From ABC:
An Iranian woman has given harrowing details of what she says was a massacre of protesters in Tehran's Baharestan Square on Wednesday.
Reports this morning suggest thousands of police and pro-government militia used guns, clubs and teargas to suppress a large opposition rally in the square.
Speaking to CNN, the unnamed woman said it was a "massacre".
"I was going to Baharestan with my friends ... to express our opposition to these killings and demanding freedom," she said.
"But the black-clad police stopped everyone ... they emptied the buses that were taking people there and let the private cars go on.
"We went on ... and then all of a sudden some 500 people with clubs ... came out of [a nearby mosque], and they poured into the streets and they started beating everyone."
The woman said the attackers started beating people on a pedestrian bridge heading to the square, with some people being thrown over the side.
"They beat a woman so savagely that she was drenched in blood, and her husband who was watching the scene, he just fainted.
"I also saw [the security forces] shooting young people.
"This was a massacre. They were trying to beat people so that they would die. They were cursing... they were beating old men.
"This was exactly a massacre. You should stop this. You should help the people of Iran who demand freedom.
"There were thousands of people on the street.
"I heard the shooting and we just ran away. I didn't see what happened but I'm sure people are dead there."
CNN said another source inside Tehran had described people being "shot like animals".
The witness went on: "In the previous days they are killing students with axes, they put the axe through the heart of young men, and it's so devastating I don't know how to describe it.
"This is horrific, this is genocide, this is a massacre, this is Hitler. And you people should stop it. It's time to act."
==========================================
The people of Iran are begging us to stand up for their freedom. Obama needs to stop avoiding the toe-stepping with the leaders of Iran and urge immediate embargoes on all oil leaving Iran. The regime must be shown there are consequences for violations of human rights. There are punishments for crimes against humanity. The world needs to act. Iran is acting in a way that defies, instead of sanctions, instead of nuclear suspension requests, it violates human rights.
Iran is acting while Obama stands to the side. We must act. We need to act. The people of Iran are asking for our help. We have a moral obligation as the leaders of the free world to act.
The world dislikes the United States because of the first failed Kurd independance promise, the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, the failed Mogadishu incident, the failed war in Vietnam. The promise behind all of them was freedom for the people. We failed.
We can redeem ourselves by coming to the aid of those who ask us to help them. South Vietnam didn't ask us to help them, Somali's needed help but they didn't request us to do it, and the Bay of Pigs was organized by us. Iranian are asking for us to fulfil our promise to lead the world into freedom. We are the shining city on the hill. We shine with the energy, the feelings of freedom. We can share this power source to the world at no cost by simply standing up for the rights of others.
Obama, do your damn job already. Hillary, either quit or do your job. McCain, keep up the good work.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
I've Spoken On Healthcare And Iran Enough Lately (Episode of Distraction 2)
The Perfect War Game .01
Items:
1x2 Square Board
1 Blue Cube
1 Red Cube
1 Coin (Marked 1 and 2 on either side)
Rules:
Alphabetical Start
Cube can move forward or stay.
If moving forward onto an opponent cube.
Toss coin into atmosphere.
If coin lands on 2, move forward. If 1, stay.
After moving or staying, opponent's turn.
Repeat until all the board is of one color.
Variables:
2>1 = Win
1<2 = Lose
Items:
1x2 Square Board
1 Blue Cube
1 Red Cube
1 Coin (Marked 1 and 2 on either side)
Rules:
Alphabetical Start
Cube can move forward or stay.
If moving forward onto an opponent cube.
Toss coin into atmosphere.
If coin lands on 2, move forward. If 1, stay.
After moving or staying, opponent's turn.
Repeat until all the board is of one color.
Variables:
2>1 = Win
1<2 = Lose
Saturday, June 20, 2009
The Toll of Uprising
The difference between the riots now in Iran and the ones thirty years ago is the exchange of "Shah" for "Khomeni". They want him dead. The death toll today rose at least 40, bringing the minimum toll to 52 as far as I can tell. The reports go as high as 200 but I can not confirm them.
How The West Lost The Revolution
The leaders of Iran who support Ahmadinejad and the Ayatolla have won. The reason I place the loss on the West, the nations who have leaders who represent Democracy and freedom in the world, is because they did not do enough to put the message I urged here forward in the ears of all Iranians. They did not show the Iranian people the support they needed to create a reform that would be truly different from the regime they have now. The world failed when a suicide bomber blew up the tomb of the first Ayatolla of Iran.
The protests would be oppressed and the people of the world knew this. The world knows what oppressive nations do when an internal challenge to their authority arises: they oppress even further. History shows this pattern every time.
The response can be violence, as is now occuring in Iran with this suicide bombing. When violence is used to overthrow an oppressive regime what often replaces it is an equally oppressive government. Look at the past year of coups and revolutions in Africa and Southeast Asia. Peaceful, persistent voicing of views creates a real change. The violence of the mutinees, and the militarization of the coups has led to equally oppressive regimes when they succeed and worse regimes when they fail. The peaceful declaration of a new government has created a stable Kosovo. The violence in this act of cowardice in Iran, if it becomes a pattern, will lead to an oppressive regime if it succeeds. Should this revolution now fail, the regime in place will be continuously oppressive against its people to ensure this revolution does not occur again.
