Iranian are asking for us to fulfil our promise to lead the world into freedom. We are the shining city on the hill. We shine with the energy, the feelings of freedom. We can share this power source to the world at no cost by simply standing up for the rights of others.
Obama, do your damn job already. Hillary, either quit or do your job. McCain, keep up the good work.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
I've Spoken On Healthcare And Iran Enough Lately (Episode of Distraction 2)
The Perfect War Game .01
Items:
1x2 Square Board
1 Blue Cube
1 Red Cube
1 Coin (Marked 1 and 2 on either side)
Rules:
Alphabetical Start
Cube can move forward or stay.
If moving forward onto an opponent cube.
Toss coin into atmosphere.
If coin lands on 2, move forward. If 1, stay.
After moving or staying, opponent's turn.
Repeat until all the board is of one color.
Variables:
2>1 = Win
1<2 = Lose
Items:
1x2 Square Board
1 Blue Cube
1 Red Cube
1 Coin (Marked 1 and 2 on either side)
Rules:
Alphabetical Start
Cube can move forward or stay.
If moving forward onto an opponent cube.
Toss coin into atmosphere.
If coin lands on 2, move forward. If 1, stay.
After moving or staying, opponent's turn.
Repeat until all the board is of one color.
Variables:
2>1 = Win
1<2 = Lose
Saturday, June 20, 2009
The Toll of Uprising
The difference between the riots now in Iran and the ones thirty years ago is the exchange of "Shah" for "Khomeni". They want him dead. The death toll today rose at least 40, bringing the minimum toll to 52 as far as I can tell. The reports go as high as 200 but I can not confirm them.
How The West Lost The Revolution
The leaders of Iran who support Ahmadinejad and the Ayatolla have won. The reason I place the loss on the West, the nations who have leaders who represent Democracy and freedom in the world, is because they did not do enough to put the message I urged here forward in the ears of all Iranians. They did not show the Iranian people the support they needed to create a reform that would be truly different from the regime they have now. The world failed when a suicide bomber blew up the tomb of the first Ayatolla of Iran.
The protests would be oppressed and the people of the world knew this. The world knows what oppressive nations do when an internal challenge to their authority arises: they oppress even further. History shows this pattern every time.
The response can be violence, as is now occuring in Iran with this suicide bombing. When violence is used to overthrow an oppressive regime what often replaces it is an equally oppressive government. Look at the past year of coups and revolutions in Africa and Southeast Asia. Peaceful, persistent voicing of views creates a real change. The violence of the mutinees, and the militarization of the coups has led to equally oppressive regimes when they succeed and worse regimes when they fail. The peaceful declaration of a new government has created a stable Kosovo. The violence in this act of cowardice in Iran, if it becomes a pattern, will lead to an oppressive regime if it succeeds. Should this revolution now fail, the regime in place will be continuously oppressive against its people to ensure this revolution does not occur again.
Where did the West fail? It started with the leader of the free world, the leader of the most powerful nation on earth, declaring that we should not "meddle" in Iran. This was a statement amounting to saying we do not care what occurs in Iran. By the time the U.S. responded it was three days into the protests and too late for the message to be heard. I am certain voices in Europe were made, but here in the U.S. they were not heard. No voice is as powerful as that of the President of the United States. When he speaks, the world always listens. Whether the world agrees or not, is up to them; but they always listen.
For him to say we don't want to stand up for the freedom of Iranians to vote, to speak, to live their lives we have failed. I voiced myself but my leaders did not. I am not the President yet, but I know he has failed me.
We did not tell Iran to allow the freedom to be placed with the people. We did not tell the people to protest freely as their right, but peacefully. We did say we don't care. The wrong message at the right time. For Persia's people to not have the blessings of freedom urged by the rest of the world we have failed in bringing one of the oldest nations on earth to the modern free age of man.
However I will not give up. I will condemn the acts of violence by all sides and the silencing of voices wherever they occur in Iran. Freedom must be given and peace will be what is returned.
The protests would be oppressed and the people of the world knew this. The world knows what oppressive nations do when an internal challenge to their authority arises: they oppress even further. History shows this pattern every time.
The response can be violence, as is now occuring in Iran with this suicide bombing. When violence is used to overthrow an oppressive regime what often replaces it is an equally oppressive government. Look at the past year of coups and revolutions in Africa and Southeast Asia. Peaceful, persistent voicing of views creates a real change. The violence of the mutinees, and the militarization of the coups has led to equally oppressive regimes when they succeed and worse regimes when they fail. The peaceful declaration of a new government has created a stable Kosovo. The violence in this act of cowardice in Iran, if it becomes a pattern, will lead to an oppressive regime if it succeeds. Should this revolution now fail, the regime in place will be continuously oppressive against its people to ensure this revolution does not occur again.
Where did the West fail? It started with the leader of the free world, the leader of the most powerful nation on earth, declaring that we should not "meddle" in Iran. This was a statement amounting to saying we do not care what occurs in Iran. By the time the U.S. responded it was three days into the protests and too late for the message to be heard. I am certain voices in Europe were made, but here in the U.S. they were not heard. No voice is as powerful as that of the President of the United States. When he speaks, the world always listens. Whether the world agrees or not, is up to them; but they always listen.
For him to say we don't want to stand up for the freedom of Iranians to vote, to speak, to live their lives we have failed. I voiced myself but my leaders did not. I am not the President yet, but I know he has failed me.
We did not tell Iran to allow the freedom to be placed with the people. We did not tell the people to protest freely as their right, but peacefully. We did say we don't care. The wrong message at the right time. For Persia's people to not have the blessings of freedom urged by the rest of the world we have failed in bringing one of the oldest nations on earth to the modern free age of man.
However I will not give up. I will condemn the acts of violence by all sides and the silencing of voices wherever they occur in Iran. Freedom must be given and peace will be what is returned.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Apologies, Freedom, and Reality
Today the senate passed a bill apologizing for slavery. They did the same thing last year which explains why it sounds so familiar. Two instant reactions came out: it was not enough, and it was pointless. I am on the side of pointless because they did this last year. Those who say it is not enough often have said reparations are necessary.
The people of America were oppressed by the British. The Revolution gave independance and freedom to the whites. They did not demand the British also pay money in return. The only payment was freedom. The blacks had their freedom granted in the civil war when whites and blacks fought together for the freedom of the blacks. This is not to say that racism is not an issue, but slavery, as a practice of the U.S. government, has ended.
Native Americans have their own governments and laws because this is their homeland. For the rest of us our freedom are our reparation. Whites homeland is in Europe and blacks in Africa. We do not need money, we need freedom. Why is it that some african-American's can not accept an apology given in words and instead request it be given in money? Freedom is the only repayment for a moral injustice by society against any group.
The people of America were oppressed by the British. The Revolution gave independance and freedom to the whites. They did not demand the British also pay money in return. The only payment was freedom. The blacks had their freedom granted in the civil war when whites and blacks fought together for the freedom of the blacks. This is not to say that racism is not an issue, but slavery, as a practice of the U.S. government, has ended.
Native Americans have their own governments and laws because this is their homeland. For the rest of us our freedom are our reparation. Whites homeland is in Europe and blacks in Africa. We do not need money, we need freedom. Why is it that some african-American's can not accept an apology given in words and instead request it be given in money? Freedom is the only repayment for a moral injustice by society against any group.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
North Korea's Counterfeit
In the 1990s North Korea was one of the largest, and best producers of counterfeit technology and used it to counterfeit U.S. dollars. Problem is they still do that. However a news story from Italy where several people were arrested for holding 160 Billion dollars in bonds has caught my attention. Only 4 nations in the world hold more than 160 Billion dollars of United States debt. This means no person could possibly have that amount of bonds in their posession.
Two possibilities for this incident are they are real and countries are trying to get rid of their bonds in fear of a deflated U.S. dollar, or they are counterfeit. An expert has said only a country could counterfeit the bonds due to the required resources to do so. North Korea seems to be, for a nation with extreme poverty, doing a lot with its military - and seemingly only its military. Such policies are expensive. So, how would they be able to afford it? Just print the money or the bonds apparently. I am not saying it is North Korea behind the bonds, but it seems likely to me.
