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.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
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.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
The Alliance Connections
When it comes to North Korea I believe I should detail specifically the military alliance forming. Iran purchases the Hwasong-5 (Shahab-1), Hwasong-6 (Shahab-2) and the Rodong-1 (Shahab-3) from North Korea. Also has purchased 18 land-based BM25 missiles. (Source 1). "Libya has been known to receive technological assistance, blueprints and missile parts from North Korea". (Wikipedia quote based on an ISS report). Syria purchases the Hwasong-6 and Rodong-1. Most of North Korea's military weapons are made in Russia, China, or North Korea. This ties in Russia and China deeply to my point of their enabling the capability of North Korea. Tomorrow I will detail further connections (Iran's military connections with the alliance that is forming) and continue my work transcripting the Bruce Poliquin interview.
Sources:
1: Dore Gold, Publisher; Yaakov Amidror, ICA Program Director; Mark Ami-El, Managing Editor. Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (Registered Amuta), 13 Tel-Hai St., Jerusalem, Israel; Tel. 972-2-5619281, Fax. 972-2-5619112, Email: jcpa@netvision.net.il. In U.S.A.: Center for Jewish Community Studies, 5800 Park Heights Avenue, Baltimore, MD 21215 USA, Tel. (410) 664-5222; Fax. (410) 664-1228. Website: www.jcpa.org. © Copyright. The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the Board of Fellows of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.
Sources:
1: Dore Gold, Publisher; Yaakov Amidror, ICA Program Director; Mark Ami-El, Managing Editor. Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (Registered Amuta), 13 Tel-Hai St., Jerusalem, Israel; Tel. 972-2-5619281, Fax. 972-2-5619112, Email: jcpa@netvision.net.il. In U.S.A.: Center for Jewish Community Studies, 5800 Park Heights Avenue, Baltimore, MD 21215 USA, Tel. (410) 664-5222; Fax. (410) 664-1228. Website: www.jcpa.org. © Copyright. The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the Board of Fellows of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.
The Alliances Show Growth
I reported first in 2006 that I saw an alliance of nations forming against the United States to form a new world conflict. This world war is showing signs every day of getting worse. North Korea, one of the three principle states that I list as pawns of Russia, is getting uranium for its nuclear program from Venezuela. It is also scrapping the ceasefire agreement signed roughly half a century ago that has held full scale conflict at bay. No doubt in my mind the U.S., Korean, Japanese led assault, should war occur, win beyond compare to the devastation that would be brought to North Korea's military.
However, with Iranian observers at the testing sights of missiles and nuclear bombs in North Korea, and with Iranian enriched uranium powering these weapons, the intent of peaceful power should be beyond any doubt lost. They are for weapons. Iran wants those weapons. Since Iran can not afford to fund the research and lose political leverage by having a weapons program of their own they are using their ties with North Korea in order to get away from the critics who are too narrow minded to put the connection that I've been outlaying for years into place. The puzzle is not limited by age, only, it seems, by IQ and vision.
The negotiations have failed. Clinton, Bush, and Obama - no matter what level of diplomacy is tried- have failed to stop North Korea. This is because it isn't a policy that is the problem. It is Kim Jung Il. He is a nutcase. He has been all along. No policy is the reason for this, it is the lunatic in North Korea. Proven, however, is that the nutcase does not respond to diplomacy. It simply has not and will not work.
Russia is who I look to for the key response, not China, in North Korea's tests. China is an ally and if they shift it is only a logical movement due to international pressure. Russia, however, has very little it seems involved. The test was another condemnation, but sanctions for punishment are opposed by Russia and they continue to say only the six-party talks, in place for over a decade that have failed, are the solution. They sound more entrenched to a policy than George Bush or Obama ever thought of being. Why, when the evidence is so clear, would not just Obama, (which is an analysis for action in and of itself) but Russia continue to support the status qou for the international community while North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Syria, Bolivia, and Ecuador work together, with Russia's aid (500 nuclear scientists are operating in Iran) continue to move forward in developing weapons with only the slight nudges from Russia?
With Russia obviously having benefit from these things, (a jab at the U.S. or any other reason which I will go into later) I believe they should, like an affiliated judge in a case, not be allowed to vote in the Security Council on this issue. I truly believe the general assembly should be the body to vote in a resolution with teeth, and the Security Council be the one to give the final go ahead but alas, the U.N. refuses to change. Seventy years and the U.N. still sucks at stopping genocide. Ahem, back to the topic.
The reason I think Russia supports stalling for these nations is that it would love nothing less than to see the United States and its allies get involved in a worldwide war against Venezuela, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Bolivia, Ecuador, Hondorus, Nicaragua, North Korea, Lebanon, Libya, and others with limited nuclear capability. The logic I have is this: if we know North Korea only has one or two nukes, if they use one, they don't have anymore. If they use their only supply, using ours in relaliation, instead of a measure for the utmost essence of survival, would not be approved. Using a nuclear weapon would not stop the conflict, as the areas of battle would still be numerous beyond compare. So, nuking them all would stop the war but create devastation and moral compromise in the world that a win would become an eternal loss for generations with genocide accusations flying almost forever. Russia, all it would have to do is claim neutrality and sit back and build itself to watch the new lower alliance it built fight a direct-to proxy conflict against the United States.
I may be raving like a madman but every week more information adds to the picture that is getting clearer and clearer: I am right.
If I am right the end of American dominance, if we continue our blind path towards the poisonous well, is at hand. Without our clear dominance, our destiny to exist as a free society forever will fade. Our culture is the world's culture. If America loses freedom, the world loses freedom. Russia will get Europe and reform itself. Communism may no longer be the mantle of conquest: revenge for Russians, "benevolent dictatorship" for Europe, and brutalization of the other nations it conquests will be the approach for Russia. A new plundering of the world will take place if Russia is allowed to rival the United States in power. It is frightening and I hope I am wrong.
However, with Iranian observers at the testing sights of missiles and nuclear bombs in North Korea, and with Iranian enriched uranium powering these weapons, the intent of peaceful power should be beyond any doubt lost. They are for weapons. Iran wants those weapons. Since Iran can not afford to fund the research and lose political leverage by having a weapons program of their own they are using their ties with North Korea in order to get away from the critics who are too narrow minded to put the connection that I've been outlaying for years into place. The puzzle is not limited by age, only, it seems, by IQ and vision.
The negotiations have failed. Clinton, Bush, and Obama - no matter what level of diplomacy is tried- have failed to stop North Korea. This is because it isn't a policy that is the problem. It is Kim Jung Il. He is a nutcase. He has been all along. No policy is the reason for this, it is the lunatic in North Korea. Proven, however, is that the nutcase does not respond to diplomacy. It simply has not and will not work.
Russia is who I look to for the key response, not China, in North Korea's tests. China is an ally and if they shift it is only a logical movement due to international pressure. Russia, however, has very little it seems involved. The test was another condemnation, but sanctions for punishment are opposed by Russia and they continue to say only the six-party talks, in place for over a decade that have failed, are the solution. They sound more entrenched to a policy than George Bush or Obama ever thought of being. Why, when the evidence is so clear, would not just Obama, (which is an analysis for action in and of itself) but Russia continue to support the status qou for the international community while North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Syria, Bolivia, and Ecuador work together, with Russia's aid (500 nuclear scientists are operating in Iran) continue to move forward in developing weapons with only the slight nudges from Russia?
With Russia obviously having benefit from these things, (a jab at the U.S. or any other reason which I will go into later) I believe they should, like an affiliated judge in a case, not be allowed to vote in the Security Council on this issue. I truly believe the general assembly should be the body to vote in a resolution with teeth, and the Security Council be the one to give the final go ahead but alas, the U.N. refuses to change. Seventy years and the U.N. still sucks at stopping genocide. Ahem, back to the topic.
The reason I think Russia supports stalling for these nations is that it would love nothing less than to see the United States and its allies get involved in a worldwide war against Venezuela, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Bolivia, Ecuador, Hondorus, Nicaragua, North Korea, Lebanon, Libya, and others with limited nuclear capability. The logic I have is this: if we know North Korea only has one or two nukes, if they use one, they don't have anymore. If they use their only supply, using ours in relaliation, instead of a measure for the utmost essence of survival, would not be approved. Using a nuclear weapon would not stop the conflict, as the areas of battle would still be numerous beyond compare. So, nuking them all would stop the war but create devastation and moral compromise in the world that a win would become an eternal loss for generations with genocide accusations flying almost forever. Russia, all it would have to do is claim neutrality and sit back and build itself to watch the new lower alliance it built fight a direct-to proxy conflict against the United States.
I may be raving like a madman but every week more information adds to the picture that is getting clearer and clearer: I am right.
If I am right the end of American dominance, if we continue our blind path towards the poisonous well, is at hand. Without our clear dominance, our destiny to exist as a free society forever will fade. Our culture is the world's culture. If America loses freedom, the world loses freedom. Russia will get Europe and reform itself. Communism may no longer be the mantle of conquest: revenge for Russians, "benevolent dictatorship" for Europe, and brutalization of the other nations it conquests will be the approach for Russia. A new plundering of the world will take place if Russia is allowed to rival the United States in power. It is frightening and I hope I am wrong.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
This Evening's Entertainment
I attended the Bangor GOP Committee meeting and I came away with several very enlightening experiences. I will start by explaining my growing but now more complete understanding of what a politician thinks they should tell a group of people. Sometimes they try the personal story approach, which is what both Charlie Webster and Bruce Poliquin did this evening. This is not a bad thing. It is just a tactic that forms to get favorable opinions of people. It creates a personal connection and explains their viewpoint on a topic, which helps if the topic and story are related.
Often with Charlie Webster he appeared passionate about what he was talking about. This is a good quality because it shows he is not only connecting with us and the issue, but means what he says.
He had the speech mostly memorized or it was done very spontaneously as he only had guiding note cards. His is very aware and knew facts by heart on most occassions in his speeches. He asserted "Maine is not liberal" many times.
He discussed the reasons the Republican Party has lost elections. One of the major reasons was that Democratic candidates could focus on being men of the people and target previous voting records of Republican candidates. In connecting with the people the discussion left the issues. When discussing the Republican voting record, one person in the attending group commented (I believe he was John Frary but I cannot be certain at this moment), Republicans did not question the Democratic candidate's voting record. The new approach was to make elections issue debate and discussion oriented to bring awareness to the electorate to where Republican's stood on the issues the common working person had to deal with.
This is where another point was made in that the Republican Party is the party of the working people. In Maine there are not many very wealthy people. So in order to continue the often mentioned "welfare state" that Maine has become the taxes fall on everyone in order to support the spending programs. Republican's oppose the loose entry programs and the high taxes but support a continued necessary safety net for those who do need it.