Where did the West fail? It started with the leader of the free world, the leader of the most powerful nation on earth, declaring that we should not "meddle" in Iran. This was a statement amounting to saying we do not care what occurs in Iran. By the time the U.S. responded it was three days into the protests and too late for the message to be heard. I am certain voices in Europe were made, but here in the U.S. they were not heard. No voice is as powerful as that of the President of the United States. When he speaks, the world always listens. Whether the world agrees or not, is up to them; but they always listen.
For him to say we don't want to stand up for the freedom of Iranians to vote, to speak, to live their lives we have failed. I voiced myself but my leaders did not. I am not the President yet, but I know he has failed me.
We did not tell Iran to allow the freedom to be placed with the people. We did not tell the people to protest freely as their right, but peacefully. We did say we don't care. The wrong message at the right time. For Persia's people to not have the blessings of freedom urged by the rest of the world we have failed in bringing one of the oldest nations on earth to the modern free age of man.
However I will not give up. I will condemn the acts of violence by all sides and the silencing of voices wherever they occur in Iran. Freedom must be given and peace will be what is returned.
The protests would be oppressed and the people of the world knew this. The world knows what oppressive nations do when an internal challenge to their authority arises: they oppress even further. History shows this pattern every time.
The response can be violence, as is now occuring in Iran with this suicide bombing. When violence is used to overthrow an oppressive regime what often replaces it is an equally oppressive government. Look at the past year of coups and revolutions in Africa and Southeast Asia. Peaceful, persistent voicing of views creates a real change. The violence of the mutinees, and the militarization of the coups has led to equally oppressive regimes when they succeed and worse regimes when they fail. The peaceful declaration of a new government has created a stable Kosovo. The violence in this act of cowardice in Iran, if it becomes a pattern, will lead to an oppressive regime if it succeeds. Should this revolution now fail, the regime in place will be continuously oppressive against its people to ensure this revolution does not occur again.
Where did the West fail? It started with the leader of the free world, the leader of the most powerful nation on earth, declaring that we should not "meddle" in Iran. This was a statement amounting to saying we do not care what occurs in Iran. By the time the U.S. responded it was three days into the protests and too late for the message to be heard. I am certain voices in Europe were made, but here in the U.S. they were not heard. No voice is as powerful as that of the President of the United States. When he speaks, the world always listens. Whether the world agrees or not, is up to them; but they always listen.
For him to say we don't want to stand up for the freedom of Iranians to vote, to speak, to live their lives we have failed. I voiced myself but my leaders did not. I am not the President yet, but I know he has failed me.
We did not tell Iran to allow the freedom to be placed with the people. We did not tell the people to protest freely as their right, but peacefully. We did say we don't care. The wrong message at the right time. For Persia's people to not have the blessings of freedom urged by the rest of the world we have failed in bringing one of the oldest nations on earth to the modern free age of man.
However I will not give up. I will condemn the acts of violence by all sides and the silencing of voices wherever they occur in Iran. Freedom must be given and peace will be what is returned.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Apologies, Freedom, and Reality
Today the senate passed a bill apologizing for slavery. They did the same thing last year which explains why it sounds so familiar. Two instant reactions came out: it was not enough, and it was pointless. I am on the side of pointless because they did this last year. Those who say it is not enough often have said reparations are necessary.
The people of America were oppressed by the British. The Revolution gave independance and freedom to the whites. They did not demand the British also pay money in return. The only payment was freedom. The blacks had their freedom granted in the civil war when whites and blacks fought together for the freedom of the blacks. This is not to say that racism is not an issue, but slavery, as a practice of the U.S. government, has ended.
Native Americans have their own governments and laws because this is their homeland. For the rest of us our freedom are our reparation. Whites homeland is in Europe and blacks in Africa. We do not need money, we need freedom. Why is it that some african-American's can not accept an apology given in words and instead request it be given in money? Freedom is the only repayment for a moral injustice by society against any group.
The people of America were oppressed by the British. The Revolution gave independance and freedom to the whites. They did not demand the British also pay money in return. The only payment was freedom. The blacks had their freedom granted in the civil war when whites and blacks fought together for the freedom of the blacks. This is not to say that racism is not an issue, but slavery, as a practice of the U.S. government, has ended.
Native Americans have their own governments and laws because this is their homeland. For the rest of us our freedom are our reparation. Whites homeland is in Europe and blacks in Africa. We do not need money, we need freedom. Why is it that some african-American's can not accept an apology given in words and instead request it be given in money? Freedom is the only repayment for a moral injustice by society against any group.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
North Korea's Counterfeit
In the 1990s North Korea was one of the largest, and best producers of counterfeit technology and used it to counterfeit U.S. dollars. Problem is they still do that. However a news story from Italy where several people were arrested for holding 160 Billion dollars in bonds has caught my attention. Only 4 nations in the world hold more than 160 Billion dollars of United States debt. This means no person could possibly have that amount of bonds in their posession.
Two possibilities for this incident are they are real and countries are trying to get rid of their bonds in fear of a deflated U.S. dollar, or they are counterfeit. An expert has said only a country could counterfeit the bonds due to the required resources to do so. North Korea seems to be, for a nation with extreme poverty, doing a lot with its military - and seemingly only its military. Such policies are expensive. So, how would they be able to afford it? Just print the money or the bonds apparently. I am not saying it is North Korea behind the bonds, but it seems likely to me.