Two possibilities for this incident are they are real and countries are trying to get rid of their bonds in fear of a deflated U.S. dollar, or they are counterfeit. An expert has said only a country could counterfeit the bonds due to the required resources to do so. North Korea seems to be, for a nation with extreme poverty, doing a lot with its military - and seemingly only its military. Such policies are expensive. So, how would they be able to afford it? Just print the money or the bonds apparently. I am not saying it is North Korea behind the bonds, but it seems likely to me.
North Korea AND A Question Not Asked
First I will update the North Korean situation. It appears that North Korea is preparing a long-range missile launch for early July that will be aimed at Hawaii. It will fall 500 miles short after flying over Japan if it indeed does go forward. To those who say "500 miles short. Not important." You are wrong. Think of the Pacific Ocean, North Korea could aim it in any direction but it is preparing to aim straight line for Hawaii. The missile would be of the Taepodong-2 brand.
In response officials in the U.S. have said it will be 3 years before the West Coast will face a serious threat from North Korea. This means we will still have Barack Obama as president when the crunch time comes in. Do we let them become a threat? I say no but hey, three years is plenty of time to be proven wrong or right. We shall see.
However a ship, the Kang Nam, is suspected of carrying nuclear and missile weapons. It is a North Korean ship that left port Wednesday from North Korea. Here is where the question isn't being asked. In the reports we can't board it because the UN Resolution requires us to be granted access on board by North Korea. I don't see that happening. Yet, nobody is asking where the ship was going.
This is where it becomes crucial. It has left North Korean waters. The U.S. navy is tracking it of course and rightfully so. Will it go to the port as planned? If it has nuclear material and the ship was heading for Iran, we know something is going on with the alliance that I laid out on this blog way back when nobody cared. Well, seems like nobody cares now because nobody asked where it was going in the news reports.
Finally a new cog of the alliance. I listed Myanmar (Burma) in the list of nations against us. The affiliation wasn't clear. Now it is. Burma and North Korea have been connected by the trade-off by Burma of getting North Korean help in building underground structures in exchange for giving food aid and other materials to North Korea.
This connection began following the Rangoon bombing in which 18 South Korean officials visiting Burma were killed. North Korea held negotiations with Myanmar (Burma) in order to release the ones responsible for the bombing. While the prisoners were not extradited to North Korea, exchanges of military supplies from North Korea to keep the military juntas in power in exchange for food, rubber, and other items from the generals.
According to this article: http://www.rfa.org/english/news/burma/burmatunnels-06182009131301.html
Yes, according to the long linked article the generals traded raw materials because they didn't have money. Now the trade offs continue in which tunnels designed for the Burmese officials to hide and operate the government underground (in the event of air attack or even uprising) is exchanged for food.
Now there is an interesting part in which it mentions North Korea has been making numerous port calls with Burma. This means its ships have been going to port. They are officially called "friendship delegations" but the article explains the arrivals are for business. This is where it ties into the ship with the nuclear and missile materials the navy is tracking. We need to know where the ship was intended to go so we can form a clearer picture of the alliance. The ships location, if a nation not in the list of the current alliances, will be quite surprising to me and force me to research even deeper into the web of the alliances that we have.
There is a little extra note in this alliance that seems rather repetitive. Burma is accused of seeking a nuclear program. The list of nations in this alliance seeking, accused of, or having a nuclear program are as follows:
Iran
North Korea
Venezuela
Ecuador
Bolivia
Libya
Russia
Burma
Syria
Peru
Cuba
Pakistan (Who is, I believe, now a neutral power, although it will choose a side, I am not sure which anymore)
So with this information the alliances have a pattern of getting aid for nuclear technology from the Russians, who aid the triple alliance of Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea which are the champions of anti-Americanism in the world. Subsequently you have North Korea helping Syria and Burma with their programs. Iran and Venezuela working together to get Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru their own programs and Cuba is of course aided by Venezuela. The alliance is there. We need our leaders to realize this before it is too late.
This paragraph is my third post edit because today the info is coming out of the wood work. The U.N. Atomic Energy Chief, Mohamed Elbaradei, said Iran is seeking nuclear weapons technology. I really want to know where that ship was heading. I really do. I think you do to. Look in the news, see if you can see the alliances I see and let me know if you disagree.
In response officials in the U.S. have said it will be 3 years before the West Coast will face a serious threat from North Korea. This means we will still have Barack Obama as president when the crunch time comes in. Do we let them become a threat? I say no but hey, three years is plenty of time to be proven wrong or right. We shall see.
However a ship, the Kang Nam, is suspected of carrying nuclear and missile weapons. It is a North Korean ship that left port Wednesday from North Korea. Here is where the question isn't being asked. In the reports we can't board it because the UN Resolution requires us to be granted access on board by North Korea. I don't see that happening. Yet, nobody is asking where the ship was going.
This is where it becomes crucial. It has left North Korean waters. The U.S. navy is tracking it of course and rightfully so. Will it go to the port as planned? If it has nuclear material and the ship was heading for Iran, we know something is going on with the alliance that I laid out on this blog way back when nobody cared. Well, seems like nobody cares now because nobody asked where it was going in the news reports.
Finally a new cog of the alliance. I listed Myanmar (Burma) in the list of nations against us. The affiliation wasn't clear. Now it is. Burma and North Korea have been connected by the trade-off by Burma of getting North Korean help in building underground structures in exchange for giving food aid and other materials to North Korea.
This connection began following the Rangoon bombing in which 18 South Korean officials visiting Burma were killed. North Korea held negotiations with Myanmar (Burma) in order to release the ones responsible for the bombing. While the prisoners were not extradited to North Korea, exchanges of military supplies from North Korea to keep the military juntas in power in exchange for food, rubber, and other items from the generals.
According to this article: http://www.rfa.org/english/news/burma/burmatunnels-06182009131301.html
Yes, according to the long linked article the generals traded raw materials because they didn't have money. Now the trade offs continue in which tunnels designed for the Burmese officials to hide and operate the government underground (in the event of air attack or even uprising) is exchanged for food.
Now there is an interesting part in which it mentions North Korea has been making numerous port calls with Burma. This means its ships have been going to port. They are officially called "friendship delegations" but the article explains the arrivals are for business. This is where it ties into the ship with the nuclear and missile materials the navy is tracking. We need to know where the ship was intended to go so we can form a clearer picture of the alliance. The ships location, if a nation not in the list of the current alliances, will be quite surprising to me and force me to research even deeper into the web of the alliances that we have.
There is a little extra note in this alliance that seems rather repetitive. Burma is accused of seeking a nuclear program. The list of nations in this alliance seeking, accused of, or having a nuclear program are as follows:
Iran
North Korea
Venezuela
Ecuador
Bolivia
Libya
Russia
Burma
Syria
Peru
Cuba
Pakistan (Who is, I believe, now a neutral power, although it will choose a side, I am not sure which anymore)
So with this information the alliances have a pattern of getting aid for nuclear technology from the Russians, who aid the triple alliance of Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea which are the champions of anti-Americanism in the world. Subsequently you have North Korea helping Syria and Burma with their programs. Iran and Venezuela working together to get Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru their own programs and Cuba is of course aided by Venezuela. The alliance is there. We need our leaders to realize this before it is too late.
This paragraph is my third post edit because today the info is coming out of the wood work. The U.N. Atomic Energy Chief, Mohamed Elbaradei, said Iran is seeking nuclear weapons technology. I really want to know where that ship was heading. I really do. I think you do to. Look in the news, see if you can see the alliances I see and let me know if you disagree.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
The Green Revolution Toll Rises
The death toll in Iran has risen to 12, perhaps 14. No accurate reporting on the raid at Tehran University has the same toll. However, the victims were stabbed and shot to death. I am calling it the Green Revolution as it seems to be the defining moment of today's protests. The Iranian football (soccer) match against South Korea witnessed several players wearing green wrist bands in the first half. The wrist bands were ordered removed for the second half.