Bruce Poliquin, one of the gubernatorial candidates for Maine, also gave a speech. It was pre-written and a standard political speech. His heritage in Maine, life story, and the other personal connection stories that rarely connect to a political issue were discussed. This too is not a bad thing. It is standard for the values that guide a person's life decisions such as honesty and hard working nature to be excellent qualities in leadership. These personal stories of their lives give politicians a place to explain those values and Bruce connected them strongly.
Then there was a discussion by the group and a later interview that I had with him and there will be specific items I analyze in a couple days when I get a transcript of our conversation written. However one thing that stood out to me was the pure honesty of his responses to questions. Some of the statements were premade from his website which are good points but can get redundant for those who are so obsessed with politics (like me) who will look at every speech and every statement and see the repetition. Although here early in the running doing that presents a similar point to create awareness among a generally large number of people it should be altered before (in a time I've not figured out yet) new lines or ideas are almost a necessity to talk from in order to keep the eyes of the listeners from glossing over.
His points were well known by himself and it was his honesty when questioned about things he was unaware of. He was willing to admit he didn't know something. Politicians as a rule seem arrogant, know-it-all attitude kinds of people. The examples are astounding due to all the back tracking politicians do as a daily exercise routine these days. This man was honest, open, and if people disagree with him I feel confident that he will not back track. I feel he would accept disagreement with his position but not compromise his values to appease those with dissent. I feel he makes a good candidate for office. I do not know if he is the best choice at this time.
I will explain the specific points of our meeting in a transcript (harder to do than you think) that I am going to make of our conversation and of the evening's discussions as a whole. Disclaimer: I am not going to make profit off these transcripts and anyone who does is doing so against my will but I do allow the comments to be used by news organizations as I feel they (Charlie Webster and Bruce Poliquin) would allow the comments to be public as well since the meeting was open to all. That said, I don't feel (basing this on my memory right now) that they would be ashamed of their comments in any way. It was a very professional evening and my reactions to the people attending are that there is a sense of common purpose among everyone there. It was an experience I rarely have because when I accomplish something I do not always feel like I am doing so with the support of others doing the same thing and that is what this meeting was: accomplishing the same thing with the same people.
Tomorrow I will still be decyphering the transcript so I will address the prospect of war with North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela and their allies. Meanwhile, make yourself aware and check out Bruce Poliquin's website:
http://www.bruceforme.com/index.php
and Matt Jacobson's website:
http://www.jacobsonforgovernor.com/content/index.php
Often with Charlie Webster he appeared passionate about what he was talking about. This is a good quality because it shows he is not only connecting with us and the issue, but means what he says.
He had the speech mostly memorized or it was done very spontaneously as he only had guiding note cards. His is very aware and knew facts by heart on most occassions in his speeches. He asserted "Maine is not liberal" many times.
He discussed the reasons the Republican Party has lost elections. One of the major reasons was that Democratic candidates could focus on being men of the people and target previous voting records of Republican candidates. In connecting with the people the discussion left the issues. When discussing the Republican voting record, one person in the attending group commented (I believe he was John Frary but I cannot be certain at this moment), Republicans did not question the Democratic candidate's voting record. The new approach was to make elections issue debate and discussion oriented to bring awareness to the electorate to where Republican's stood on the issues the common working person had to deal with.
This is where another point was made in that the Republican Party is the party of the working people. In Maine there are not many very wealthy people. So in order to continue the often mentioned "welfare state" that Maine has become the taxes fall on everyone in order to support the spending programs. Republican's oppose the loose entry programs and the high taxes but support a continued necessary safety net for those who do need it.
Bruce Poliquin, one of the gubernatorial candidates for Maine, also gave a speech. It was pre-written and a standard political speech. His heritage in Maine, life story, and the other personal connection stories that rarely connect to a political issue were discussed. This too is not a bad thing. It is standard for the values that guide a person's life decisions such as honesty and hard working nature to be excellent qualities in leadership. These personal stories of their lives give politicians a place to explain those values and Bruce connected them strongly.
Then there was a discussion by the group and a later interview that I had with him and there will be specific items I analyze in a couple days when I get a transcript of our conversation written. However one thing that stood out to me was the pure honesty of his responses to questions. Some of the statements were premade from his website which are good points but can get redundant for those who are so obsessed with politics (like me) who will look at every speech and every statement and see the repetition. Although here early in the running doing that presents a similar point to create awareness among a generally large number of people it should be altered before (in a time I've not figured out yet) new lines or ideas are almost a necessity to talk from in order to keep the eyes of the listeners from glossing over.
His points were well known by himself and it was his honesty when questioned about things he was unaware of. He was willing to admit he didn't know something. Politicians as a rule seem arrogant, know-it-all attitude kinds of people. The examples are astounding due to all the back tracking politicians do as a daily exercise routine these days. This man was honest, open, and if people disagree with him I feel confident that he will not back track. I feel he would accept disagreement with his position but not compromise his values to appease those with dissent. I feel he makes a good candidate for office. I do not know if he is the best choice at this time.
I will explain the specific points of our meeting in a transcript (harder to do than you think) that I am going to make of our conversation and of the evening's discussions as a whole. Disclaimer: I am not going to make profit off these transcripts and anyone who does is doing so against my will but I do allow the comments to be used by news organizations as I feel they (Charlie Webster and Bruce Poliquin) would allow the comments to be public as well since the meeting was open to all. That said, I don't feel (basing this on my memory right now) that they would be ashamed of their comments in any way. It was a very professional evening and my reactions to the people attending are that there is a sense of common purpose among everyone there. It was an experience I rarely have because when I accomplish something I do not always feel like I am doing so with the support of others doing the same thing and that is what this meeting was: accomplishing the same thing with the same people.
Tomorrow I will still be decyphering the transcript so I will address the prospect of war with North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela and their allies. Meanwhile, make yourself aware and check out Bruce Poliquin's website:
http://www.bruceforme.com/index.php
and Matt Jacobson's website:
http://www.jacobsonforgovernor.com/content/index.php
Sunday, May 24, 2009
The Races
My support has shifted upon finding a new website for Bruce Poliquin's campaign for governor. http://www.bruceforme.com/index.php
Read the issues, they are more in dept, although still slightly generalized (no specific tax to cut) but has some excellent proposals in much detail (East-West Highway, State-funded charter schools) which Matt Jacobson's website (see earlier posts) did not have in such availability. Now, specific plans are not only something to look for, but also to examine and see if the bigger principle is something you agree with. Too often candidates propose the principles and never have a specific plan so even if the principles are good, when they get elected they have very little accomplishments because they had no idea what they were actually going to do. Often it turns out that they learn they can't do what they promised in principle because they didn't have the specifics (Obama and Guantanimo Bay prisoners). Other times I will admit it works in the other direction where the principle was good during the campaign but not only was it bad in practice but in practice something completely different ended up happening which some critics predicted (Obama and the banks and the bringing of Socialism). So, people of the world, look at the specifics and apply them to your principles. If they have no specifics, do not vote for them. There is also another aspect which is to try and talk to the candidate. This may seem impossible for some positions (a presidental campaign rally in New York or California) but should be attemped. This is why this Wednesday I will attempt to get Bruce Poliquin's thoughts and ideas on some of the issues of the day. For whoever is in your district running I recommend you try to do the same. Thank you for reading. Meow.
P.S. I am now legally engaged to the love of my life.
Read the issues, they are more in dept, although still slightly generalized (no specific tax to cut) but has some excellent proposals in much detail (East-West Highway, State-funded charter schools) which Matt Jacobson's website (see earlier posts) did not have in such availability. Now, specific plans are not only something to look for, but also to examine and see if the bigger principle is something you agree with. Too often candidates propose the principles and never have a specific plan so even if the principles are good, when they get elected they have very little accomplishments because they had no idea what they were actually going to do. Often it turns out that they learn they can't do what they promised in principle because they didn't have the specifics (Obama and Guantanimo Bay prisoners). Other times I will admit it works in the other direction where the principle was good during the campaign but not only was it bad in practice but in practice something completely different ended up happening which some critics predicted (Obama and the banks and the bringing of Socialism). So, people of the world, look at the specifics and apply them to your principles. If they have no specifics, do not vote for them. There is also another aspect which is to try and talk to the candidate. This may seem impossible for some positions (a presidental campaign rally in New York or California) but should be attemped. This is why this Wednesday I will attempt to get Bruce Poliquin's thoughts and ideas on some of the issues of the day. For whoever is in your district running I recommend you try to do the same. Thank you for reading. Meow.
P.S. I am now legally engaged to the love of my life.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
An Arguement Against Same-sex Marriage
Some are saying marriage is only to allow for the proper envronment to procreate and that is a right homosexuals inherently cannot have. This is true that homosexuals cannot procreate together. It is not true that marriage is only the right to procreate. Marriage is far more than that. (wikipedia)According to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), there are 1,138 statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. (end wikipedia). Some of those are as follows:
(wikipedia)
Right to many of ex- or late spouse's benefits, including:
Social Security pension
veteran's pensions, indemnity compensation for service-connected deaths, medical care, and nursing home care, right to burial in veterans' cemeteries, educational assistance, and housing
survivor benefits for federal employees
survivor benefits for spouses of longshoremen, harbor workers, railroad workers
additional benefits to spouses of coal miners who die of black lung disease
$100,000 to spouse of any public safety officer killed in the line of duty
continuation of employer-sponsored health benefits
renewal and termination rights to spouse's copyrights on death of spouse
continued water rights of spouse in some circumstances
payment of wages and workers compensation benefits after worker death
making, revoking, and objecting to post-mortem anatomical gifts
Right to benefits while married:
employment assistance and transitional services for spouses of members being separated from military service; continued commissary privileges
per diem payment to spouse for federal civil service employees when relocating
Indian Health Service care for spouses of Native Americans (in some circumstances)
sponsor husband/wife for immigration benefits
Larger benefits under some programs if married, including:
veteran's disability
Supplemental Security Income
disability payments for federal employees
medicaid
property tax exemption for homes of totally disabled veterans
income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates
Joint and family-related rights:
joint filing of bankruptcy permitted
joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records
family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison
next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims
custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce
domestic violence intervention
access to "family only" services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods
Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs
Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses.