Two possibilities for this incident are they are real and countries are trying to get rid of their bonds in fear of a deflated U.S. dollar, or they are counterfeit. An expert has said only a country could counterfeit the bonds due to the required resources to do so. North Korea seems to be, for a nation with extreme poverty, doing a lot with its military - and seemingly only its military. Such policies are expensive. So, how would they be able to afford it? Just print the money or the bonds apparently. I am not saying it is North Korea behind the bonds, but it seems likely to me.
North Korea AND A Question Not Asked
First I will update the North Korean situation. It appears that North Korea is preparing a long-range missile launch for early July that will be aimed at Hawaii. It will fall 500 miles short after flying over Japan if it indeed does go forward. To those who say "500 miles short. Not important." You are wrong. Think of the Pacific Ocean, North Korea could aim it in any direction but it is preparing to aim straight line for Hawaii. The missile would be of the Taepodong-2 brand.
In response officials in the U.S. have said it will be 3 years before the West Coast will face a serious threat from North Korea. This means we will still have Barack Obama as president when the crunch time comes in. Do we let them become a threat? I say no but hey, three years is plenty of time to be proven wrong or right. We shall see.
However a ship, the Kang Nam, is suspected of carrying nuclear and missile weapons. It is a North Korean ship that left port Wednesday from North Korea. Here is where the question isn't being asked. In the reports we can't board it because the UN Resolution requires us to be granted access on board by North Korea. I don't see that happening. Yet, nobody is asking where the ship was going.
This is where it becomes crucial. It has left North Korean waters. The U.S. navy is tracking it of course and rightfully so. Will it go to the port as planned? If it has nuclear material and the ship was heading for Iran, we know something is going on with the alliance that I laid out on this blog way back when nobody cared. Well, seems like nobody cares now because nobody asked where it was going in the news reports.
Finally a new cog of the alliance. I listed Myanmar (Burma) in the list of nations against us. The affiliation wasn't clear. Now it is. Burma and North Korea have been connected by the trade-off by Burma of getting North Korean help in building underground structures in exchange for giving food aid and other materials to North Korea.
This connection began following the Rangoon bombing in which 18 South Korean officials visiting Burma were killed. North Korea held negotiations with Myanmar (Burma) in order to release the ones responsible for the bombing. While the prisoners were not extradited to North Korea, exchanges of military supplies from North Korea to keep the military juntas in power in exchange for food, rubber, and other items from the generals.
According to this article: http://www.rfa.org/english/news/burma/burmatunnels-06182009131301.html
Yes, according to the long linked article the generals traded raw materials because they didn't have money. Now the trade offs continue in which tunnels designed for the Burmese officials to hide and operate the government underground (in the event of air attack or even uprising) is exchanged for food.
Now there is an interesting part in which it mentions North Korea has been making numerous port calls with Burma. This means its ships have been going to port. They are officially called "friendship delegations" but the article explains the arrivals are for business. This is where it ties into the ship with the nuclear and missile materials the navy is tracking. We need to know where the ship was intended to go so we can form a clearer picture of the alliance. The ships location, if a nation not in the list of the current alliances, will be quite surprising to me and force me to research even deeper into the web of the alliances that we have.
There is a little extra note in this alliance that seems rather repetitive. Burma is accused of seeking a nuclear program. The list of nations in this alliance seeking, accused of, or having a nuclear program are as follows:
Iran
North Korea
Venezuela
Ecuador
Bolivia
Libya
Russia
Burma
Syria
Peru
Cuba
Pakistan (Who is, I believe, now a neutral power, although it will choose a side, I am not sure which anymore)
So with this information the alliances have a pattern of getting aid for nuclear technology from the Russians, who aid the triple alliance of Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea which are the champions of anti-Americanism in the world. Subsequently you have North Korea helping Syria and Burma with their programs. Iran and Venezuela working together to get Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru their own programs and Cuba is of course aided by Venezuela. The alliance is there. We need our leaders to realize this before it is too late.
This paragraph is my third post edit because today the info is coming out of the wood work. The U.N. Atomic Energy Chief, Mohamed Elbaradei, said Iran is seeking nuclear weapons technology. I really want to know where that ship was heading. I really do. I think you do to. Look in the news, see if you can see the alliances I see and let me know if you disagree.
In response officials in the U.S. have said it will be 3 years before the West Coast will face a serious threat from North Korea. This means we will still have Barack Obama as president when the crunch time comes in. Do we let them become a threat? I say no but hey, three years is plenty of time to be proven wrong or right. We shall see.
However a ship, the Kang Nam, is suspected of carrying nuclear and missile weapons. It is a North Korean ship that left port Wednesday from North Korea. Here is where the question isn't being asked. In the reports we can't board it because the UN Resolution requires us to be granted access on board by North Korea. I don't see that happening. Yet, nobody is asking where the ship was going.
This is where it becomes crucial. It has left North Korean waters. The U.S. navy is tracking it of course and rightfully so. Will it go to the port as planned? If it has nuclear material and the ship was heading for Iran, we know something is going on with the alliance that I laid out on this blog way back when nobody cared. Well, seems like nobody cares now because nobody asked where it was going in the news reports.
Finally a new cog of the alliance. I listed Myanmar (Burma) in the list of nations against us. The affiliation wasn't clear. Now it is. Burma and North Korea have been connected by the trade-off by Burma of getting North Korean help in building underground structures in exchange for giving food aid and other materials to North Korea.