Green is also the color of Mousavi's political party and is the color of the banners of those who support him not only in Iran, but worldwide and in our own United States as well. Whether or not this Green Revolution succeeds and goes down in history as the Green Revolution is still not known.
The reason I chose the Green Revolution is also in continuity with other nation's revolutions lately. The Rose Revolution in Georgia and the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine are prime examples. I urge the support for their freedom to continue and for the world to not lose interest at this crucial moment and to continue to support the freedom of Iranians until this regime is altered in a way that is beneficial to Iran's people and will thus help the world's efforts for peace.
Green is also the color of Mousavi's political party and is the color of the banners of those who support him not only in Iran, but worldwide and in our own United States as well. Whether or not this Green Revolution succeeds and goes down in history as the Green Revolution is still not known.
The reason I chose the Green Revolution is also in continuity with other nation's revolutions lately. The Rose Revolution in Georgia and the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine are prime examples. I urge the support for their freedom to continue and for the world to not lose interest at this crucial moment and to continue to support the freedom of Iranians until this regime is altered in a way that is beneficial to Iran's people and will thus help the world's efforts for peace.
Cyber Warfare Reality
I'm done making warnings about cyber warfare potentials. The underlying force in this Iranian situation is a battle with proxy servers and blockers set up by the Iranian government. The cycle goes on and on back and forth minute by minute.
As someone who researched the use of hacking by the Chinese government against our Pentagon, occuring to this day still, and seeing the Russian Syndicate shut down Georgia's website servers during the Russo-Georgian war I can tell you that cyber warfare is here. With iReports and similar approaches in news networks, to the use of cyber attacks to shut down and plagarize websites from Isreal to Kosovo, to the current reliance on twitter to gain information of an ongoing situation in Iran, we are now seeing the value of cyber warfare and the attempts to use it to expand freedom, as well as shut it down.
With China and North Korea restricting internet access to government run websites and having a wall for entire nations in Burma, China, and Iran we are seeing that the cyber warfare is not only one way. The proxy servers being provided to Iranians are not an act of war but of revolution. In the past few years we have seen Kosovo, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, and now Iran have revolutions against alleged fraud in the election process that makes a Republic an actual Republic.
This may be one of the first revolutions which seems reliant upon the internet and cyber warfare as the main means with which it communicates with its supporters and activists. To spread the message the next best method they have is shouting from their cars during gridlock hours in Tehran. Somehow that method may be better than the one used to end the War of 1812, which had a peace treaty signed more than a week before the final battle in New Orleans took place. Yet, nothing matches the ability to include as many voices as possible as the internet does.
The warnings are over because cyber warfare is here. China is ahead of us and we are the nation with the largest defense budget. I demand as a citizen that we put some of those funds towards creating an encryption-proof closed network for our military system. An internet 3.0 or 4.0 depending on where the university systems are at.
As someone who researched the use of hacking by the Chinese government against our Pentagon, occuring to this day still, and seeing the Russian Syndicate shut down Georgia's website servers during the Russo-Georgian war I can tell you that cyber warfare is here. With iReports and similar approaches in news networks, to the use of cyber attacks to shut down and plagarize websites from Isreal to Kosovo, to the current reliance on twitter to gain information of an ongoing situation in Iran, we are now seeing the value of cyber warfare and the attempts to use it to expand freedom, as well as shut it down.
With China and North Korea restricting internet access to government run websites and having a wall for entire nations in Burma, China, and Iran we are seeing that the cyber warfare is not only one way. The proxy servers being provided to Iranians are not an act of war but of revolution. In the past few years we have seen Kosovo, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, and now Iran have revolutions against alleged fraud in the election process that makes a Republic an actual Republic.
This may be one of the first revolutions which seems reliant upon the internet and cyber warfare as the main means with which it communicates with its supporters and activists. To spread the message the next best method they have is shouting from their cars during gridlock hours in Tehran. Somehow that method may be better than the one used to end the War of 1812, which had a peace treaty signed more than a week before the final battle in New Orleans took place. Yet, nothing matches the ability to include as many voices as possible as the internet does.
The warnings are over because cyber warfare is here. China is ahead of us and we are the nation with the largest defense budget. I demand as a citizen that we put some of those funds towards creating an encryption-proof closed network for our military system. An internet 3.0 or 4.0 depending on where the university systems are at.
My Financial Reform
President Obama announced that he is creating a new agency to prevent a financial collapse like the one that has created the current economic recession. I have a new solution, it is simple, and doesn't need a new agency or more money to any agency or program. It may require a person to do some number crunching by a man in an office for about an hour and then giving a green or red light to expansions by the largest companies in any industry. If the company is less than 20% of the industry, let the expansion go forward. If it does not, red light do not approve a merger or office or store. We prevent monopolies in the same way. This will help make sure a company, should it fail, does not have a catastrophic effect on the economy. It prevents the "too big to fail" theory which does not apply to the state of California. Somehow the nation's largest economy and one of the world's top 10 economies is not too big to fail, but a few banks and car makers are. Back to the point, prevent them from being this massive. It will ensure competition and prevent systemic failures. A little oversight to make sure, like the banking industry was, the companies are not reliant upon each other for more than 5% of their operating revenue. What this means is that along the line, the closer the industry gets to your home town the more diverse your choices will be.
Banking industry for example had AIG insuring all the mortgage backed securities. AIG was the mortgage backed security shop essentially. Sure it has insurance for many other things, but for the banks and mortgage backed securities it was AIG. If you limited the connections between the largest industries you would have 20 "AIG" shops for mortgage backed securities. This means that when AIG fails, the banking industry won't collapse.
It can be applied in other ways but here is a little disclaimer: it won't apply to all industries. Well, it will. The 20% rule should apply across the board. Yet the 5% would be difficult in some industries. Like the diamond industry. There are only so many diamond mines in the world, and none are in the United States. Yet diamond sellers are a different story.
Now lets take a different industry and place it at the local level. I understand small towns won't have the real availability for diversification in store-front options, but I feel enough effect will be felt in even large towns (10,000 +) that it will be recognizable. If you have five farms making the 20% of the industry for farming nationwide, they have to have buyers. McDonald's, Burger King, so on and so forth will buy. The farmers should not rely on more than 5% of sales to McDonalds that way when McDonalds fails (which it probably won't, not making a prediction folks) the farmer hasn't lost his way to survive. It also makes sure that McDonald's can't rely on one farmer for more than 5% of the meat production. It gets difficult here and may probably provide the exception needed because, with some food products, they are one of a kind and may have different tastes depending on where it is grown. This means 5% for McDonald's could lead to inconsistency in taste and be a bad policy for the company. Yet the farmer, by diversifying its purchasers, ensures long term stability of customers and will almost always have a market. This way if one fails, the other customers can fill in the gaps.
The long term effects of this:more businesses and gauranteed market stability. Recessions may occur, but entire industries will not fail catastrophically as they did this time and in 1939.
More businesses means more people being involved in the market. We will see smaller businesses providing a more diverse shopping experience for people in America. The mom-and-pop stores will have a comeback I believe.
Perhaps even having four companies not able to get more than 20% of market share, and then for the last 20% making it so no company can get above 5 or 1% market share would ensure the small business approach which inspires the most innovation and give the local feel of business back to towns in America. That said 1% is still a huge part of the economy. It could be refined for various industries based on the value of that industry in GDP standards. I'm not an expert but I think this is a good idea. If you think so too let me know, and let your representatives, senators, governors, and president know. Otherwise, a good idea may be lost. Final note on the idea, for what companies will be the 20% let the details be hammered out, maybe make it a bit fairer and limit all companies to 5% of market share or 1% even (especially in retail chains, restaurant chains, fast food, and banking industries.)
The best part is the American dream still exists, and you can become wealthy. You just won't be able to have your business become large enough that if you fail, you won't be hurting the nation. It will also allow the American dream to be more possible for everyone because the need for more businesses to make sure the market share is filled will make more Americans and even non-citizens a better chance at meeting the American Dream. It also will have no government run operations. We do not need Amtrak expanded to other industries. I think that much is obvious.