Special consideration to spouses of citizens and resident aliens
Spouse's flower sales count towards meeting the eligibility for Fresh Cut Flowers and Fresh Cut Greens Promotion and Information Act
Threats against spouses of various federal employees is a federal crime
Right to continue living on land purchased from spouse by National Park Service when easement granted to spouse
Court notice of probate proceedings
Domestic violence protection orders
Existing homestead lease continuation of rights
Regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants exemption
Funeral and bereavement leave
Joint adoption and foster care
Joint tax filing
Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society
Legal status with stepchildren
Making spousal medical decisions
Spousal non-resident tuition deferential waiver
Permission to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse, including burial or cremation
Right of survivorship of custodial trust
Right to change surname upon marriage
Right to enter into prenuptial agreement
Right to inheritance of property
Spousal privilege in court cases (the marital confidences privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege)
Same-sex marriage is not an attempt to diminish the value of families. It is an attempt to recieve the same legal rights that a man and woman in love with each other have but for man and man and woman and woman sitautions. If polygamy comes up, polygamists can't ask for those rigt because admitting to polygamy is itself a crime. Should they not be arrested we can cross that bridge when we get to it.
(wikipedia)
Right to many of ex- or late spouse's benefits, including:
Social Security pension
veteran's pensions, indemnity compensation for service-connected deaths, medical care, and nursing home care, right to burial in veterans' cemeteries, educational assistance, and housing
survivor benefits for federal employees
survivor benefits for spouses of longshoremen, harbor workers, railroad workers
additional benefits to spouses of coal miners who die of black lung disease
$100,000 to spouse of any public safety officer killed in the line of duty
continuation of employer-sponsored health benefits
renewal and termination rights to spouse's copyrights on death of spouse
continued water rights of spouse in some circumstances
payment of wages and workers compensation benefits after worker death
making, revoking, and objecting to post-mortem anatomical gifts
Right to benefits while married:
employment assistance and transitional services for spouses of members being separated from military service; continued commissary privileges
per diem payment to spouse for federal civil service employees when relocating
Indian Health Service care for spouses of Native Americans (in some circumstances)
sponsor husband/wife for immigration benefits
Larger benefits under some programs if married, including:
veteran's disability
Supplemental Security Income
disability payments for federal employees
medicaid
property tax exemption for homes of totally disabled veterans
income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates
Joint and family-related rights:
joint filing of bankruptcy permitted
joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records
family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison
next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims
custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce
domestic violence intervention
access to "family only" services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods
Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs
Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses.
Special consideration to spouses of citizens and resident aliens
Spouse's flower sales count towards meeting the eligibility for Fresh Cut Flowers and Fresh Cut Greens Promotion and Information Act
Threats against spouses of various federal employees is a federal crime
Right to continue living on land purchased from spouse by National Park Service when easement granted to spouse
Court notice of probate proceedings
Domestic violence protection orders
Existing homestead lease continuation of rights
Regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants exemption
Funeral and bereavement leave
Joint adoption and foster care
Joint tax filing
Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society
Legal status with stepchildren
Making spousal medical decisions
Spousal non-resident tuition deferential waiver
Permission to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse, including burial or cremation
Right of survivorship of custodial trust
Right to change surname upon marriage
Right to enter into prenuptial agreement
Right to inheritance of property
Spousal privilege in court cases (the marital confidences privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege)
Same-sex marriage is not an attempt to diminish the value of families. It is an attempt to recieve the same legal rights that a man and woman in love with each other have but for man and man and woman and woman sitautions. If polygamy comes up, polygamists can't ask for those rigt because admitting to polygamy is itself a crime. Should they not be arrested we can cross that bridge when we get to it.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Tea Parties, Racism, and Reality
Recently a woman said that the people attending the Tea Parties across the country were all racist. Some may have been, most were not, but she said it anyway. When confronted on it she continued to say "where were they during the Bush spending?" She said since they did not appear during the Bush administration they were there solely out of racist feelings against Barack Obama. Time bring some realistic observations to the table.
Many in the Bush era saw the spending at first to be a legitimate response to the wars. Then towards the end it was unwanted as much as it is now. They felt defeated by the Bush administration. They felt he was unresponsive to complaints, Bush didn't care about those who had an honest concern about the spending. Bush had essentially defeated their will to stand up by allowing himself to be presented as deaf to all opposition.
Then Obama ran for president as a man of the people with a campaign funded from the grassroots America. The people would soon have a voice and his administration would right the wrongs of the Bush administration. This was to be the man speaking from the people, not a greedy special interest group.
Then he failed to do that in their eyes. They saw Obama take the Bush record debt in 2008 and quadruple it for 2009. The line of debt became a virtical line upwards on the chart for the next ten years based on Obama's budget. When the man of the people does not hear the people what are the people supposed to do? They certainly were not going to be defeated in their hopes and dreams promised by Obama. So they decided to shout louder than they have before.
The tea party protests were not an act of racism. They were a call to Obama to do as he promised on the campaign and bring the corruption of spending in Washington to an end. They were and still are a representation of the freedom American's have to voice their opinion. These protests were not racism against a black man, they were frustration against deficit spending. Until the Democrats realize this the anger will continue to rise in America and 2010 will be fast approaching for many of them.
Many in the Bush era saw the spending at first to be a legitimate response to the wars. Then towards the end it was unwanted as much as it is now. They felt defeated by the Bush administration. They felt he was unresponsive to complaints, Bush didn't care about those who had an honest concern about the spending. Bush had essentially defeated their will to stand up by allowing himself to be presented as deaf to all opposition.
Then Obama ran for president as a man of the people with a campaign funded from the grassroots America. The people would soon have a voice and his administration would right the wrongs of the Bush administration. This was to be the man speaking from the people, not a greedy special interest group.
Then he failed to do that in their eyes. They saw Obama take the Bush record debt in 2008 and quadruple it for 2009. The line of debt became a virtical line upwards on the chart for the next ten years based on Obama's budget. When the man of the people does not hear the people what are the people supposed to do? They certainly were not going to be defeated in their hopes and dreams promised by Obama. So they decided to shout louder than they have before.
The tea party protests were not an act of racism. They were a call to Obama to do as he promised on the campaign and bring the corruption of spending in Washington to an end. They were and still are a representation of the freedom American's have to voice their opinion. These protests were not racism against a black man, they were frustration against deficit spending. Until the Democrats realize this the anger will continue to rise in America and 2010 will be fast approaching for many of them.
The Race For Governor Has Begun
No I am not running for governor yet. Although the election is two years away, if they are going to start early so will I. My job is to be observant and make an opition. So, here it goes. I do not believe Bruce Poliquin is the right candidate for the Republican Party at this time. He is certainly a good man, but not an adept one for Maine governor. His business experience does not make him (from what I know from his website at this time) qualified to know what policies will improve the Maine business climate. Thus far (considering the contact information on his website is still limited) what I can find out about him is not promising to his policy proposals or his success in government previously. This opinion may certainly change, but the presentation of Matt Jacobson's website and what it proposes (although still vague and following ideals it has some great specific proposals outlined coherently) covers more than Poliquin's website. Jacobson's businesses have provided Maine more jobs than Poliquin's. Also, the proposal to education laid forth on Jacobson's website is a good start to reforming our schools to excell even more (especially in the seeming-to-falter lower grades). [I have nothing against younger kids, but what used to be an inquisitive population is now seeming to be an uninterested, bored group of kids. I've seen this change occur myself over the past five years.] Beyond that, Jacobson knows the problems we are going to face in the future and that foresight makes him (based on their websites) more qualified than Poliquin.
Poliquin's website:
http://www.sailmaine.us/
Matt Jacobson's website:
http://www.jacobsonforgovernor.com/
Poliquin's website:
http://www.sailmaine.us/
Matt Jacobson's website:
http://www.jacobsonforgovernor.com/
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Republican Family Values 5
Now as promised the supporting of adoption over abortion. The Republican's who I see speaking publicly, on tv, in the news, oppose abortion. Let us analyze the wording of this core belief: support for policies that encourage "adoption over abortion". Contrary to what I have heard from some of the Republican members, the Republican Party does not want to ban abortion.
Abortion is legal. That is a fact of life. It is not going to become illegal anytime soon. Science says in a mixed way the child is a child in five months or so (give or take a month) or at birth. Religiously it is believed to be at conception.
As a political party proposing candidates to office in a government that rules a land of law, the law says abortion is legal. The Supreme Court has decided that it is against the Consitution to ban abortion. With the Constitution being the highest law of the land, Republicans must follow this basic principle.
There is a moral debate on abortion that is legitimate though. Republicans personally believe abortion to be murder. As Americans, they are entitled to their personal belief. However, as Republicans, we also have to clarify when we are speaking from Republican values and personal beliefs.
As for my personal opinion on abortion, I support it for the situations of: rape, incest, and risk of the mother's health. The other two major reasons are birth control, avoidance of a challenged (mentally) child. I am opposed to more than one abortion for birth control because it shows recklessness for the act of love, the joy of being a mother, and disrespect for life. I am completely opposed to a person having an abortion because the child will have so called "defects" mentally or physically.
The reason I oppose it is because doing so is robbing a person of a life. Being someone with autism, I am immensely grateful that I was not aborted and I would hope that my maternal source would not abort me based on that. I do have the struggles of someone with autism but it does not make me incapable of having a skill or talent. For some it does, but they have other great qualities. Those with autism are some of the most caring people on this earth. They do not know of greed, or hate. With their 'disability' comes the gift of purely positive emotion. Those they are near can be the most inspiring of all, even more than the best athlete in the world, because they overcome adversity just to be considered accepted.
That is what I did. Those who have known me for most of my life would tell you that me explaining this, even speaking to people in any form of conversation is a huge accomplishment for me overcoming my challenges. However, had I been the victim of an abortion I would not have had the chance to overcome and succeed in life as I am. That would have been taken away from me without even being given a chance.
To those who try to defend themselves with not being able to raise a child, for whatever reason, I urge them to place their child up for adoption. This is not cold hearted. What would be cold would be taking that child's life before it could be lived. If you say I do not know how complicated it is then you are wrong. I am also adopted. It was the second miracle of my young life. I was adopted when I was eight, but arrived to my family when I was three. I am told my birth-mother struggled greatly in admitting her inability to raise me safely and in proper care. It is not easy but it is what is right.
I was adopted. I know that much of the process personally. I was exposed to religion and given the choice to believe in my own way. I was taught morals, manners, and respect. I am going to also inform you I was not raised by a man and a woman. However, the same values Republican's know to make a strong family: the respect, manners, and morality were taught to me. It did not fill the mother, father, two and a half kids profile.
Abortion is selfish while adoption, for the mother, requires an act of selflessness. It is a virtue for families in America that shows awareness of ability and it is an act of caring, not of hatred or dislike. That is why Republicans believe adoption is a better choice for women than abortion.
Abortion is legal. That is a fact of life. It is not going to become illegal anytime soon. Science says in a mixed way the child is a child in five months or so (give or take a month) or at birth. Religiously it is believed to be at conception.