This connection began following the Rangoon bombing in which 18 South Korean officials visiting Burma were killed. North Korea held negotiations with Myanmar (Burma) in order to release the ones responsible for the bombing. While the prisoners were not extradited to North Korea, exchanges of military supplies from North Korea to keep the military juntas in power in exchange for food, rubber, and other items from the generals.
According to this article: http://www.rfa.org/english/news/burma/burmatunnels-06182009131301.html
Yes, according to the long linked article the generals traded raw materials because they didn't have money. Now the trade offs continue in which tunnels designed for the Burmese officials to hide and operate the government underground (in the event of air attack or even uprising) is exchanged for food.
Now there is an interesting part in which it mentions North Korea has been making numerous port calls with Burma. This means its ships have been going to port. They are officially called "friendship delegations" but the article explains the arrivals are for business. This is where it ties into the ship with the nuclear and missile materials the navy is tracking. We need to know where the ship was intended to go so we can form a clearer picture of the alliance. The ships location, if a nation not in the list of the current alliances, will be quite surprising to me and force me to research even deeper into the web of the alliances that we have.
There is a little extra note in this alliance that seems rather repetitive. Burma is accused of seeking a nuclear program. The list of nations in this alliance seeking, accused of, or having a nuclear program are as follows:
Iran
North Korea
Venezuela
Ecuador
Bolivia
Libya
Russia
Burma
Syria
Peru
Cuba
Pakistan (Who is, I believe, now a neutral power, although it will choose a side, I am not sure which anymore)
So with this information the alliances have a pattern of getting aid for nuclear technology from the Russians, who aid the triple alliance of Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea which are the champions of anti-Americanism in the world. Subsequently you have North Korea helping Syria and Burma with their programs. Iran and Venezuela working together to get Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru their own programs and Cuba is of course aided by Venezuela. The alliance is there. We need our leaders to realize this before it is too late.
This paragraph is my third post edit because today the info is coming out of the wood work. The U.N. Atomic Energy Chief, Mohamed Elbaradei, said Iran is seeking nuclear weapons technology. I really want to know where that ship was heading. I really do. I think you do to. Look in the news, see if you can see the alliances I see and let me know if you disagree.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
The Green Revolution Toll Rises
The death toll in Iran has risen to 12, perhaps 14. No accurate reporting on the raid at Tehran University has the same toll. However, the victims were stabbed and shot to death. I am calling it the Green Revolution as it seems to be the defining moment of today's protests. The Iranian football (soccer) match against South Korea witnessed several players wearing green wrist bands in the first half. The wrist bands were ordered removed for the second half.
Green is also the color of Mousavi's political party and is the color of the banners of those who support him not only in Iran, but worldwide and in our own United States as well. Whether or not this Green Revolution succeeds and goes down in history as the Green Revolution is still not known.
The reason I chose the Green Revolution is also in continuity with other nation's revolutions lately. The Rose Revolution in Georgia and the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine are prime examples. I urge the support for their freedom to continue and for the world to not lose interest at this crucial moment and to continue to support the freedom of Iranians until this regime is altered in a way that is beneficial to Iran's people and will thus help the world's efforts for peace.
Green is also the color of Mousavi's political party and is the color of the banners of those who support him not only in Iran, but worldwide and in our own United States as well. Whether or not this Green Revolution succeeds and goes down in history as the Green Revolution is still not known.
The reason I chose the Green Revolution is also in continuity with other nation's revolutions lately. The Rose Revolution in Georgia and the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine are prime examples. I urge the support for their freedom to continue and for the world to not lose interest at this crucial moment and to continue to support the freedom of Iranians until this regime is altered in a way that is beneficial to Iran's people and will thus help the world's efforts for peace.
Cyber Warfare Reality
I'm done making warnings about cyber warfare potentials. The underlying force in this Iranian situation is a battle with proxy servers and blockers set up by the Iranian government. The cycle goes on and on back and forth minute by minute.
As someone who researched the use of hacking by the Chinese government against our Pentagon, occuring to this day still, and seeing the Russian Syndicate shut down Georgia's website servers during the Russo-Georgian war I can tell you that cyber warfare is here. With iReports and similar approaches in news networks, to the use of cyber attacks to shut down and plagarize websites from Isreal to Kosovo, to the current reliance on twitter to gain information of an ongoing situation in Iran, we are now seeing the value of cyber warfare and the attempts to use it to expand freedom, as well as shut it down.
With China and North Korea restricting internet access to government run websites and having a wall for entire nations in Burma, China, and Iran we are seeing that the cyber warfare is not only one way. The proxy servers being provided to Iranians are not an act of war but of revolution. In the past few years we have seen Kosovo, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, and now Iran have revolutions against alleged fraud in the election process that makes a Republic an actual Republic.
This may be one of the first revolutions which seems reliant upon the internet and cyber warfare as the main means with which it communicates with its supporters and activists. To spread the message the next best method they have is shouting from their cars during gridlock hours in Tehran. Somehow that method may be better than the one used to end the War of 1812, which had a peace treaty signed more than a week before the final battle in New Orleans took place. Yet, nothing matches the ability to include as many voices as possible as the internet does.
The warnings are over because cyber warfare is here. China is ahead of us and we are the nation with the largest defense budget. I demand as a citizen that we put some of those funds towards creating an encryption-proof closed network for our military system. An internet 3.0 or 4.0 depending on where the university systems are at.