I feel regulation can be used as an alternative to taxes in order to make the country more financially equal. While everyone wishes the world was perfect and everyone was equal, I disagree with doing it by taking and giving. Taxes create resentment. Regulation is better because it also doesn't require the government to make the decisions for the businesses. It only makes sure the field of play is fair for everyone.
Analogy time!
The government regulations are like the referee in a soccer game. Before the game the referee can check to make sure the field is to standard, so that both teams have the same field to play on. This is the opportunity to succeed in this nation. The referee keeping score is just the government doing the census. When one of the players goes beyond regulation, the team faces a penalty kick. The regulations in the economy prevent these fouls. The giving of the penalty kick is like the government taxing and giving the taxes to those who are at disadvantage. By using government regulation to make sure no one is at a disadvantage, I believe the need to tax and give to the disadvantaged will be gone. Those who fail will have failed because they simply are not up to the job of doing what others do.
This has been another episode of the ravings of a madman. Due to the realization that I am rambling here, I have decided to stop myself and return to the topic at another time. Thank you for reading. And let me know what you think!
P.S. I mean what you think, not what you feel. If you hate me and think I hate poor people, or am betraying my Republican values, spare me. Lets discuss the issues on their merit and realistic possiblities.
Banking industry for example had AIG insuring all the mortgage backed securities. AIG was the mortgage backed security shop essentially. Sure it has insurance for many other things, but for the banks and mortgage backed securities it was AIG. If you limited the connections between the largest industries you would have 20 "AIG" shops for mortgage backed securities. This means that when AIG fails, the banking industry won't collapse.
It can be applied in other ways but here is a little disclaimer: it won't apply to all industries. Well, it will. The 20% rule should apply across the board. Yet the 5% would be difficult in some industries. Like the diamond industry. There are only so many diamond mines in the world, and none are in the United States. Yet diamond sellers are a different story.
Now lets take a different industry and place it at the local level. I understand small towns won't have the real availability for diversification in store-front options, but I feel enough effect will be felt in even large towns (10,000 +) that it will be recognizable. If you have five farms making the 20% of the industry for farming nationwide, they have to have buyers. McDonald's, Burger King, so on and so forth will buy. The farmers should not rely on more than 5% of sales to McDonalds that way when McDonalds fails (which it probably won't, not making a prediction folks) the farmer hasn't lost his way to survive. It also makes sure that McDonald's can't rely on one farmer for more than 5% of the meat production. It gets difficult here and may probably provide the exception needed because, with some food products, they are one of a kind and may have different tastes depending on where it is grown. This means 5% for McDonald's could lead to inconsistency in taste and be a bad policy for the company. Yet the farmer, by diversifying its purchasers, ensures long term stability of customers and will almost always have a market. This way if one fails, the other customers can fill in the gaps.
The long term effects of this:more businesses and gauranteed market stability. Recessions may occur, but entire industries will not fail catastrophically as they did this time and in 1939.
More businesses means more people being involved in the market. We will see smaller businesses providing a more diverse shopping experience for people in America. The mom-and-pop stores will have a comeback I believe.
Perhaps even having four companies not able to get more than 20% of market share, and then for the last 20% making it so no company can get above 5 or 1% market share would ensure the small business approach which inspires the most innovation and give the local feel of business back to towns in America. That said 1% is still a huge part of the economy. It could be refined for various industries based on the value of that industry in GDP standards. I'm not an expert but I think this is a good idea. If you think so too let me know, and let your representatives, senators, governors, and president know. Otherwise, a good idea may be lost. Final note on the idea, for what companies will be the 20% let the details be hammered out, maybe make it a bit fairer and limit all companies to 5% of market share or 1% even (especially in retail chains, restaurant chains, fast food, and banking industries.)
The best part is the American dream still exists, and you can become wealthy. You just won't be able to have your business become large enough that if you fail, you won't be hurting the nation. It will also allow the American dream to be more possible for everyone because the need for more businesses to make sure the market share is filled will make more Americans and even non-citizens a better chance at meeting the American Dream. It also will have no government run operations. We do not need Amtrak expanded to other industries. I think that much is obvious.
I feel regulation can be used as an alternative to taxes in order to make the country more financially equal. While everyone wishes the world was perfect and everyone was equal, I disagree with doing it by taking and giving. Taxes create resentment. Regulation is better because it also doesn't require the government to make the decisions for the businesses. It only makes sure the field of play is fair for everyone.
Analogy time!
The government regulations are like the referee in a soccer game. Before the game the referee can check to make sure the field is to standard, so that both teams have the same field to play on. This is the opportunity to succeed in this nation. The referee keeping score is just the government doing the census. When one of the players goes beyond regulation, the team faces a penalty kick. The regulations in the economy prevent these fouls. The giving of the penalty kick is like the government taxing and giving the taxes to those who are at disadvantage. By using government regulation to make sure no one is at a disadvantage, I believe the need to tax and give to the disadvantaged will be gone. Those who fail will have failed because they simply are not up to the job of doing what others do.
This has been another episode of the ravings of a madman. Due to the realization that I am rambling here, I have decided to stop myself and return to the topic at another time. Thank you for reading. And let me know what you think!
P.S. I mean what you think, not what you feel. If you hate me and think I hate poor people, or am betraying my Republican values, spare me. Lets discuss the issues on their merit and realistic possiblities.
The Promotion of Cowardice
Iran has made illegal the silent protest of over 100,000 people in Tehran. Their riot police have raided Tehran University and beaten students and shot at protestors. So far 7 Mousavi supporters have been killed. I personally have a gut feeling this is higher, but the reports are monitored coming out of Iran so there is just no way of knowing right now. By making peaceful protest illegal Iran is supporting open revolt against themselves. By making violence the only option for these people to express themselves they are furthering the cycle of cowardice they use to rule. I urge the supporters of Mousavi to conduct themselves in only a peaceful manner and to know that in time, in continued efforts over weeks and months, change will come. You will be heard the longer your stand up and make yourselves and your cause known. You have my support.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Iran's Cowardice
The people of Iran, and of the world, are entitled to freedom. Freedom is the engine of progress for mankind. In shutting down foreign news sources and placing their employees under, essentially, house arrest you are proving yourselves to be cowards. For all sides in Iran the act of silencing the opposition and using violence against those with whom you disagree with are what makes you coward. By not facing your opposition intellectually and resorting to barbaric brute force you are a coward. Speak to your opponents instead of shooting and stabbing them. Rally around your voices instead of your weapons.
To the world I urge you not to allow Mirhossein Mousavi become the next Benazir Bhutto. Stand in unity of democracy and freedom in Iran and against the censorship of its people. In a world where injustice is commonplace those who stand for justice should not stand by to prevent being looked at as 'meddling." If meddling in another nation's affairs brings freedom and restores justice then it is indeed a good thing.
To the world I urge you not to allow Mirhossein Mousavi become the next Benazir Bhutto. Stand in unity of democracy and freedom in Iran and against the censorship of its people. In a world where injustice is commonplace those who stand for justice should not stand by to prevent being looked at as 'meddling." If meddling in another nation's affairs brings freedom and restores justice then it is indeed a good thing.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Those Who Mean Well
Those who mean well may do more damage than those who do nothing.
That quote, from a source I can not remember, pertains to Obama. I believe he wants to do well, but the manner in which he wants to do it is going to cause more harm than good.
In the world of doing good, there are billions of people worldwide who want to see their world improved. There are millions who work on improving it either for themselves or others. They do so through business, charity, and volunteering. Of the business routes the rich, who are often demonized by those who are not rich, get little heroic responses from the masses as the interpretation of the service the rich do for the community is a necessary return to the society that made them wealthy. In charity, you have the heroic figures of Susan G. Komen and others who have their efforts continued in organizations that recognize their efforts as so monumental as to make the effort named after them. In the volunteering realm you have Mother Theresa and Ghandi along with numerous saints and others. We have political and national heroes: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt. In times of great need they founded our nation, united our nation, and defended our nation. They protected the freedoms of our people, and used their power to help as many Americans as possible.