As a political party proposing candidates to office in a government that rules a land of law, the law says abortion is legal. The Supreme Court has decided that it is against the Consitution to ban abortion. With the Constitution being the highest law of the land, Republicans must follow this basic principle.
There is a moral debate on abortion that is legitimate though. Republicans personally believe abortion to be murder. As Americans, they are entitled to their personal belief. However, as Republicans, we also have to clarify when we are speaking from Republican values and personal beliefs.
As for my personal opinion on abortion, I support it for the situations of: rape, incest, and risk of the mother's health. The other two major reasons are birth control, avoidance of a challenged (mentally) child. I am opposed to more than one abortion for birth control because it shows recklessness for the act of love, the joy of being a mother, and disrespect for life. I am completely opposed to a person having an abortion because the child will have so called "defects" mentally or physically.
The reason I oppose it is because doing so is robbing a person of a life. Being someone with autism, I am immensely grateful that I was not aborted and I would hope that my maternal source would not abort me based on that. I do have the struggles of someone with autism but it does not make me incapable of having a skill or talent. For some it does, but they have other great qualities. Those with autism are some of the most caring people on this earth. They do not know of greed, or hate. With their 'disability' comes the gift of purely positive emotion. Those they are near can be the most inspiring of all, even more than the best athlete in the world, because they overcome adversity just to be considered accepted.
That is what I did. Those who have known me for most of my life would tell you that me explaining this, even speaking to people in any form of conversation is a huge accomplishment for me overcoming my challenges. However, had I been the victim of an abortion I would not have had the chance to overcome and succeed in life as I am. That would have been taken away from me without even being given a chance.
To those who try to defend themselves with not being able to raise a child, for whatever reason, I urge them to place their child up for adoption. This is not cold hearted. What would be cold would be taking that child's life before it could be lived. If you say I do not know how complicated it is then you are wrong. I am also adopted. It was the second miracle of my young life. I was adopted when I was eight, but arrived to my family when I was three. I am told my birth-mother struggled greatly in admitting her inability to raise me safely and in proper care. It is not easy but it is what is right.
I was adopted. I know that much of the process personally. I was exposed to religion and given the choice to believe in my own way. I was taught morals, manners, and respect. I am going to also inform you I was not raised by a man and a woman. However, the same values Republican's know to make a strong family: the respect, manners, and morality were taught to me. It did not fill the mother, father, two and a half kids profile.
Abortion is selfish while adoption, for the mother, requires an act of selflessness. It is a virtue for families in America that shows awareness of ability and it is an act of caring, not of hatred or dislike. That is why Republicans believe adoption is a better choice for women than abortion.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Republican Family Values 4
The next subject will be about adoption and abortion. However, before I address this issue there is something that I have hinted at earlier that must be as clear as possible.The Republican Party is a political organization. The lower taxes, limited government, national defense, and pro-growth policies are fine. The Republican Party is different from the Democratic Party in that it also has social values stated and defined.
These, to clarify for all, are guidelines for Republicans in leadership to follow in order to be effective and responsible examples of leadership. When individuals follow it in the Republican Party as well they improve their communities and become local leaders as well. The best individual is also the best leader.
Some issues, such as same-sex marriage, abortion, and sex education have become issues where the Republican membership has forgotten Republican values in favor of personal and religious belief. This religious belief has no place in politics. It can have a place in one's personal life. However, using one's religion as a reason to decide an issue without considering the costs, benefits, and basic values of the Republican Party is wrong to do. The Republican Party is not, and will never be, a theocratic organization for Judeo-Christian thought. Leave that to the churches and synagogues.
The Republican Party can have a set of values it can promote for a better society for which the government can serve, because without a civilized society our government becomes a pillager for barbarians instead of a defender of freedom, promoter of freedom, and an example of responsible leadership. The nation has a majority of Christians. That influence is not forgotten or ignored. However the nation is not guided by the ten comandments. It is guided by the Constitution which lays out the rule of law, not faith, as the basis of our nation.
The Republican Party needs to change the ferocity with which the "religious right" intolerantly pushes away homosexuals, single mothers, young minds, and those with perhaps less fervent beliefs in faith than they do. The religious right needs to be informed of the benefit of proper government over the percieved government protection of their religious beliefs. As a political party that wishes to promote government ideas in a nation with laws as the foundation we need to make certain the laws, not the religions, control our policy.
These, to clarify for all, are guidelines for Republicans in leadership to follow in order to be effective and responsible examples of leadership. When individuals follow it in the Republican Party as well they improve their communities and become local leaders as well. The best individual is also the best leader.
Some issues, such as same-sex marriage, abortion, and sex education have become issues where the Republican membership has forgotten Republican values in favor of personal and religious belief. This religious belief has no place in politics. It can have a place in one's personal life. However, using one's religion as a reason to decide an issue without considering the costs, benefits, and basic values of the Republican Party is wrong to do. The Republican Party is not, and will never be, a theocratic organization for Judeo-Christian thought. Leave that to the churches and synagogues.
The Republican Party can have a set of values it can promote for a better society for which the government can serve, because without a civilized society our government becomes a pillager for barbarians instead of a defender of freedom, promoter of freedom, and an example of responsible leadership. The nation has a majority of Christians. That influence is not forgotten or ignored. However the nation is not guided by the ten comandments. It is guided by the Constitution which lays out the rule of law, not faith, as the basis of our nation.
The Republican Party needs to change the ferocity with which the "religious right" intolerantly pushes away homosexuals, single mothers, young minds, and those with perhaps less fervent beliefs in faith than they do. The religious right needs to be informed of the benefit of proper government over the percieved government protection of their religious beliefs. As a political party that wishes to promote government ideas in a nation with laws as the foundation we need to make certain the laws, not the religions, control our policy.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Republican Family Values (Part 3)
Now the traditional education does not mean I support prayer in schools. Having a prayer is an individual choice and should be handled as such and not with a mandate by the education system or government. Traditional education, excluding capital punishment, and any other approach to teaching is an area where I personally do not have enough information (professionally) to make a decision either way. As for parents involvement they are a necessary part of the education process not only for schools but society as well.
This is because it is not the school that teaches hygiene or manners. The school can reinforce hygene, but it is not the school's place to teach how to brush your teeth. That is for the parents to do. Teachers can reinforce by requiring please and thank you, mostly in the younger grades as a part of a child's mental development in sharing and cooperation.
Parents play an equally important role in the classroom. Parents should be aware of what their kids are learning. If a school begins a mandatory course for students in the fourth grade on sex ed, a parent should know about it.
Now I am going to speak for individual education. I speak a lot about what I feel in this, and I apologize for so many personal examples. In high school I have experienced the traditional, or mainstream education along with the individual based, or alternative education. In the mainstream the group learning is centered on the teacher's lectures, notes, and direction. The homework is either collected or corrected in unison as a group. At the Alternative Education the teacher is present, but the learning environment is much different. This program exists as an understanding that some students are unable to learn in a fast paced group learning environment that resembles in many ways an AA meeting.
An example of an AA meeting is necessary to prove this is not just a joke. No offense to the teacher in this class since I have heard this is true of other teachers as well. It is the style of education not the teacher in this example. In my former math class we would take notes in class. We would do homework based on the notes. When we come to class we correct the homework problem by problem as a group with one student answering one question going around the classroom. When a student didn't know the answer we paused, sometimes a student would be brave enough to admit they didn't know the answer, and we would correct it on the board going through the process we followed in the notes. When that was not enough, we would all shrug our shoulders, admit we didn't know what was wrong, and move on to the next one. For every problem that would come up, we would go through the admittance stage of an AA meeting every time. Admit what was not right, admit it was our fault and why, and move on to the next person.
That approach doesn't work for everyone. The Alternative Education program allows for no more than six students to a class. To continue with the math example, in my Alternative Education math I am given an assignment. No notes. The assignment is in the book. I open to the page. I read the book. In my class we do what parts we understand and check with the teacher at every point where we think we may have gone astray. If we have, the teacher writes what would normally be in the notes, then will outline the area where we went off track. The teacher checks our work problem by problem as they arise. When we hand in the assignment, the next day we do another assignment. Sometimes we will get the same assignment again that we handed to the teacher. We will go through what was wrong and correct it. In the traditional classroom, once an assignment is done you take the quiz if you don't get it you fail. At the Alternative Education classroom you correct your mistakes, learn not only the lesson but where you went wrong, and are prepared for the test.
The disagreement will be cost and benefit. Sometimes the Alternative Education program is at a slower pace for some students. It goes at the students pace, which allows for true learning and no child is left behind. This program was around before the No Child Left Behind Act. I personally believe this program is the best learning environment for higher grade level students. This ties into a stronger America because it has educated students and not factory workers coming out of schools. This is not an insult to factory workers, just analyzing the style of work: come in, do the process, go home. Traditional education does that every day. Instead of earning a paycheck like a factory worker, you gain stress. At the Alternative Education you gain an education.
This is because it is not the school that teaches hygiene or manners. The school can reinforce hygene, but it is not the school's place to teach how to brush your teeth. That is for the parents to do. Teachers can reinforce by requiring please and thank you, mostly in the younger grades as a part of a child's mental development in sharing and cooperation.
Parents play an equally important role in the classroom. Parents should be aware of what their kids are learning. If a school begins a mandatory course for students in the fourth grade on sex ed, a parent should know about it.
Now I am going to speak for individual education. I speak a lot about what I feel in this, and I apologize for so many personal examples. In high school I have experienced the traditional, or mainstream education along with the individual based, or alternative education. In the mainstream the group learning is centered on the teacher's lectures, notes, and direction. The homework is either collected or corrected in unison as a group. At the Alternative Education the teacher is present, but the learning environment is much different. This program exists as an understanding that some students are unable to learn in a fast paced group learning environment that resembles in many ways an AA meeting.
An example of an AA meeting is necessary to prove this is not just a joke. No offense to the teacher in this class since I have heard this is true of other teachers as well. It is the style of education not the teacher in this example. In my former math class we would take notes in class. We would do homework based on the notes. When we come to class we correct the homework problem by problem as a group with one student answering one question going around the classroom. When a student didn't know the answer we paused, sometimes a student would be brave enough to admit they didn't know the answer, and we would correct it on the board going through the process we followed in the notes. When that was not enough, we would all shrug our shoulders, admit we didn't know what was wrong, and move on to the next one. For every problem that would come up, we would go through the admittance stage of an AA meeting every time. Admit what was not right, admit it was our fault and why, and move on to the next person.