As someone who researched the use of hacking by the Chinese government against our Pentagon, occuring to this day still, and seeing the Russian Syndicate shut down Georgia's website servers during the Russo-Georgian war I can tell you that cyber warfare is here. With iReports and similar approaches in news networks, to the use of cyber attacks to shut down and plagarize websites from Isreal to Kosovo, to the current reliance on twitter to gain information of an ongoing situation in Iran, we are now seeing the value of cyber warfare and the attempts to use it to expand freedom, as well as shut it down.
With China and North Korea restricting internet access to government run websites and having a wall for entire nations in Burma, China, and Iran we are seeing that the cyber warfare is not only one way. The proxy servers being provided to Iranians are not an act of war but of revolution. In the past few years we have seen Kosovo, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, and now Iran have revolutions against alleged fraud in the election process that makes a Republic an actual Republic.
This may be one of the first revolutions which seems reliant upon the internet and cyber warfare as the main means with which it communicates with its supporters and activists. To spread the message the next best method they have is shouting from their cars during gridlock hours in Tehran. Somehow that method may be better than the one used to end the War of 1812, which had a peace treaty signed more than a week before the final battle in New Orleans took place. Yet, nothing matches the ability to include as many voices as possible as the internet does.
The warnings are over because cyber warfare is here. China is ahead of us and we are the nation with the largest defense budget. I demand as a citizen that we put some of those funds towards creating an encryption-proof closed network for our military system. An internet 3.0 or 4.0 depending on where the university systems are at.
My Financial Reform
President Obama announced that he is creating a new agency to prevent a financial collapse like the one that has created the current economic recession. I have a new solution, it is simple, and doesn't need a new agency or more money to any agency or program. It may require a person to do some number crunching by a man in an office for about an hour and then giving a green or red light to expansions by the largest companies in any industry. If the company is less than 20% of the industry, let the expansion go forward. If it does not, red light do not approve a merger or office or store. We prevent monopolies in the same way. This will help make sure a company, should it fail, does not have a catastrophic effect on the economy. It prevents the "too big to fail" theory which does not apply to the state of California. Somehow the nation's largest economy and one of the world's top 10 economies is not too big to fail, but a few banks and car makers are. Back to the point, prevent them from being this massive. It will ensure competition and prevent systemic failures. A little oversight to make sure, like the banking industry was, the companies are not reliant upon each other for more than 5% of their operating revenue. What this means is that along the line, the closer the industry gets to your home town the more diverse your choices will be.
Banking industry for example had AIG insuring all the mortgage backed securities. AIG was the mortgage backed security shop essentially. Sure it has insurance for many other things, but for the banks and mortgage backed securities it was AIG. If you limited the connections between the largest industries you would have 20 "AIG" shops for mortgage backed securities. This means that when AIG fails, the banking industry won't collapse.
It can be applied in other ways but here is a little disclaimer: it won't apply to all industries. Well, it will. The 20% rule should apply across the board. Yet the 5% would be difficult in some industries. Like the diamond industry. There are only so many diamond mines in the world, and none are in the United States. Yet diamond sellers are a different story.
Now lets take a different industry and place it at the local level. I understand small towns won't have the real availability for diversification in store-front options, but I feel enough effect will be felt in even large towns (10,000 +) that it will be recognizable. If you have five farms making the 20% of the industry for farming nationwide, they have to have buyers. McDonald's, Burger King, so on and so forth will buy. The farmers should not rely on more than 5% of sales to McDonalds that way when McDonalds fails (which it probably won't, not making a prediction folks) the farmer hasn't lost his way to survive. It also makes sure that McDonald's can't rely on one farmer for more than 5% of the meat production. It gets difficult here and may probably provide the exception needed because, with some food products, they are one of a kind and may have different tastes depending on where it is grown. This means 5% for McDonald's could lead to inconsistency in taste and be a bad policy for the company. Yet the farmer, by diversifying its purchasers, ensures long term stability of customers and will almost always have a market. This way if one fails, the other customers can fill in the gaps.
The long term effects of this:more businesses and gauranteed market stability. Recessions may occur, but entire industries will not fail catastrophically as they did this time and in 1939.
More businesses means more people being involved in the market. We will see smaller businesses providing a more diverse shopping experience for people in America. The mom-and-pop stores will have a comeback I believe.
Perhaps even having four companies not able to get more than 20% of market share, and then for the last 20% making it so no company can get above 5 or 1% market share would ensure the small business approach which inspires the most innovation and give the local feel of business back to towns in America. That said 1% is still a huge part of the economy. It could be refined for various industries based on the value of that industry in GDP standards. I'm not an expert but I think this is a good idea. If you think so too let me know, and let your representatives, senators, governors, and president know. Otherwise, a good idea may be lost. Final note on the idea, for what companies will be the 20% let the details be hammered out, maybe make it a bit fairer and limit all companies to 5% of market share or 1% even (especially in retail chains, restaurant chains, fast food, and banking industries.)
The best part is the American dream still exists, and you can become wealthy. You just won't be able to have your business become large enough that if you fail, you won't be hurting the nation. It will also allow the American dream to be more possible for everyone because the need for more businesses to make sure the market share is filled will make more Americans and even non-citizens a better chance at meeting the American Dream. It also will have no government run operations. We do not need Amtrak expanded to other industries. I think that much is obvious.