I do not believe Barack Obama is a political hero for our nation. His efforts have restricted freedom, and altered the other routes of heroism to make them ineffective at saving our nation. His approach in the stimulus and bailout spending bills have not been effective at keeping us below 9% unemployment and keeping the promised police jobs, and the auto making jobs present and viable. The banks were given the choice to accept TARP funds, but only by choosing of the government were they allowed to give the money back.
Our nation is divided. The exclusion of voices, and the hatred against those who dissent against Obama's policies are making those on the fringe that are not in favor of Obama become more disenfranchised. While I do not sympathize with violence, and do not support it, I feel I can explain it. I live in Maine and I am a Republican. In the youth community words are often very hateful when the discussion of politics and race comes into being. Those who are recieving the treatment of hate for having an opinion often form their own hateful feelings from those. The feelings of isolation leads to a reclusive life that fosters feelings of hatred.
When these feelings grow stronger and stronger they lash out and you get the radical killings we have seen recently. There were always these events, but in this time of social upheaval, the Fourth Turning if you read a ridiculous amount of books on history, we need a political and national hero who will unite our nation in this crisis and not be a figure of division. Barack Obama continues to follow through with laying blame. I don't care who he blames, sometimes Bush, sometimes the military, sometimes the rich. I don't care. That he blames anyone, instead of saying what the problem is and how to fix it, he also adds in who created the problem.
I can't say I do not want to take math because the teacher creates bad problems. I may give the answers but if I continue to complain people get annoyed. Obama has the problem, gives the solution, but continues to complain. A national hero does not blame the people within who want to support that hero, he unites them and makes them a part of the solution. Barack Obama does not do this and so I do not believe he is going to lead us out of this crisis. A national crisis, involving everything from racism, the economy, healthcare, war, everything. I think we need a national hero, I do not think we have that hero in Barack Obama.
That quote, from a source I can not remember, pertains to Obama. I believe he wants to do well, but the manner in which he wants to do it is going to cause more harm than good.
In the world of doing good, there are billions of people worldwide who want to see their world improved. There are millions who work on improving it either for themselves or others. They do so through business, charity, and volunteering. Of the business routes the rich, who are often demonized by those who are not rich, get little heroic responses from the masses as the interpretation of the service the rich do for the community is a necessary return to the society that made them wealthy. In charity, you have the heroic figures of Susan G. Komen and others who have their efforts continued in organizations that recognize their efforts as so monumental as to make the effort named after them. In the volunteering realm you have Mother Theresa and Ghandi along with numerous saints and others. We have political and national heroes: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt. In times of great need they founded our nation, united our nation, and defended our nation. They protected the freedoms of our people, and used their power to help as many Americans as possible.
How does this analysis of how these people are heroes apply to Barack Obama? Barack Obama wants to do good and we are in a crisis in which we need one of our heroes. The business realm of heroes has been villified, the charity route has been made almost mandatory and diminished in value as such, and volunteerism is a requirement for many to get what they want and thus it is no longer volunteering but a job like any other except you are paid in benefits and not in money. A political hero is who we need right now.
I do not believe Barack Obama is a political hero for our nation. His efforts have restricted freedom, and altered the other routes of heroism to make them ineffective at saving our nation. His approach in the stimulus and bailout spending bills have not been effective at keeping us below 9% unemployment and keeping the promised police jobs, and the auto making jobs present and viable. The banks were given the choice to accept TARP funds, but only by choosing of the government were they allowed to give the money back.
Our nation is divided. The exclusion of voices, and the hatred against those who dissent against Obama's policies are making those on the fringe that are not in favor of Obama become more disenfranchised. While I do not sympathize with violence, and do not support it, I feel I can explain it. I live in Maine and I am a Republican. In the youth community words are often very hateful when the discussion of politics and race comes into being. Those who are recieving the treatment of hate for having an opinion often form their own hateful feelings from those. The feelings of isolation leads to a reclusive life that fosters feelings of hatred.
When these feelings grow stronger and stronger they lash out and you get the radical killings we have seen recently. There were always these events, but in this time of social upheaval, the Fourth Turning if you read a ridiculous amount of books on history, we need a political and national hero who will unite our nation in this crisis and not be a figure of division. Barack Obama continues to follow through with laying blame. I don't care who he blames, sometimes Bush, sometimes the military, sometimes the rich. I don't care. That he blames anyone, instead of saying what the problem is and how to fix it, he also adds in who created the problem.
I can't say I do not want to take math because the teacher creates bad problems. I may give the answers but if I continue to complain people get annoyed. Obama has the problem, gives the solution, but continues to complain. A national hero does not blame the people within who want to support that hero, he unites them and makes them a part of the solution. Barack Obama does not do this and so I do not believe he is going to lead us out of this crisis. A national crisis, involving everything from racism, the economy, healthcare, war, everything. I think we need a national hero, I do not think we have that hero in Barack Obama.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
My Healthcare Reform
The healthcare issue is visible in most news sources lately and is being pushed forward by Obama and many others. President Obama proposes a healthcare plan, and the Republicans have proposed a plan. I oppose the Obama plan and I have mixed feelings about the Republican plan. Both involve the creation of new programs, the difference is Obama wants the government to run the program, Republicans want a company to operate it. Obama's wants healthcare insurance to be mandatory. I oppose this because I can't afford health insurance, or more taxes, whatever they are using to pay for it, and I am relatively healthy and rarely go to the hospital so why should I be forced to get, or pay for something I do not need or want? So here is my plan: do what the government does best: REGULATE. Do not control day to day operations but place guidelines in which the companies can operate. Current plans stay the same with the following changes to basic company policy:
1. A company can not refuse to give an insurance plan to anyone who has never missed a premium.
2. A company can suspend insurance to people who do not pay a premium.
3. A company can not require any medical treatment to be more than 10% covered by the consumer.
4. An insurance plan should cover all medical treatments available with no exceptions. A visit to the doctor is a visit to the doctor. Circumstance should not matter of why they are at the hospital just pay for the treatment.
5. Premiums should never cost more than 3% of a person's annual income. Family plans should follow the same ratio per person.
6. People, not employers, should be the only ones capable of purchasing healthcare. Healthcare should not be a benefit of employment but a personal responsibility.
7. If a person does not have health insurance but needs treatment, send them the bill and let them face the possible debt load if they wish.
Healthcare is not a right. Choosing if you have health insurance or not is a right. Read your consitution. What powers are not granted to the federal government are granted to the states and the people. We have the right to live our lives. Let the government make these simple tweaks, I wrote them spontaneously like I write everything. It isn't rocket science. Wake up America and use some common sense approaches. Know the limits of government (there are limits, read the Constitution they never made required reading in our American school system) and stop the government from going beyond the limits.
1. A company can not refuse to give an insurance plan to anyone who has never missed a premium.
2. A company can suspend insurance to people who do not pay a premium.
3. A company can not require any medical treatment to be more than 10% covered by the consumer.
4. An insurance plan should cover all medical treatments available with no exceptions. A visit to the doctor is a visit to the doctor. Circumstance should not matter of why they are at the hospital just pay for the treatment.
5. Premiums should never cost more than 3% of a person's annual income. Family plans should follow the same ratio per person.
6. People, not employers, should be the only ones capable of purchasing healthcare. Healthcare should not be a benefit of employment but a personal responsibility.
7. If a person does not have health insurance but needs treatment, send them the bill and let them face the possible debt load if they wish.
Healthcare is not a right. Choosing if you have health insurance or not is a right. Read your consitution. What powers are not granted to the federal government are granted to the states and the people. We have the right to live our lives. Let the government make these simple tweaks, I wrote them spontaneously like I write everything. It isn't rocket science. Wake up America and use some common sense approaches. Know the limits of government (there are limits, read the Constitution they never made required reading in our American school system) and stop the government from going beyond the limits.
An Analogy Gone Wrong
CNN reporter, in the time span of 3:45-3:50 said that the Obama healthcare plan is similar to schools. Some go to public school, others go to private schools.
Sorry to be so quick to shoot holes in this but you do not pay to go to public school. You pay taxes but not a monthly fee of some kind that burdens you instantly in your budget. Secondly, education is a necessity. I don't need a doctor. Why should I be required to have one?