That approach doesn't work for everyone. The Alternative Education program allows for no more than six students to a class. To continue with the math example, in my Alternative Education math I am given an assignment. No notes. The assignment is in the book. I open to the page. I read the book. In my class we do what parts we understand and check with the teacher at every point where we think we may have gone astray. If we have, the teacher writes what would normally be in the notes, then will outline the area where we went off track. The teacher checks our work problem by problem as they arise. When we hand in the assignment, the next day we do another assignment. Sometimes we will get the same assignment again that we handed to the teacher. We will go through what was wrong and correct it. In the traditional classroom, once an assignment is done you take the quiz if you don't get it you fail. At the Alternative Education classroom you correct your mistakes, learn not only the lesson but where you went wrong, and are prepared for the test.
The disagreement will be cost and benefit. Sometimes the Alternative Education program is at a slower pace for some students. It goes at the students pace, which allows for true learning and no child is left behind. This program was around before the No Child Left Behind Act. I personally believe this program is the best learning environment for higher grade level students. This ties into a stronger America because it has educated students and not factory workers coming out of schools. This is not an insult to factory workers, just analyzing the style of work: come in, do the process, go home. Traditional education does that every day. Instead of earning a paycheck like a factory worker, you gain stress. At the Alternative Education you gain an education.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Republican Family Values (Part 2)
Now my reasons for maintaining an opposition to adultery. When two people love each other that creates an expectation that the love is unique and creates a special bond between people. When people love each other romantically, the expectation is that the love is so unique it should not be shared. Families are the fruits of love. The love they have for each other may vary, from romantic to simply a recognition of blood relation, but the love still remains.
This love allows them to interact and live their lives productively. When a person in a romantic love relationship commits adultery they are announcing that the love is not unique. The other person expected it to be unique so when this happens the relationship disappears and becomes something new. The love is gone. It is possible to love the adulterer for being the father of your kids, supporting the family, but those are a different kind of love. The romantic love is gone. This change may be so profound it damages the other feelings of love as well. It usually also creates other feelings that overwhelm the remaining love.
Feelings such as hatred, anger, rage, betrayal, disappointment, sadness can overwhelm a person. The introduction of these feelings is harmful because not only will it affect the person's love to the adulterer, but also their personality and how they interact with others. When this happens families love for each other fall apart. The family is essentially destroyed. The leaves are still there but instead of being vibrant and productive they become withered and eventually die. The family dies because of adultery. The people physically live on but the love that was the stem of the family is gone, and that family is dead. That is why I maintain and support the Republican opposition to adultery.
I do not alter my viewpoint from the Republican viewpoint on seme-sex marriage because I am gay. I alter it because allowing same-sex marriage is consistent to our core values. A strong family is one that respects each other, promotes civility, morality, and productivity within the members, and holds a commitment to the family to provide a role in its benefit. I know it sounds superficial to say those things, but nobody has talked about it.
The core Republican belief that we support families and wish to make them stronger has no 'written in stone' definitions. Some have tried to define it as a man and a woman and two and a half kids. They say this is the ideal environment for a family. Statistically they are true however I return to asking that those studies analyze the number of people and not the types of people.
I am only defining a family in terms that a Republican and the rest of the American public support. I still support families, however I do not define it with a manufactured template for a mother, father, and two and a half kids. I define it by the values we believe in, which has been missed and undefended in many arguements about families. This is because a standard template is not applicable to human nature.
Lets use an example. A mother and father are raising two kids. One of them steals from a store. Neither one tells him not to do it. The other kid steals from a store. The family did not teach civility and thus had a detrimental effect on society. Now a single mother has two kids and one steals from a store. She forces him to return to the store and apologize. The other kid does not steal candy from the store. That family does not fit the family profile but has something more important: family values.The family values we promote have been mistaken as a profile, as such I wish to clarify it among ourselves and our opponents. As Republicans we should emphasis family values rather than a family profile.
Allowing same-sex marriage would increase the strength of family. It would allow two people to show a commitment to each other and that allows for a stronger bond between them. This bond is what a family is made of. These bonds improve society by giving people stability. That is why families are seen as a strong element in a strong America. The stability of a family creates productive and civil people to aid society in becoming productive and stable as well. By allowing more of these bonds to form and strengthen more families we would be advancing our values and in doing so improving not only the Republican Party but our country. That is why I support gay marriage and believe that doing so does not go against our core values.
This love allows them to interact and live their lives productively. When a person in a romantic love relationship commits adultery they are announcing that the love is not unique. The other person expected it to be unique so when this happens the relationship disappears and becomes something new. The love is gone. It is possible to love the adulterer for being the father of your kids, supporting the family, but those are a different kind of love. The romantic love is gone. This change may be so profound it damages the other feelings of love as well. It usually also creates other feelings that overwhelm the remaining love.
Feelings such as hatred, anger, rage, betrayal, disappointment, sadness can overwhelm a person. The introduction of these feelings is harmful because not only will it affect the person's love to the adulterer, but also their personality and how they interact with others. When this happens families love for each other fall apart. The family is essentially destroyed. The leaves are still there but instead of being vibrant and productive they become withered and eventually die. The family dies because of adultery. The people physically live on but the love that was the stem of the family is gone, and that family is dead. That is why I maintain and support the Republican opposition to adultery.
I do not alter my viewpoint from the Republican viewpoint on seme-sex marriage because I am gay. I alter it because allowing same-sex marriage is consistent to our core values. A strong family is one that respects each other, promotes civility, morality, and productivity within the members, and holds a commitment to the family to provide a role in its benefit. I know it sounds superficial to say those things, but nobody has talked about it.
The core Republican belief that we support families and wish to make them stronger has no 'written in stone' definitions. Some have tried to define it as a man and a woman and two and a half kids. They say this is the ideal environment for a family. Statistically they are true however I return to asking that those studies analyze the number of people and not the types of people.
I am only defining a family in terms that a Republican and the rest of the American public support. I still support families, however I do not define it with a manufactured template for a mother, father, and two and a half kids. I define it by the values we believe in, which has been missed and undefended in many arguements about families. This is because a standard template is not applicable to human nature.
Lets use an example. A mother and father are raising two kids. One of them steals from a store. Neither one tells him not to do it. The other kid steals from a store. The family did not teach civility and thus had a detrimental effect on society. Now a single mother has two kids and one steals from a store. She forces him to return to the store and apologize. The other kid does not steal candy from the store. That family does not fit the family profile but has something more important: family values.The family values we promote have been mistaken as a profile, as such I wish to clarify it among ourselves and our opponents. As Republicans we should emphasis family values rather than a family profile.
Allowing same-sex marriage would increase the strength of family. It would allow two people to show a commitment to each other and that allows for a stronger bond between them. This bond is what a family is made of. These bonds improve society by giving people stability. That is why families are seen as a strong element in a strong America. The stability of a family creates productive and civil people to aid society in becoming productive and stable as well. By allowing more of these bonds to form and strengthen more families we would be advancing our values and in doing so improving not only the Republican Party but our country. That is why I support gay marriage and believe that doing so does not go against our core values.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Republican Family Values
Today I am inspired to address the Republican Family Values. This is because these values are among the most common area where the Republican Party loses members who disagree with these principles. I believe they can, and for the survival of the party, should be altered. However, not in a way that will change our belief in society, and I will explain how my changes do not change our societal values, First a list of current Republican family values and my values.
Republican Family Values
1. Promotion of traditional marriage and opposition to adultery.
2. Opposition to same-sex marriage.
3. Support for traditional education and parental involvement in that education.
4. Support for policies that encourage "adoption over abortion".
5. Support for behavior identified as traditional or moral such as respect, discipline, attentiveness, religious commitment.
6. Support for healthy choices such as a nutritious diet, medical screenings, and physical activity.
7. Support for "abstinence education" exclusively regarding risks associated with early sexual activity such as teen pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases while not teaching such topics of sex education as human sexual behavior, safe sex and birth control.
8. Support for policies that are said to protect children from obscenity and exploitation.
My Family Values
1. Opposition to adultery.
2. Support of same-sex marriage.
3. Support for traditional education and parental involvement in that education.
4. Support for policies that encourage "adoption over abortion".
5. Support for behavior identified as traditional or moral such as respect, discipline, attentiveness.
6. Support for healthy choices such as a nutritious diet, medical screenings, and physical activity.
7. Support sex education in 10+ grade. Support giving parents tools 4+ grade to teach child if they want.
8. Support for policies that are said to protect children from obscenity and exploitation.
The reasons for my changes follow an understanding of their basis. I will first address my change to a traditional marriage. Traditional marriage is the marriage of a man and a woman. Those who support it often extend it to want fewer divorces, unmarried mothers, and in radical cases believe same-sex marriage is a form of abortion. This radical belief is not the majority but comes from the belief that homosexuality is a choice. If homosexuality is a choice such a marriage is chosen to avoid children and thus is a form of birth-control. This is not correct. It is also not the majority. Homosexuality is not a choice. It is not genetic.
Lets skip my emotional and passionate tirade on how those last two sentences are true. If you wish to know, simply ask and I will provide. For now lets just take a small moment to accept the truth. The moment is over. Lets proceed.
There are several things about the traditional marriage. Supporters say marriage between a man and a woman has been the institutional standard for thousands of years even being written about in the Bible. This traditional marriage is traditional, so it should be kept in that form. In the traditional, present in the Bible, been around for thousands of years qualification, so was slavery. Simply because it is traditional does not mean it is right or worthy of preservation.
Supporters also say it would allow for polygamy to be legalized. Polygamy and same-sex marriage are two different things. Polygamy is often sexist with a man with many wives, involving a religious following that in a large number of cases ivolves the participation in a cult which involves abuses of children. Polygamy should not be allowed on those grounds. Same-sex marriage and homosexuality in general are not connected to such actions.
Some say same-sex marriage will erode religious freedoms. A priest would not be forced to marry a same-sex couple. Aside frm that fear I do not see a major threat to the first amendment. To those who say it is against God's will: why would he create us in his perfect image only to be eternally flawed? The Bible or the Koran or any religion can say it is against God's will but I would like to hear you tell me what God's will is. If you can tell me then I want to know how you are able to talk to God. Another arguement is that it is unnatural, in which case why am I gay? Not by choice, and if it is a disease we have an epidemic beyond containment since the beginning of mankind.
Among the many arguements formed one that I accept is true, but incomplete in conclusion, is that those raised by a single parent have lower educational scores. I propose a study be done to determine if the number of family members, fully grown, ranging from families of one adult to five, have increased intelligence for the children of families with more adults to learn from then those without. However, a sam-sex marriage would not have the issue of there being a single parent. It is a good defense of a marriage, but of an opposition to same-sex marriage it is incomplete.
Republican Family Values
1. Promotion of traditional marriage and opposition to adultery.
2. Opposition to same-sex marriage.
3. Support for traditional education and parental involvement in that education.
4. Support for policies that encourage "adoption over abortion".
5. Support for behavior identified as traditional or moral such as respect, discipline, attentiveness, religious commitment.