I feel regulation can be used as an alternative to taxes in order to make the country more financially equal. While everyone wishes the world was perfect and everyone was equal, I disagree with doing it by taking and giving. Taxes create resentment. Regulation is better because it also doesn't require the government to make the decisions for the businesses. It only makes sure the field of play is fair for everyone.
Analogy time!
The government regulations are like the referee in a soccer game. Before the game the referee can check to make sure the field is to standard, so that both teams have the same field to play on. This is the opportunity to succeed in this nation. The referee keeping score is just the government doing the census. When one of the players goes beyond regulation, the team faces a penalty kick. The regulations in the economy prevent these fouls. The giving of the penalty kick is like the government taxing and giving the taxes to those who are at disadvantage. By using government regulation to make sure no one is at a disadvantage, I believe the need to tax and give to the disadvantaged will be gone. Those who fail will have failed because they simply are not up to the job of doing what others do.
This has been another episode of the ravings of a madman. Due to the realization that I am rambling here, I have decided to stop myself and return to the topic at another time. Thank you for reading. And let me know what you think!
P.S. I mean what you think, not what you feel. If you hate me and think I hate poor people, or am betraying my Republican values, spare me. Lets discuss the issues on their merit and realistic possiblities.
Banking industry for example had AIG insuring all the mortgage backed securities. AIG was the mortgage backed security shop essentially. Sure it has insurance for many other things, but for the banks and mortgage backed securities it was AIG. If you limited the connections between the largest industries you would have 20 "AIG" shops for mortgage backed securities. This means that when AIG fails, the banking industry won't collapse.
It can be applied in other ways but here is a little disclaimer: it won't apply to all industries. Well, it will. The 20% rule should apply across the board. Yet the 5% would be difficult in some industries. Like the diamond industry. There are only so many diamond mines in the world, and none are in the United States. Yet diamond sellers are a different story.
Now lets take a different industry and place it at the local level. I understand small towns won't have the real availability for diversification in store-front options, but I feel enough effect will be felt in even large towns (10,000 +) that it will be recognizable. If you have five farms making the 20% of the industry for farming nationwide, they have to have buyers. McDonald's, Burger King, so on and so forth will buy. The farmers should not rely on more than 5% of sales to McDonalds that way when McDonalds fails (which it probably won't, not making a prediction folks) the farmer hasn't lost his way to survive. It also makes sure that McDonald's can't rely on one farmer for more than 5% of the meat production. It gets difficult here and may probably provide the exception needed because, with some food products, they are one of a kind and may have different tastes depending on where it is grown. This means 5% for McDonald's could lead to inconsistency in taste and be a bad policy for the company. Yet the farmer, by diversifying its purchasers, ensures long term stability of customers and will almost always have a market. This way if one fails, the other customers can fill in the gaps.
The long term effects of this:more businesses and gauranteed market stability. Recessions may occur, but entire industries will not fail catastrophically as they did this time and in 1939.
More businesses means more people being involved in the market. We will see smaller businesses providing a more diverse shopping experience for people in America. The mom-and-pop stores will have a comeback I believe.
Perhaps even having four companies not able to get more than 20% of market share, and then for the last 20% making it so no company can get above 5 or 1% market share would ensure the small business approach which inspires the most innovation and give the local feel of business back to towns in America. That said 1% is still a huge part of the economy. It could be refined for various industries based on the value of that industry in GDP standards. I'm not an expert but I think this is a good idea. If you think so too let me know, and let your representatives, senators, governors, and president know. Otherwise, a good idea may be lost. Final note on the idea, for what companies will be the 20% let the details be hammered out, maybe make it a bit fairer and limit all companies to 5% of market share or 1% even (especially in retail chains, restaurant chains, fast food, and banking industries.)
The best part is the American dream still exists, and you can become wealthy. You just won't be able to have your business become large enough that if you fail, you won't be hurting the nation. It will also allow the American dream to be more possible for everyone because the need for more businesses to make sure the market share is filled will make more Americans and even non-citizens a better chance at meeting the American Dream. It also will have no government run operations. We do not need Amtrak expanded to other industries. I think that much is obvious.
I feel regulation can be used as an alternative to taxes in order to make the country more financially equal. While everyone wishes the world was perfect and everyone was equal, I disagree with doing it by taking and giving. Taxes create resentment. Regulation is better because it also doesn't require the government to make the decisions for the businesses. It only makes sure the field of play is fair for everyone.
Analogy time!
The government regulations are like the referee in a soccer game. Before the game the referee can check to make sure the field is to standard, so that both teams have the same field to play on. This is the opportunity to succeed in this nation. The referee keeping score is just the government doing the census. When one of the players goes beyond regulation, the team faces a penalty kick. The regulations in the economy prevent these fouls. The giving of the penalty kick is like the government taxing and giving the taxes to those who are at disadvantage. By using government regulation to make sure no one is at a disadvantage, I believe the need to tax and give to the disadvantaged will be gone. Those who fail will have failed because they simply are not up to the job of doing what others do.
This has been another episode of the ravings of a madman. Due to the realization that I am rambling here, I have decided to stop myself and return to the topic at another time. Thank you for reading. And let me know what you think!
P.S. I mean what you think, not what you feel. If you hate me and think I hate poor people, or am betraying my Republican values, spare me. Lets discuss the issues on their merit and realistic possiblities.