Critics say "Well say that when you get sick." If I get sick, I'm responsible enough to set aside my own finances to pay for the treatment. I also live my life well, so I doubt I'll be catching Swine Flu 2.0.
Also, ask yourself if we really want anything else in our lives imitating our education system?
Then ask yourself when we are done making our healthcare system like our education system, what other government run agency or department will our education system be compared to for the reforms for free college at the price of "volunteerism" that is going to be proposed next?
Sorry to be so quick to shoot holes in this but you do not pay to go to public school. You pay taxes but not a monthly fee of some kind that burdens you instantly in your budget. Secondly, education is a necessity. I don't need a doctor. Why should I be required to have one?
Critics say "Well say that when you get sick." If I get sick, I'm responsible enough to set aside my own finances to pay for the treatment. I also live my life well, so I doubt I'll be catching Swine Flu 2.0.
Also, ask yourself if we really want anything else in our lives imitating our education system?
Then ask yourself when we are done making our healthcare system like our education system, what other government run agency or department will our education system be compared to for the reforms for free college at the price of "volunteerism" that is going to be proposed next?
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Legal Action For Death Threats
In America we do not allow a person to specifically threaten another person. For some reason we do allow, under 'freedom of speech', allow people to threaten ambiguously large numbers of people. These threats range from political (Republicans, Democrats, Socialists, Anarchists), to racist (Muslims, Jews) and I believe those threats should be treated as a worse crime.
A threat against one person should not be considered more serious than a threat against many. This shooter in Washington D.C., the name of whom I will not glorify on my blog, had a forum through which he threatened to kill gentiles. This could have been prevented. It should have been prevented. Our legal system needs to stop protecting the threatening of life in any form. It is not free speech, it is a threat to our security. Our nation's security is our citizen's security because our people are the nation.
I call for action and I urge you to do so as well. As I said yesterday I am running for city council in my town, I urge you to run for office in your areas as well. We need American's in office who know what needs to change and how we can fix it. My stand on this is to urge the Bangor code to pass a law making death threats against not only a person but groups of people as well to be illegal and punishable.
Thank you for reading and I hope you will stand up and be heard as well.
A threat against one person should not be considered more serious than a threat against many. This shooter in Washington D.C., the name of whom I will not glorify on my blog, had a forum through which he threatened to kill gentiles. This could have been prevented. It should have been prevented. Our legal system needs to stop protecting the threatening of life in any form. It is not free speech, it is a threat to our security. Our nation's security is our citizen's security because our people are the nation.
I call for action and I urge you to do so as well. As I said yesterday I am running for city council in my town, I urge you to run for office in your areas as well. We need American's in office who know what needs to change and how we can fix it. My stand on this is to urge the Bangor code to pass a law making death threats against not only a person but groups of people as well to be illegal and punishable.
Thank you for reading and I hope you will stand up and be heard as well.
A Final Note On Torture
Waterboarding is torture. The other techniques require the use of occassional chains, slapping, and blindfolding. If it is not torture, which those may not necessarily be, they are in the least unusual if not cruel. I do not oppose them because they violate the Geneva conventions. If they do, fine, if they don't, so what. We have a Constitution in this country that says no cruel and unusual punishment. While that is often interpreted as a right given to our citizens, I believe it is also a command. We can not experience those punishments based on our 6th Amendment. What do we think gives us the right to conduct those practices on someone else? I think the Constitution tells us not to use those techniques and so I agree with them being banned as they already are based on the Constitution.
As for the photos, what idiot decided to take not just a few pictures, but thousands. The torture was wrong, but taking photos was perhaps the dumbest option for someone who was there to take. I will give the person closest to the photos right now a little hint: burn them. End the arguement, risk your job over it, but we can not allow Nancy Pelosi and others to get their way and give our enemies ammunition for recruitment. It is as simple as that. You may lose your job I understand, but it will be a brave sacrafice for our nation's security.
As for the photos, what idiot decided to take not just a few pictures, but thousands. The torture was wrong, but taking photos was perhaps the dumbest option for someone who was there to take. I will give the person closest to the photos right now a little hint: burn them. End the arguement, risk your job over it, but we can not allow Nancy Pelosi and others to get their way and give our enemies ammunition for recruitment. It is as simple as that. You may lose your job I understand, but it will be a brave sacrafice for our nation's security.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
A Reality Check
"Spread the wealth." A term found often in the doctrine of those who support Communism and Socialism. Anyone who denies it is either ignorant to reality or are lying.
"Pay your fair share." An implied phrase to those who earn more money than others. It is a command for them to support more people by giving their money to others (spread the wealth). In this it is expected that the fair share is helping as many people as possible be equalized until you are equal in wealth to them.
Those who support these two statements are commonly members of the Democratic Party. Barack Hussein Obama (HEY, he said it in Cairo, paws off the name, it is his name so back off, I'm not a racist, see earlier post on race to see evidence I am not a racist), anyhow, Barack has used these phrases. Our leader. The Soviet Union may be gone from its power, but Amerika is coming regardless. The wheels are still in motion and it is coming.
Now, my interpretation of "fair share". A persons fair share in America should be supporting one person (and bloodline children.) A person's fair share is supporting themself. End of story. It isn't a lot. It is just the American dream. It is what makes America unique to the world. The American Dream means the government doesn't take away from you what you want, earn, and you do not get punished for having something. What we have seen from Obama is punish the rich. PUNISH them for earning more than me and you.
You work your entire life. You pay taxes, and you give to charities at your local mall or you do something to help charities like everyone else. You make roughly 24-40 thousand a year. If you earn 40 thousand a year, how would you feel if the government took 28 thousand from you? The government took 70% of what you have worked so hard to earn. Now you know how a millionaire feels. They get an immense 70% INCOME TAX. They pay that much because it is considered their fair share. The only reason a tax cut seems to help the rich is because the rich pay WAY more than the 5 percent or 8 percent income tax you pay. If you are lucky enough not to live in Maine and perhaps Florida, you pay no income tax no matter what. Other states that have it (everyone pays federal, but states have it too) do it similar to the federal tax and combined it equals 70% in several cases of higher wealth brackets. Now, here is the kicker. The lowest earning 40% of American's pay no income tax. WHERE IS THEIR FAIR SHARE? First of all, how is paying for someone elses homeless shelter paying your fair share? Secondly, how is going to a homeless shelter you didn't pay for doing your fair share?
I am doing this blog today to denounce the users of the terms above. They are anti-American. They want to remove our way of life and with our nation being free, and powerful they want to remove our freedom which is what makes us powerful. Democratic "ideals" will ruin our nation. Our Constitution is being ignored and yes, this is my official announcement (not for office, even though I am running for Bangor city council) of my anger. I announce I am angry. The government better listen close because I'm coming. You got inside it, and so will I. However, instead of going in to bring in your buddies, I'm going in to get you out. You have been warned.
"Pay your fair share." An implied phrase to those who earn more money than others. It is a command for them to support more people by giving their money to others (spread the wealth). In this it is expected that the fair share is helping as many people as possible be equalized until you are equal in wealth to them.
Those who support these two statements are commonly members of the Democratic Party. Barack Hussein Obama (HEY, he said it in Cairo, paws off the name, it is his name so back off, I'm not a racist, see earlier post on race to see evidence I am not a racist), anyhow, Barack has used these phrases. Our leader. The Soviet Union may be gone from its power, but Amerika is coming regardless. The wheels are still in motion and it is coming.
Now, my interpretation of "fair share". A persons fair share in America should be supporting one person (and bloodline children.) A person's fair share is supporting themself. End of story. It isn't a lot. It is just the American dream. It is what makes America unique to the world. The American Dream means the government doesn't take away from you what you want, earn, and you do not get punished for having something. What we have seen from Obama is punish the rich. PUNISH them for earning more than me and you.