6. Support for healthy choices such as a nutritious diet, medical screenings, and physical activity.
7. Support for "abstinence education" exclusively regarding risks associated with early sexual activity such as teen pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases while not teaching such topics of sex education as human sexual behavior, safe sex and birth control.
8. Support for policies that are said to protect children from obscenity and exploitation.
My Family Values
1. Opposition to adultery.
2. Support of same-sex marriage.
3. Support for traditional education and parental involvement in that education.
4. Support for policies that encourage "adoption over abortion".
5. Support for behavior identified as traditional or moral such as respect, discipline, attentiveness.
6. Support for healthy choices such as a nutritious diet, medical screenings, and physical activity.
7. Support sex education in 10+ grade. Support giving parents tools 4+ grade to teach child if they want.
8. Support for policies that are said to protect children from obscenity and exploitation.
The reasons for my changes follow an understanding of their basis. I will first address my change to a traditional marriage. Traditional marriage is the marriage of a man and a woman. Those who support it often extend it to want fewer divorces, unmarried mothers, and in radical cases believe same-sex marriage is a form of abortion. This radical belief is not the majority but comes from the belief that homosexuality is a choice. If homosexuality is a choice such a marriage is chosen to avoid children and thus is a form of birth-control. This is not correct. It is also not the majority. Homosexuality is not a choice. It is not genetic.
Lets skip my emotional and passionate tirade on how those last two sentences are true. If you wish to know, simply ask and I will provide. For now lets just take a small moment to accept the truth. The moment is over. Lets proceed.
There are several things about the traditional marriage. Supporters say marriage between a man and a woman has been the institutional standard for thousands of years even being written about in the Bible. This traditional marriage is traditional, so it should be kept in that form. In the traditional, present in the Bible, been around for thousands of years qualification, so was slavery. Simply because it is traditional does not mean it is right or worthy of preservation.
Supporters also say it would allow for polygamy to be legalized. Polygamy and same-sex marriage are two different things. Polygamy is often sexist with a man with many wives, involving a religious following that in a large number of cases ivolves the participation in a cult which involves abuses of children. Polygamy should not be allowed on those grounds. Same-sex marriage and homosexuality in general are not connected to such actions.
Some say same-sex marriage will erode religious freedoms. A priest would not be forced to marry a same-sex couple. Aside frm that fear I do not see a major threat to the first amendment. To those who say it is against God's will: why would he create us in his perfect image only to be eternally flawed? The Bible or the Koran or any religion can say it is against God's will but I would like to hear you tell me what God's will is. If you can tell me then I want to know how you are able to talk to God. Another arguement is that it is unnatural, in which case why am I gay? Not by choice, and if it is a disease we have an epidemic beyond containment since the beginning of mankind.
Among the many arguements formed one that I accept is true, but incomplete in conclusion, is that those raised by a single parent have lower educational scores. I propose a study be done to determine if the number of family members, fully grown, ranging from families of one adult to five, have increased intelligence for the children of families with more adults to learn from then those without. However, a sam-sex marriage would not have the issue of there being a single parent. It is a good defense of a marriage, but of an opposition to same-sex marriage it is incomplete.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Swine Flu Outbreak (And Why It Matters)
The CDC has announced after a thousand people have been infected and 68 killed (8 of the infected are Americans) that the flu is beyond containment. It happens to be rather deadly more than other flu types, or maybe it is just faster than other flu outbreaks so its getting the news coverage. Now, to the important part: wash your hands. Aside from that, the CDC admits failure after a thousand peasants in Mexico get the flu? Only eight Americans are confirmed. Something doesn't make sense. Everything can be contained. Plague anyone? Communism anyone? Government spending? Alright that last one I admit can't be right now. However the CDC is supposed to help us in the event of a catastrophic pandemic and yet after a thousand infections here "nevermind, its too much effort". I'm not reassured in any way. The CDC and the FDA in connection to illness lately has been a miserable failure. Its irritatingly annoying. They get billions of dollars to admit failure after failure (salmonella anyone?) and I'm getting sick of it, and if it goes on I might actually get sick because of it. They need to straighten out their doctrines and get back to the cold war era thinking, because they at least faked being prepared back then and I lived happily (well, my parents felt happier) without fear. The fear is attacking us from all sides. Bush did that a lot. Why is it still here Obama? I hope he heard me. I'm glad you read this at least. Have a good day. Meow.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Memories -Za Ro 2
Za Ro: Memories: images in our mind that we hold on for a lifetime. They describe stories, events, expierences that have happened in our lives. My life as of the age of 15 has been insane, devilish, and down right unheard of. But I would never have it any other way. In the end, when we reach the end of our lives, it isn't about how much money we made, or how many cars we bought, its the memories that we are able to take to our grave. The expierences, the knowledge, the fun. All stay with us forever, I am only 15 but have lost someone for the time being, and although I know at some point in life I will see him again, I look back to the time we had together and I am able to stay happy by remembering all the time we spent together. But what makes me sad is all the times I did miss with him because of something stupid. Being afriad or embarrased or something, looking back, it doesn't matter if it was scary, or embarassing, it is something that I missed out on, and I feel sad because of that. But atleast I can learn from that and plan for tomorrow. Its the memories that keep us going when times are tough, and that make us laugh when times are good. I wouldn't have it any other way, cause in the end I know I lived my life the right way, and to the fullest.
RHKINC: (Me, Randy) I agree that memories are what we have to ourselves, and I'll take it a step further and say it is what we have to share of immense value with others. I disagree, well, sort of, with overcoming fear. Some fears a reasonable, like the fear of getting run over or burning your hand on the stove. Fear of ridicule is also reasonable, but should be faced instead of accepted as the only possible outcome of trying something out. And I congradulate Za Ro of becoming an official guest to this blog and thank him for his contribution.
RHKINC: (Me, Randy) I agree that memories are what we have to ourselves, and I'll take it a step further and say it is what we have to share of immense value with others. I disagree, well, sort of, with overcoming fear. Some fears a reasonable, like the fear of getting run over or burning your hand on the stove. Fear of ridicule is also reasonable, but should be faced instead of accepted as the only possible outcome of trying something out. And I congradulate Za Ro of becoming an official guest to this blog and thank him for his contribution.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Co-Exist
Must be social issues week or something but here is another blog about non-political issues (by me this time) :
A certain relative, bless her soul, just angered me immensely. After a whole discussion of those who hate gays and religion, we began shouting in the differences. If I fight those who hate gays apparently I solve nothing. If they vandalize my house and I press charges and get them in prison I have done nothing. I in fact have defended a civil and respectful society tolerating of all differences. I will defend a civil and respectful society to my last death. She said I wouldn't have many breaths left if that was the case. Then she told me that I would have to learn to co-exist with them. Co-exist with those who want to kill you because of something in your own personal life that does not affect them in the least. It is this blind tolerance of hatred that I speak out against. It must end. You want to hate me because I insult your mother, you, or steal or damage your property, or do something bad to you in some way, go ahead you will be justified. You hate me for who I am and act on that hatred I will fight you every step of the way to get you and your hatred off the streets and out of our society.
A certain relative, bless her soul, just angered me immensely. After a whole discussion of those who hate gays and religion, we began shouting in the differences. If I fight those who hate gays apparently I solve nothing. If they vandalize my house and I press charges and get them in prison I have done nothing. I in fact have defended a civil and respectful society tolerating of all differences. I will defend a civil and respectful society to my last death. She said I wouldn't have many breaths left if that was the case. Then she told me that I would have to learn to co-exist with them. Co-exist with those who want to kill you because of something in your own personal life that does not affect them in the least. It is this blind tolerance of hatred that I speak out against. It must end. You want to hate me because I insult your mother, you, or steal or damage your property, or do something bad to you in some way, go ahead you will be justified. You hate me for who I am and act on that hatred I will fight you every step of the way to get you and your hatred off the streets and out of our society.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Today's Teens
This is a blog written by Za Ro, a good friend. He is not on my side in the political world, however some messages can be agreed upon. This is one of those messages:
In today’s society when you hear about teenagers most of the time you think of students and people striving to become our next leaders, doctors and other highly respected people of the world. But you’re not seeing the whole picture if you think that every teen is happy with their life. Tonight I am going to be talking about the teens that are forgotten in this fast pace life we live today. If you look anywhere today you will see that most teens are suffering from many things, problems with parents, bullies in school, and other big issues in their life. Most of those kids are usually labeled, in the high school world as “Emo”, A stereo type that has fought its way to the respected table of high school labels. But that stereo type, although it is recognized more often today, is a hard one to carry. You are under constant scrutiny of people calling you names and insulting you with bringing this image of pain in your life. My point here tonight is we need to look past the stereo types, the labels, and see the person who is underneath. Because when people are hurting they don’t want you to mock them, insult them, bash them and even injure them. The stereo type “Emo” in my personal opinion is a way for people to say “Hey I need help. Someone please notice me”. It is about the person who needs help in the struggles that he or she is going through. So the next time you start to hate or feel the need to harass someone for cutting themselves, or have attempted suicide, or might believe something you don’t. Or cry every night because they are alone in this world and their parents abuse them every day. Please stop yourself and think. What if I was in their shoes? I know today we can be over dramatic with problems and that in other places in the world people have it worse. But when someone is hurting no matter who it is we need to be there to help the best we can or we are just a bunch of selfish beings. I end this short story with a message tonight that might open people’s eyes to be more open minded, and to see what they can change inside of themselves. I hope this moves people because there are a lot of changes that need to be made to this world before we start getting better.
Also, and finally, in today’s world we don’t need to split everyone one apart we need to come together and help change the world, we need to make a difference. From people in all places around the globe we need to make a difference.
In today’s society when you hear about teenagers most of the time you think of students and people striving to become our next leaders, doctors and other highly respected people of the world. But you’re not seeing the whole picture if you think that every teen is happy with their life. Tonight I am going to be talking about the teens that are forgotten in this fast pace life we live today. If you look anywhere today you will see that most teens are suffering from many things, problems with parents, bullies in school, and other big issues in their life. Most of those kids are usually labeled, in the high school world as “Emo”, A stereo type that has fought its way to the respected table of high school labels. But that stereo type, although it is recognized more often today, is a hard one to carry. You are under constant scrutiny of people calling you names and insulting you with bringing this image of pain in your life. My point here tonight is we need to look past the stereo types, the labels, and see the person who is underneath. Because when people are hurting they don’t want you to mock them, insult them, bash them and even injure them. The stereo type “Emo” in my personal opinion is a way for people to say “Hey I need help. Someone please notice me”. It is about the person who needs help in the struggles that he or she is going through. So the next time you start to hate or feel the need to harass someone for cutting themselves, or have attempted suicide, or might believe something you don’t. Or cry every night because they are alone in this world and their parents abuse them every day. Please stop yourself and think. What if I was in their shoes? I know today we can be over dramatic with problems and that in other places in the world people have it worse. But when someone is hurting no matter who it is we need to be there to help the best we can or we are just a bunch of selfish beings. I end this short story with a message tonight that might open people’s eyes to be more open minded, and to see what they can change inside of themselves. I hope this moves people because there are a lot of changes that need to be made to this world before we start getting better.