The Promotion of Cowardice
Iran has made illegal the silent protest of over 100,000 people in Tehran. Their riot police have raided Tehran University and beaten students and shot at protestors. So far 7 Mousavi supporters have been killed. I personally have a gut feeling this is higher, but the reports are monitored coming out of Iran so there is just no way of knowing right now. By making peaceful protest illegal Iran is supporting open revolt against themselves. By making violence the only option for these people to express themselves they are furthering the cycle of cowardice they use to rule. I urge the supporters of Mousavi to conduct themselves in only a peaceful manner and to know that in time, in continued efforts over weeks and months, change will come. You will be heard the longer your stand up and make yourselves and your cause known. You have my support.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Iran's Cowardice
The people of Iran, and of the world, are entitled to freedom. Freedom is the engine of progress for mankind. In shutting down foreign news sources and placing their employees under, essentially, house arrest you are proving yourselves to be cowards. For all sides in Iran the act of silencing the opposition and using violence against those with whom you disagree with are what makes you coward. By not facing your opposition intellectually and resorting to barbaric brute force you are a coward. Speak to your opponents instead of shooting and stabbing them. Rally around your voices instead of your weapons.
To the world I urge you not to allow Mirhossein Mousavi become the next Benazir Bhutto. Stand in unity of democracy and freedom in Iran and against the censorship of its people. In a world where injustice is commonplace those who stand for justice should not stand by to prevent being looked at as 'meddling." If meddling in another nation's affairs brings freedom and restores justice then it is indeed a good thing.
To the world I urge you not to allow Mirhossein Mousavi become the next Benazir Bhutto. Stand in unity of democracy and freedom in Iran and against the censorship of its people. In a world where injustice is commonplace those who stand for justice should not stand by to prevent being looked at as 'meddling." If meddling in another nation's affairs brings freedom and restores justice then it is indeed a good thing.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Those Who Mean Well
Those who mean well may do more damage than those who do nothing.
That quote, from a source I can not remember, pertains to Obama. I believe he wants to do well, but the manner in which he wants to do it is going to cause more harm than good.
In the world of doing good, there are billions of people worldwide who want to see their world improved. There are millions who work on improving it either for themselves or others. They do so through business, charity, and volunteering. Of the business routes the rich, who are often demonized by those who are not rich, get little heroic responses from the masses as the interpretation of the service the rich do for the community is a necessary return to the society that made them wealthy. In charity, you have the heroic figures of Susan G. Komen and others who have their efforts continued in organizations that recognize their efforts as so monumental as to make the effort named after them. In the volunteering realm you have Mother Theresa and Ghandi along with numerous saints and others. We have political and national heroes: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt. In times of great need they founded our nation, united our nation, and defended our nation. They protected the freedoms of our people, and used their power to help as many Americans as possible.
I do not believe Barack Obama is a political hero for our nation. His efforts have restricted freedom, and altered the other routes of heroism to make them ineffective at saving our nation. His approach in the stimulus and bailout spending bills have not been effective at keeping us below 9% unemployment and keeping the promised police jobs, and the auto making jobs present and viable. The banks were given the choice to accept TARP funds, but only by choosing of the government were they allowed to give the money back.
Our nation is divided. The exclusion of voices, and the hatred against those who dissent against Obama's policies are making those on the fringe that are not in favor of Obama become more disenfranchised. While I do not sympathize with violence, and do not support it, I feel I can explain it. I live in Maine and I am a Republican. In the youth community words are often very hateful when the discussion of politics and race comes into being. Those who are recieving the treatment of hate for having an opinion often form their own hateful feelings from those. The feelings of isolation leads to a reclusive life that fosters feelings of hatred.
When these feelings grow stronger and stronger they lash out and you get the radical killings we have seen recently. There were always these events, but in this time of social upheaval, the Fourth Turning if you read a ridiculous amount of books on history, we need a political and national hero who will unite our nation in this crisis and not be a figure of division. Barack Obama continues to follow through with laying blame. I don't care who he blames, sometimes Bush, sometimes the military, sometimes the rich. I don't care. That he blames anyone, instead of saying what the problem is and how to fix it, he also adds in who created the problem.
I can't say I do not want to take math because the teacher creates bad problems. I may give the answers but if I continue to complain people get annoyed. Obama has the problem, gives the solution, but continues to complain. A national hero does not blame the people within who want to support that hero, he unites them and makes them a part of the solution. Barack Obama does not do this and so I do not believe he is going to lead us out of this crisis. A national crisis, involving everything from racism, the economy, healthcare, war, everything. I think we need a national hero, I do not think we have that hero in Barack Obama.
That quote, from a source I can not remember, pertains to Obama. I believe he wants to do well, but the manner in which he wants to do it is going to cause more harm than good.
In the world of doing good, there are billions of people worldwide who want to see their world improved. There are millions who work on improving it either for themselves or others. They do so through business, charity, and volunteering. Of the business routes the rich, who are often demonized by those who are not rich, get little heroic responses from the masses as the interpretation of the service the rich do for the community is a necessary return to the society that made them wealthy. In charity, you have the heroic figures of Susan G. Komen and others who have their efforts continued in organizations that recognize their efforts as so monumental as to make the effort named after them. In the volunteering realm you have Mother Theresa and Ghandi along with numerous saints and others. We have political and national heroes: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt. In times of great need they founded our nation, united our nation, and defended our nation. They protected the freedoms of our people, and used their power to help as many Americans as possible.