You work your entire life. You pay taxes, and you give to charities at your local mall or you do something to help charities like everyone else. You make roughly 24-40 thousand a year. If you earn 40 thousand a year, how would you feel if the government took 28 thousand from you? The government took 70% of what you have worked so hard to earn. Now you know how a millionaire feels. They get an immense 70% INCOME TAX. They pay that much because it is considered their fair share. The only reason a tax cut seems to help the rich is because the rich pay WAY more than the 5 percent or 8 percent income tax you pay. If you are lucky enough not to live in Maine and perhaps Florida, you pay no income tax no matter what. Other states that have it (everyone pays federal, but states have it too) do it similar to the federal tax and combined it equals 70% in several cases of higher wealth brackets. Now, here is the kicker. The lowest earning 40% of American's pay no income tax. WHERE IS THEIR FAIR SHARE? First of all, how is paying for someone elses homeless shelter paying your fair share? Secondly, how is going to a homeless shelter you didn't pay for doing your fair share?
I am doing this blog today to denounce the users of the terms above. They are anti-American. They want to remove our way of life and with our nation being free, and powerful they want to remove our freedom which is what makes us powerful. Democratic "ideals" will ruin our nation. Our Constitution is being ignored and yes, this is my official announcement (not for office, even though I am running for Bangor city council) of my anger. I announce I am angry. The government better listen close because I'm coming. You got inside it, and so will I. However, instead of going in to bring in your buddies, I'm going in to get you out. You have been warned.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Healthcare From Maine
Let me explain a few things to you about Democrats. In Maine we all agree a safety net is necessary. No Republican honestly opposes helping those in dire need. We oppose expanding for things which makes government the only way to survive.
Today President Obama announced the government health care plan. A so called 'pay as you go' plan that I've heard it called. They say it will not remove choice. They say you can choose any doctor you want. They say it will lower costs. Lowering cost is good for the consumer, but not for the one who has very expensive equipment to pay for.
In Maine, we have Mainecare. It has not paid for 2004-2009. The state of Maine had a good "cover some, not all" idea at the start. It has since expanded from those who need it to almost anyone who applies. Then in the past few years Dirigo healthcare went into place. It was a complete mistake. The program they used expensively failed, crashed, lost files, and was just a waste of money. This waste continues.
Today doctors can decide not to accept Mainecare. This is because if they did, the independantly working ones (dentists, therapists, ect...) would not get paid like the hospitals are not getting paid. Blue Hill hospital went bankrupt due to the state not making payments on Mainecare. For Maine, this was difficult because it moved the people in the north even further south to get care in Maine. For Canadians, the travel was made even further (for those needing treatments NOT available in "nationally insured" healthcare Canada.)
Now, Obama's plan supporters say it will not remove choice. Today you can choose not to have insurance. One of the first things they said was that there should be a requirement for people to have insurance of some kind. They outright lied about choice. Even if you can choose your provider (government or insurance companies owned by the government, and insurance companies - Note: AIG as an example) the providers may be limited as they are in Maine. In order to supposedly protect Maine jobs, only Maine insurance companies are allowed. There are only three. Now, for our unionized mills (which happen to be all of them) the lack of competing insurance companies made the companies buy insurance (because of the unions) for all of their workers that is much higher than in other states. This is partly why most mills in Maine have shut down. How long until the plan becomes so massive that nobody can choose anything other than the government plan which they intend, and I quote, "to make competitive with other companies to force lower premiums."
One thing, our nation has the most advanced healthcare technology in the world. This is why Fidel, in what Micheal Moore called the utopian system, had to go to four different countries to be able to get the medical treatment he needed. Since he was dictator of Cuba, we didn't let him come here and so his choices were very limited. However people all over the world are coming to the United States for medical treatment. This treatment, this technology, is not cheap. Just like the latest I-phone won't be cheap, neither will be the medical technology which has to be absolutely perfect to avoid lawsuits and gain approval by the CDC or FDA I am not sure which does medical treatments, probably a mix of both.
If you make premiums cheap to compete with insurance companies, they lower their premiums but the cost of treatment doesn't go down. However, the government has a little bit of help because with Obama's plan the government tells the doctor how much the treatment costs regardless of the staff, equipment, and hours of labor the doctor will use to treat the patient. The insurance companies get a bill from the doctor, not the other way around. So when the insurance companies go under - Maine has three companies. New Hampshire has 21 - the government will become the only choice. Choice will be limited.
They say you can choose your doctor. Today a doctor can refuse Mainecare. Mainecare doesn't pay up. The doctors go bankrupt and go out of business and don't treat people if they can't afford to operate. Obama's plan makes it so doctors can not refuse a patient with Obamacare. This means even if the government doesn't pay because it doesn't have the money that the doctor must treat the person at their own cost getting an IOU as Maine hospitals have been getting for many years now. The doctors go out of business, so the choice of doctors is limited. It becomes limited to those using cheaper equipment that may not be top quality and as advanced as other technologies, and may have fewer support staff who may double check and make sure operations go as necessary. Just think if you want a double-bypass surgery with only the doctor in the room. For those with staff and able to perform, the wait times will increase because there will be fewer doctors available because they go bankrupt. Choose your doctor and government insurance today so you can't get treatment later.
They say it will lower costs. Only because they choose what the operations will cost. The doctors and hospitals won't be able to charge the government, the government will give what it thinks is "fair". I have heard supporters, a few months back a debate topic was whether or not we should apply the French system here, and in France doctors earn a third less than they do here. My opponents would say that it was because doctors in France were glad to do more for less, the doctors were willing to charge France less as an act of patriotism. Looking into it, NO. France gives the doctors what they think is fair. It is easy to make your healthcare cost the cheapest per capita in the world when you choose what you pay your doctor. What they don't tell you is the government in France has to pay for doctor's college in order to help make sure they do not have massive debt to be a doctor. The result is a mediocre trained medical force with only the education the government could afford.
So when the government has the healthcare under its full control, enjoy getting your simple cough looked at today in order to not have the emergency room tomorrow.
Thank you for reading and if you disagree, PLEASE, I beg of you, reply and lets make this a discussion. This has been another production of the ravings of a madman, chirp chirp.
Today President Obama announced the government health care plan. A so called 'pay as you go' plan that I've heard it called. They say it will not remove choice. They say you can choose any doctor you want. They say it will lower costs. Lowering cost is good for the consumer, but not for the one who has very expensive equipment to pay for.
In Maine, we have Mainecare. It has not paid for 2004-2009. The state of Maine had a good "cover some, not all" idea at the start. It has since expanded from those who need it to almost anyone who applies. Then in the past few years Dirigo healthcare went into place. It was a complete mistake. The program they used expensively failed, crashed, lost files, and was just a waste of money. This waste continues.
Today doctors can decide not to accept Mainecare. This is because if they did, the independantly working ones (dentists, therapists, ect...) would not get paid like the hospitals are not getting paid. Blue Hill hospital went bankrupt due to the state not making payments on Mainecare. For Maine, this was difficult because it moved the people in the north even further south to get care in Maine. For Canadians, the travel was made even further (for those needing treatments NOT available in "nationally insured" healthcare Canada.)
Now, Obama's plan supporters say it will not remove choice. Today you can choose not to have insurance. One of the first things they said was that there should be a requirement for people to have insurance of some kind. They outright lied about choice. Even if you can choose your provider (government or insurance companies owned by the government, and insurance companies - Note: AIG as an example) the providers may be limited as they are in Maine. In order to supposedly protect Maine jobs, only Maine insurance companies are allowed. There are only three. Now, for our unionized mills (which happen to be all of them) the lack of competing insurance companies made the companies buy insurance (because of the unions) for all of their workers that is much higher than in other states. This is partly why most mills in Maine have shut down. How long until the plan becomes so massive that nobody can choose anything other than the government plan which they intend, and I quote, "to make competitive with other companies to force lower premiums."
One thing, our nation has the most advanced healthcare technology in the world. This is why Fidel, in what Micheal Moore called the utopian system, had to go to four different countries to be able to get the medical treatment he needed. Since he was dictator of Cuba, we didn't let him come here and so his choices were very limited. However people all over the world are coming to the United States for medical treatment. This treatment, this technology, is not cheap. Just like the latest I-phone won't be cheap, neither will be the medical technology which has to be absolutely perfect to avoid lawsuits and gain approval by the CDC or FDA I am not sure which does medical treatments, probably a mix of both.