Also, and finally, in today’s world we don’t need to split everyone one apart we need to come together and help change the world, we need to make a difference. From people in all places around the globe we need to make a difference.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
The People Who Hate Gays
One problem, calling someone who says that stupid is not going to change their mind. It will make you more of a target if your gay, and incite their hatred even more. What needs to be said should be organized, coherent, well spoken (written, televised, broadcast, taught, enscribe.....) to change their minds instead of insult them. They are ignorant. They don't know the truth. The truth is that homosexuality is natural, it is normal, and it is common in all societies worldwide despite the denials of the Iranian government. I disagree on its cause in genetics due to the fact that gay kids are born from straight parents all of the time, it often is that way because a man and man and a woman and woman can not (together alone) have a child. Genetics means from the parent, and since straight people are the ones mostly giving birth by a far majority, the gay kids that come from them under the genetics theory would have to be straight as well. Instead they are gay and so tada, genetics is out. It is in brain development, a part of the design of the brain, and it is normal. It can't be changed, and personally I don't want it to. Gays pose no threat to society. AIDS covers more straight people than gay people. Gays have never hanged a straight person for being straight. Things like this are what need to be said. Not "Did you get dropped on your head when you were young?" That won't change minds. Talking about the reality will.
Another thing, since this is really two thoughts on the issue in one: It wasn't the religious who hated (a few years ago) me the most, it was the majority of the people I knew. Here in Maine everyone else with any reason simply hated gays. The hatred covers a far wider range of people than conservatives, here in Maine (up in the Northeast, yes, we are part of the United States) most of the people are democrats and non-religious. The hatred is still here. That said, the hatred does not affect my daily life. I'm fully open, I never get critisized by anyone. I did when I was younger, but the kids were also younger at that time too and enjoyed even more juvenile jokes involving farts and so on. I have a religious friend who could care less. It comes down to something more than religion. It comes down to ignorance to the truth. A lie about gays has been spread to deep into society scrubbing it out will take time. It is getting better though. Nobody can deny that. The hatred remains, but like racism against blacks, although some still remains it is much better as time goes on.
Thank you for reading, meow.
Another thing, since this is really two thoughts on the issue in one: It wasn't the religious who hated (a few years ago) me the most, it was the majority of the people I knew. Here in Maine everyone else with any reason simply hated gays. The hatred covers a far wider range of people than conservatives, here in Maine (up in the Northeast, yes, we are part of the United States) most of the people are democrats and non-religious. The hatred is still here. That said, the hatred does not affect my daily life. I'm fully open, I never get critisized by anyone. I did when I was younger, but the kids were also younger at that time too and enjoyed even more juvenile jokes involving farts and so on. I have a religious friend who could care less. It comes down to something more than religion. It comes down to ignorance to the truth. A lie about gays has been spread to deep into society scrubbing it out will take time. It is getting better though. Nobody can deny that. The hatred remains, but like racism against blacks, although some still remains it is much better as time goes on.
Thank you for reading, meow.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Budget Cuts in the Department of Defense
If you think I am opposed to budget cuts, your wrong. If you think I want higher taxes, your wrong. Alright, that said, lets get to today's topic. In today's local paper, which is the Bangor Daily News for me, there was an article on the cutting of the DoDs budget. It covers the items being cut. Here is why they are cutting the budget for the F-22 Raptor which is the best fighter jet in the world "The Raptor is ill-suited to deterring roadside bombs in Iraq or hunting insurgents who vanish into the Afghan mountains." Alright, makes sense. I support the cut based on that explanation. It makes sense. Why develop an expensive weapon for another war at another time when we have a different kind of war right now. It makes sense. Except the next part where "A $160 billion Army system of combat vehicles, flying sensors, and bomb-hunting robots would be reduced." So, flying sensors and bomb-hunting robots also do not help fight roadside bombs or hunt insurgents who vanish into the Afghan mountains.
This is where the reasoning for the F-22 goes out the window. This is where my appreciation of the responsibility of the budgets, even if I don't believe they have any sense of responsibility at all, goes down even more. Yes, it is possible to always go lower than you already are. (Hitler anyone?) So, the new low isn't really comparable to anything right now because this low is a different kind of low. The economy isn't at rock bottom, our wars are not a devastating defeat with us sacraficing territory in peace treaties and all that stuff, and our leader isn't a genocidal maniac. Well, I have to go, part two will be coming up later (maybe.)
This is where the reasoning for the F-22 goes out the window. This is where my appreciation of the responsibility of the budgets, even if I don't believe they have any sense of responsibility at all, goes down even more. Yes, it is possible to always go lower than you already are. (Hitler anyone?) So, the new low isn't really comparable to anything right now because this low is a different kind of low. The economy isn't at rock bottom, our wars are not a devastating defeat with us sacraficing territory in peace treaties and all that stuff, and our leader isn't a genocidal maniac. Well, I have to go, part two will be coming up later (maybe.)
Human Rights
If you scroll down a ways you will find a post called HUman Rights. Well, without even noticing I forgot to give credit to someone. Za Ro, a close friend, helped me create that list. We spent several weeks discussing applications and uses of rights and the boundaries of government in upholding it. I mention this now because firstly you should have some introduction to him, and secondly because I prefer to give credit where it is due. The reason you will have this introduction is because every so often he will contribute to this blog. Without even knowing it he already has through that, I simply forgot to mention it. Now tomorrow will be his breakout moment, his move to the spotlight (at least in terms of this blog) and I have no doubt that he will surprise you. Now, my focus has been, well, nowhere really. His focus overall will be on social issues. I do not mean politically social issues, I mean issues. Read personal deals within people's lives that we all face. It will be less humorous, maybe a little dark, and his writing style may need some touching up, but like I've said before the message matters more than the delivery. Unlike my writing it is his opinion all the way through, his observations, his life. This does not mean I am using it to shock anyone. I doubt anyone will find any fault in what he has to say. Maybe on a substantial level of agreement to the impact of the issue, that might come up but I'll take that torch. He is simply going to put the knowledge he knows of people's lives and suffering here and how you can help people who are struggling. He has no political affiliation and wishes to remain as such. Considering the forum he will be on, I urge you to turn off political hatred when reading a Za Ro post and absorb it as the wisdom of someone who has seen it all before being 16. That is what surprises me about him is his age, and how he is so far beyond it in every way. Tomorrow, his post will be here, it covers how you can help people. I hope you enjoy it, gain from it, or at least don't get hurt by it. Thank you for reading.
Monday, April 6, 2009
A little math (already done don't worry)
The federal government began the 208 year with a record deficit of $237.2 billion, reflecting the billions of dollars the government has started to pay out to rescue the financial system.The next fiscal year is going to start out with a 3.6 trillion dollar defecit, a record in world history.
To allow a fair granting to the opponents, I'll round up for Bush, and claim all eight years had the previous record of 250 billion defecit, and I'll round down for Obama by 100 billion dollars. Thats one sixth of the Iraq war just so you all know. (Which means the Iraq war is paid for six times over in this new budget.)
250 billion, 1/4 of a trillion, eight years, two trillion dollars under eight years of George Bush, Obama, 3.6 trillion dollars in the first year, do de do de do de 14 trillion in four years, so do de do de do de we are getting not four more years, but 56 years of George Bush under Obama. This is presuming Barack Obama loses the 2012 election. If not, and I'll be generous to a national recovery if 2012 doesn't bring Mayan armaggedon, we will be getting a grand total of 100 years of Bush, financially speaking, in eight years of Obama. That is twenty Bush terms in only two Obama terms. Anyone else feel slightly concerned about this? Perhaps angry over the hypocracy?
To allow a fair granting to the opponents, I'll round up for Bush, and claim all eight years had the previous record of 250 billion defecit, and I'll round down for Obama by 100 billion dollars. Thats one sixth of the Iraq war just so you all know. (Which means the Iraq war is paid for six times over in this new budget.)
250 billion, 1/4 of a trillion, eight years, two trillion dollars under eight years of George Bush, Obama, 3.6 trillion dollars in the first year, do de do de do de 14 trillion in four years, so do de do de do de we are getting not four more years, but 56 years of George Bush under Obama. This is presuming Barack Obama loses the 2012 election. If not, and I'll be generous to a national recovery if 2012 doesn't bring Mayan armaggedon, we will be getting a grand total of 100 years of Bush, financially speaking, in eight years of Obama. That is twenty Bush terms in only two Obama terms. Anyone else feel slightly concerned about this? Perhaps angry over the hypocracy?