If you make premiums cheap to compete with insurance companies, they lower their premiums but the cost of treatment doesn't go down. However, the government has a little bit of help because with Obama's plan the government tells the doctor how much the treatment costs regardless of the staff, equipment, and hours of labor the doctor will use to treat the patient. The insurance companies get a bill from the doctor, not the other way around. So when the insurance companies go under - Maine has three companies. New Hampshire has 21 - the government will become the only choice. Choice will be limited.
They say you can choose your doctor. Today a doctor can refuse Mainecare. Mainecare doesn't pay up. The doctors go bankrupt and go out of business and don't treat people if they can't afford to operate. Obama's plan makes it so doctors can not refuse a patient with Obamacare. This means even if the government doesn't pay because it doesn't have the money that the doctor must treat the person at their own cost getting an IOU as Maine hospitals have been getting for many years now. The doctors go out of business, so the choice of doctors is limited. It becomes limited to those using cheaper equipment that may not be top quality and as advanced as other technologies, and may have fewer support staff who may double check and make sure operations go as necessary. Just think if you want a double-bypass surgery with only the doctor in the room. For those with staff and able to perform, the wait times will increase because there will be fewer doctors available because they go bankrupt. Choose your doctor and government insurance today so you can't get treatment later.
They say it will lower costs. Only because they choose what the operations will cost. The doctors and hospitals won't be able to charge the government, the government will give what it thinks is "fair". I have heard supporters, a few months back a debate topic was whether or not we should apply the French system here, and in France doctors earn a third less than they do here. My opponents would say that it was because doctors in France were glad to do more for less, the doctors were willing to charge France less as an act of patriotism. Looking into it, NO. France gives the doctors what they think is fair. It is easy to make your healthcare cost the cheapest per capita in the world when you choose what you pay your doctor. What they don't tell you is the government in France has to pay for doctor's college in order to help make sure they do not have massive debt to be a doctor. The result is a mediocre trained medical force with only the education the government could afford.
So when the government has the healthcare under its full control, enjoy getting your simple cough looked at today in order to not have the emergency room tomorrow.
Thank you for reading and if you disagree, PLEASE, I beg of you, reply and lets make this a discussion. This has been another production of the ravings of a madman, chirp chirp.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
My New Bailout (Post-Bailout) Proposal
I have had a spark of genius here at 12:53 at night. The approach to this financial crisis has been adequate in intention. Although it may have failed (or gone too far which I believe it has) the reason to have the government intervene in the companies was necessary. It hit me as I was thinking of how something can be too big to fail.
It is too big to fail when it becomes such a large portion of the economic pie that if it failed, or went bankrupt, the system would shut down with it. Now how can something be allowed to get that big? I don't have a clue. I'm not an expert. However history has taught me that the regulations against monopolies could be applied here.
A company in a monopoly can't be allowed to be a monopoly to protect the free market part of free market. If there is no competition, the prices go up to unreasonable prices and rely on the benevolent dictatorship of the company owners. In America that can not happen anymore. We determined it hindered freedom, and bye bye monopolies. However, just by being a large company and not being a monopoly has proven to be a hazard to our freedom.
Simply because when the companies need to be bailed out by the government we lose freedom because it is then supplied to us by the monopoly of government. The only monopoly (besides basic utilities) that is legal in this country by the Constitution. However, the monopoly of government isn't supposed to be a monopoly of the economy. The government involvement should save the companies with whatever money is necessary. Rationalize this by cutting the FEDERAL funding for schools. Get the government out of schools like it is supposed to be and fund a saving of the economy. Lovely how it is a win win.
Then, once the companies are saved with bankruptcy managed by the government (with money put in to make sure the system is preserved as long as possible to make necessary changed) then split the companies into pieces. So they operate as different companies. This way if one fails the system doesn't collapse. The monopoly isn't the only large thing that can hurt us now. We have become such a large economy that even the largest companies, if they fail, cause catastrophic damage. The process the government is going through can alter their current pattern of just nationalization to true, good intended reform of the system.
It is too big to fail when it becomes such a large portion of the economic pie that if it failed, or went bankrupt, the system would shut down with it. Now how can something be allowed to get that big? I don't have a clue. I'm not an expert. However history has taught me that the regulations against monopolies could be applied here.
A company in a monopoly can't be allowed to be a monopoly to protect the free market part of free market. If there is no competition, the prices go up to unreasonable prices and rely on the benevolent dictatorship of the company owners. In America that can not happen anymore. We determined it hindered freedom, and bye bye monopolies. However, just by being a large company and not being a monopoly has proven to be a hazard to our freedom.
Simply because when the companies need to be bailed out by the government we lose freedom because it is then supplied to us by the monopoly of government. The only monopoly (besides basic utilities) that is legal in this country by the Constitution. However, the monopoly of government isn't supposed to be a monopoly of the economy. The government involvement should save the companies with whatever money is necessary. Rationalize this by cutting the FEDERAL funding for schools. Get the government out of schools like it is supposed to be and fund a saving of the economy. Lovely how it is a win win.
Then, once the companies are saved with bankruptcy managed by the government (with money put in to make sure the system is preserved as long as possible to make necessary changed) then split the companies into pieces. So they operate as different companies. This way if one fails the system doesn't collapse. The monopoly isn't the only large thing that can hurt us now. We have become such a large economy that even the largest companies, if they fail, cause catastrophic damage. The process the government is going through can alter their current pattern of just nationalization to true, good intended reform of the system.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Thats right. I'm angry.
If you are mistreated in the workplace complain to the supervisor. If you disagree with a policy go above whoever gave the order. You do not have to quit your job because they harass you further for speaking out. Stand up for yourself. If you are in the right you will not lose your job. If they fire you go to the papers, go to the lawyers, never stop pushing for what is right. If you see someone else being pressured to leave instead of being fired stand up. They may not be the best of workers, but they still deserve the proper treatment like everyone else. A workplace should never be "survival of the fittest." A policy of two people can be out on vacation on any given day is reasonable. When three people request the same week off, and their vacation is chopped up so they get different days is not reasonable or following common sense. When a 'first come, first serve' policy for vacations is removed for a specific request day in which neither arrival, or seniority is a factor for alloting vacations the policy is flawed, contrary to common sense, and unfair. When 97% performance of a worker drops to a 70% rating when forced to work in groups with other members who do not have the same higher standards and slack off it is not right to determine their worth on a group rating over the individual rating. When the standards are lowered after complaints to make the rating back to over 90% without a change in quality the policy is wrong, unproductive, and detrimental to quality. When someone who works for thirty years stands up on one occassion against a new policy and instead of being fired is inspected, intimidated, and harassed to the point of having a heart attack the company is wrong. The list of examples of mistreatment go on, and on, and on. They all come from the (place that if you want to know the name of, just send me an e-mail). I only see the results of what working there does to people. I only hear their complaints. I know they do not make their condition, or their complaints known to the superiors of superiors or the public. I know that I will not sit by any longer watching that place mistreat its workers, lower its quality standards, and insult the public's intelligence. I am taking a stand. I can only stand asking for its workers to speak out. I can only ask the management to change its policies to previous ways when worker morale was much higher.
The reasoning for standing up: common sense. Lower morale, lower quality, lay offs with no replacements are all caused in this case by changing common sense policies that made a relatively good working environment that provided a much better service for customers. Those changes are all bad for a business. Happy employees are more productive. It is proven. Lower quality always means less service or safety to make a few more pennies lost by other connecting factors. Not replacing workers layed off leads to fewer workers, more work, and less happiness and quality. A business with high quality and happy workers will always have happier, and thus more, customers.
The reasoning for standing up: common sense. Lower morale, lower quality, lay offs with no replacements are all caused in this case by changing common sense policies that made a relatively good working environment that provided a much better service for customers. Those changes are all bad for a business. Happy employees are more productive. It is proven. Lower quality always means less service or safety to make a few more pennies lost by other connecting factors. Not replacing workers layed off leads to fewer workers, more work, and less happiness and quality. A business with high quality and happy workers will always have happier, and thus more, customers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