Friday, April 3, 2009
Talent Show
Tonights talent show at Bangor High School was quite astounding. It was in the utmost effect what makes me proud to attend. There were excellent performances. From Tay's singing, piano playing, and overall genius abilities, to rapping, comedic failures, self insults, bulletproof glass not being stapler proof the entire event was great. During the Senior Band's performance of 99 Red Balloons, which sucked because the trumpets didn't come out too well and the drums were too loud, but eh, it was still awesome because the balloons came out of the ventilator system and of course they were red. Alas, the four years I've attended I have avoided social events. I avoided dances, I avoided participating in anything more intense than a good game of chess. Which brings me to the moral of the story (its a blog about silly stuff, but I always have a point [read my last posts.] Is this titled Episode of Distraction? No, so here comes the moral of the story.) The moral of this is that when you have the chance to enjoy your life in, as one observation of our school dances mocked, "clean, sexually safe, child friendly fun" you should take it. I limit it at don't do drugs or get yourself hurt. So, since I now fully regret placing one of my only talents on display, my ability to rap, I write the following as what I would have rapped without back music, just my voice (not singing, rapping, so unplug the ears k?) :
Some things in life hurt
Like someone giving me birth
From an illegitimate womb
That seemed to only be a deadly tomb
Luckily on that battlefield nothing went boom
Yet your going to notice in time
That I'm losing my mind
And I might not always be kind
Because you pissed me off and knocked me down into the dirt
All of you said that I had no more worth
So now I'm pushing back and it just might hurt
It just hurts because of all of these lies
It makes me almost want to cry
But I don't because you stopped asking why
We just agree that its time to say goodbye
I don't know which of us gave up first
I just know that it feels like we are both cursed
And all thats left is all of this hurt
The problem with the world today is that there isn't enough kindness in the hearts of many
Too many sit on the fence not making any sense
Just watching life go right on by
never bothering to ask themselves why
Peace and war serves anymore only to allow time for
The other to begin
We need to find a new way of thinking
because on this course the country is sinking
What other people think is bringing me to the brink
Some of my emotions make me want to burst
And some of us have had to survive the worse
Because on the inside we all do hurt
The pain of the birth that brought so much hurt
Can also bring joy to world like a kid getting a toy
Girl or boy the child is a gift
Special or not it still has innocence
Whether a president or a brick layer
We all have a choice of whether or not to tazer
Shoot with a bullet or a laser
Stop all the violence and be a joy maker
Some things in life hurt
Like someone giving me birth
From an illegitimate womb
That seemed to only be a deadly tomb
Luckily on that battlefield nothing went boom
Yet your going to notice in time
That I'm losing my mind
And I might not always be kind
Because you pissed me off and knocked me down into the dirt
All of you said that I had no more worth
So now I'm pushing back and it just might hurt
It just hurts because of all of these lies
It makes me almost want to cry
But I don't because you stopped asking why
We just agree that its time to say goodbye
I don't know which of us gave up first
I just know that it feels like we are both cursed
And all thats left is all of this hurt
The problem with the world today is that there isn't enough kindness in the hearts of many
Too many sit on the fence not making any sense
Just watching life go right on by
never bothering to ask themselves why
Peace and war serves anymore only to allow time for
The other to begin
We need to find a new way of thinking
because on this course the country is sinking
What other people think is bringing me to the brink
Some of my emotions make me want to burst
And some of us have had to survive the worse
Because on the inside we all do hurt
The pain of the birth that brought so much hurt
Can also bring joy to world like a kid getting a toy
Girl or boy the child is a gift
Special or not it still has innocence
Whether a president or a brick layer
We all have a choice of whether or not to tazer
Shoot with a bullet or a laser
Stop all the violence and be a joy maker
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
The "Protest" in Britain
Today the British were rioting. Many will say protesting, but a protest, at least here in America, is not supposed to be violent. When a large group of people shouting, breaking windows, defacing things, and screaming some more get in the news, they are often called rioting. Who do they legitimize the event that occured today by saying they were protesting? They threw eggs at the police, what message does that send? What cause does throwing eggs at police promote? It doesn't. This was not a protest. It was a riot. I'll also point out that I believe at least 20% of the crowd present were reporters, there were more cameras than people it seemed. Reporters, sadly, were pushing protesters aside trying to get to the center of the violence to get the hot shot of the event for their journalistic or hobby projects. They were protesting Obama's capitalism, which in and of itself is a mistake. Obama has not done anything so far that would in the long run preserve the capitalist system. While their message was wrong, and it has no value because of the presentation, the message matters to display the stupidity of these people. Emotion in a protest can lead to riot conditions, and it is these conditions that people lose control in and begin the riot. However, by preparing on a basis of a lie, Obama's capitalism, they were rioting before they arrived. They had allowed their emotion, their anger, not their discomfort, not their sadness about the situation they may be in, but their anger to get them to the protest. If you go to a 'protest' because of anger, you are not going to protest. If you go because you have a message, a story to tell someone, to let someone know then you are going to protest. These people had no message, some did, but the majority had emotion. Emotion, in the world of laws and diplomacy, has no value. Stop calling it a protest. It was not a protest. Thank you and let me know if you agree, meow, have a good day.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Chavez, airports and ports, Hitler, the Rhineland
From the BBC recently:
-
Venezuela's military has taken control of key airports and sea ports under the terms of a move rubber-stamped by parliament a week ago.
The move centralises the running of the country's main transport hubs.
President Hugo Chavez has pushed for the move, describing it as "reunifying the motherland, which was in pieces".
-
A quote from Hitler on the entry of the Rhineland from Source 1 at the bottom:
-
Hitler announced that Germany was no longer bound by the Locarno Pact because of her "interests of the basic rights of its people to the security of their frontier"; the members of the Reichstag rejoiced in an ocean of "Heil! Heil! Heil!", believing that German honor, through the restoration of sovereignty, had been restored.
-
I could present the case for why the ports were not already under national control already but you probably wouldn't believe me. So here is a continued snippit from the BBC:
-
Soldiers were dispatched to ports in three states governed by Mr Chavez's opponents on Saturday - Zulia, Carabobo and Nueva Esparta. State governments in Venezuela have controlled the country's most important airports, sea ports and major highways since a move towards decentralisation began some 20 years ago, the AFP news agency says. Many of the facilities seized on Saturday have since then fallen under the jurisdiction of state governments often hostile to Mr Chavez. The latest change to the law came just weeks after Venezuelans voted for a constitutional amendment granting Mr Chavez and other elected officials the right to stand for election beyond the previous limit of two terms.
-
So in effect, the occupation of the airports and ports in Venezuela can be seen as a historical parallel to the Rhineland Crisis. I believe, contrary to this parallel, that Venezuela would be more similar to Japan than Hitler. Iran is similar to Germany in plans for the Islamic Revolution to cover the world as Germany wanted Anschluss and then Lebenstraum for the 'Aryan' people. Iran's use of Hamas and Hezbollah could be akin to Japan's use of Menguko and Manchuko during WW2. We are in a global war. The armies are already on the move, as Hitler's were before we fought them. Similar to World War 2, Iran, Russia, Venezuela are all doing this just as Italy, Germany, and Japan did with only words for opposition. The sanctions on Italy did not work, the sanctions on Cuba have not worked, and the sanctions on Iran, considering Russia is violating them (and the five points treaty in Georgia, but that is for another blog), are also failing. In conclusion: WAKE UP AND OPEN YOUR EYES. Thank you for reading. Meow.
Source 1: http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=156
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Madagascar and the State Department
I recently, before the abdication of power by Madagascar's president Ravalomanana, sent a series of questions to the state department about the crisis that this nation faced and what our position on it was. I asked if we supported the referendum proposed by Ravalomanana, if we supported the actions of the rebel who is now in power, Rajeolina, or if there were any other positions we provided support to. I also asked if we would consider the use of military force in the situation, or if our ambassador was proposing another solution to the crisis. I asked to what extent would we intervene, as our efforts in Isreal are considerable, and if we would push for such an effort here. The following is the actual response I got, to these questions:
Recently you requested personal assistance from our on-line support
center. Below is a summary of your request and our response.
Thank you for contacting the State Department.
Subject
---------------------------------------------------------------
Madagascar's Crisis
Discussion Thread
---------------------------------------------------------------
Response (Support Agent) - 03/19/2009 11:18 AM
Thank you for your message to Secretary Clinton sharing your thoughts and
concerns. We value your opinion and will take it -- and the views of all
Americans -- into consideration.
Secretary Clinton is committed to strengthening America’s national security,
advancing the interest of the United States, and restoring America’s leadership
position in the world.
Question Reference #090316-004746
---------------------------------------------------------------
Category Level 1: U.S. Foreign Policy
Date Created: 03/16/2009 09:21 PM
Last Updated: 03/19/2009 11:18 AM
Status: Solved
[---001:000862:08395---]
I recommend you decide for yourself what our state department's stance on this issue is. At no point did I suggest any of the possible solutions were in our interest, so I'm still as confused now as I was before. We have a travel warning and made a statement to support the constitution of Madagascar, however it mentioned no involvement of our ambassador, or other diplomats in trying to help resolve the issue. I feel tempted to write to them about their unsatisfactory response but my inner gut tells me I will get this automated response no matter what I write to them about. The Obama administration has officially disenfranchised me from the process of being involved in government for the time being. This is a real story, I am not making this up, I swear it. The Obama administration has failed me. I brought my concerns to them, I stated them clearly in an email to the State Department from their website, and this response has shown me they do not care about me, do not care about the issue enough to respond to it, and this lack of care to their job has left me without a desire to turn to them for an answer in the future. I've tested the administration myself. The administration has failed my test. It doesn't care about what we think. It doesn't care what we want to know about what they are doing. It doesn't care about transparency or doing their job. The administration is not concerned with my impact on society, or the election, or anything. I would go on to say what the administration cares about, but besides "american" interests, I am unsure, especially since the letter didn't tell me what those interests were. There is nothing else to say except thank you for reading and try to have a good day. I urge you to possibly try a similar test, see if you can get more than apples and oranges out of these people who are supposed to represent us.
Recently you requested personal assistance from our on-line support
center. Below is a summary of your request and our response.
Thank you for contacting the State Department.
Subject
---------------------------------------------------------------
Madagascar's Crisis
Discussion Thread
---------------------------------------------------------------
Response (Support Agent) - 03/19/2009 11:18 AM
Thank you for your message to Secretary Clinton sharing your thoughts and
concerns. We value your opinion and will take it -- and the views of all
Americans -- into consideration.
Secretary Clinton is committed to strengthening America’s national security,
advancing the interest of the United States, and restoring America’s leadership
position in the world.
Question Reference #090316-004746
---------------------------------------------------------------
Category Level 1: U.S. Foreign Policy
Date Created: 03/16/2009 09:21 PM
Last Updated: 03/19/2009 11:18 AM
Status: Solved
[---001:000862:08395---]
I recommend you decide for yourself what our state department's stance on this issue is. At no point did I suggest any of the possible solutions were in our interest, so I'm still as confused now as I was before. We have a travel warning and made a statement to support the constitution of Madagascar, however it mentioned no involvement of our ambassador, or other diplomats in trying to help resolve the issue. I feel tempted to write to them about their unsatisfactory response but my inner gut tells me I will get this automated response no matter what I write to them about. The Obama administration has officially disenfranchised me from the process of being involved in government for the time being. This is a real story, I am not making this up, I swear it. The Obama administration has failed me. I brought my concerns to them, I stated them clearly in an email to the State Department from their website, and this response has shown me they do not care about me, do not care about the issue enough to respond to it, and this lack of care to their job has left me without a desire to turn to them for an answer in the future. I've tested the administration myself. The administration has failed my test. It doesn't care about what we think. It doesn't care what we want to know about what they are doing. It doesn't care about transparency or doing their job. The administration is not concerned with my impact on society, or the election, or anything. I would go on to say what the administration cares about, but besides "american" interests, I am unsure, especially since the letter didn't tell me what those interests were. There is nothing else to say except thank you for reading and try to have a good day. I urge you to possibly try a similar test, see if you can get more than apples and oranges out of these people who are supposed to represent us.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
The Climb
The Climb is a song by Miley Cyrus. Like her music or not, the song has a good message. The best part of doing something is not the end result, not the effects after you've done it, but the process of doing it that makes it worth the time you take to do it. That is all for now. Have a good day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