How does this analysis of how these people are heroes apply to Barack Obama? Barack Obama wants to do good and we are in a crisis in which we need one of our heroes. The business realm of heroes has been villified, the charity route has been made almost mandatory and diminished in value as such, and volunteerism is a requirement for many to get what they want and thus it is no longer volunteering but a job like any other except you are paid in benefits and not in money. A political hero is who we need right now.
I do not believe Barack Obama is a political hero for our nation. His efforts have restricted freedom, and altered the other routes of heroism to make them ineffective at saving our nation. His approach in the stimulus and bailout spending bills have not been effective at keeping us below 9% unemployment and keeping the promised police jobs, and the auto making jobs present and viable. The banks were given the choice to accept TARP funds, but only by choosing of the government were they allowed to give the money back.
Our nation is divided. The exclusion of voices, and the hatred against those who dissent against Obama's policies are making those on the fringe that are not in favor of Obama become more disenfranchised. While I do not sympathize with violence, and do not support it, I feel I can explain it. I live in Maine and I am a Republican. In the youth community words are often very hateful when the discussion of politics and race comes into being. Those who are recieving the treatment of hate for having an opinion often form their own hateful feelings from those. The feelings of isolation leads to a reclusive life that fosters feelings of hatred.
When these feelings grow stronger and stronger they lash out and you get the radical killings we have seen recently. There were always these events, but in this time of social upheaval, the Fourth Turning if you read a ridiculous amount of books on history, we need a political and national hero who will unite our nation in this crisis and not be a figure of division. Barack Obama continues to follow through with laying blame. I don't care who he blames, sometimes Bush, sometimes the military, sometimes the rich. I don't care. That he blames anyone, instead of saying what the problem is and how to fix it, he also adds in who created the problem.
I can't say I do not want to take math because the teacher creates bad problems. I may give the answers but if I continue to complain people get annoyed. Obama has the problem, gives the solution, but continues to complain. A national hero does not blame the people within who want to support that hero, he unites them and makes them a part of the solution. Barack Obama does not do this and so I do not believe he is going to lead us out of this crisis. A national crisis, involving everything from racism, the economy, healthcare, war, everything. I think we need a national hero, I do not think we have that hero in Barack Obama.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
My Healthcare Reform
The healthcare issue is visible in most news sources lately and is being pushed forward by Obama and many others. President Obama proposes a healthcare plan, and the Republicans have proposed a plan. I oppose the Obama plan and I have mixed feelings about the Republican plan. Both involve the creation of new programs, the difference is Obama wants the government to run the program, Republicans want a company to operate it. Obama's wants healthcare insurance to be mandatory. I oppose this because I can't afford health insurance, or more taxes, whatever they are using to pay for it, and I am relatively healthy and rarely go to the hospital so why should I be forced to get, or pay for something I do not need or want? So here is my plan: do what the government does best: REGULATE. Do not control day to day operations but place guidelines in which the companies can operate. Current plans stay the same with the following changes to basic company policy:
1. A company can not refuse to give an insurance plan to anyone who has never missed a premium.
2. A company can suspend insurance to people who do not pay a premium.
3. A company can not require any medical treatment to be more than 10% covered by the consumer.
4. An insurance plan should cover all medical treatments available with no exceptions. A visit to the doctor is a visit to the doctor. Circumstance should not matter of why they are at the hospital just pay for the treatment.
5. Premiums should never cost more than 3% of a person's annual income. Family plans should follow the same ratio per person.
6. People, not employers, should be the only ones capable of purchasing healthcare. Healthcare should not be a benefit of employment but a personal responsibility.
7. If a person does not have health insurance but needs treatment, send them the bill and let them face the possible debt load if they wish.
Healthcare is not a right. Choosing if you have health insurance or not is a right. Read your consitution. What powers are not granted to the federal government are granted to the states and the people. We have the right to live our lives. Let the government make these simple tweaks, I wrote them spontaneously like I write everything. It isn't rocket science. Wake up America and use some common sense approaches. Know the limits of government (there are limits, read the Constitution they never made required reading in our American school system) and stop the government from going beyond the limits.
1. A company can not refuse to give an insurance plan to anyone who has never missed a premium.
2. A company can suspend insurance to people who do not pay a premium.
3. A company can not require any medical treatment to be more than 10% covered by the consumer.
4. An insurance plan should cover all medical treatments available with no exceptions. A visit to the doctor is a visit to the doctor. Circumstance should not matter of why they are at the hospital just pay for the treatment.
5. Premiums should never cost more than 3% of a person's annual income. Family plans should follow the same ratio per person.
6. People, not employers, should be the only ones capable of purchasing healthcare. Healthcare should not be a benefit of employment but a personal responsibility.
7. If a person does not have health insurance but needs treatment, send them the bill and let them face the possible debt load if they wish.
Healthcare is not a right. Choosing if you have health insurance or not is a right. Read your consitution. What powers are not granted to the federal government are granted to the states and the people. We have the right to live our lives. Let the government make these simple tweaks, I wrote them spontaneously like I write everything. It isn't rocket science. Wake up America and use some common sense approaches. Know the limits of government (there are limits, read the Constitution they never made required reading in our American school system) and stop the government from going beyond the limits.
An Analogy Gone Wrong
CNN reporter, in the time span of 3:45-3:50 said that the Obama healthcare plan is similar to schools. Some go to public school, others go to private schools.
Sorry to be so quick to shoot holes in this but you do not pay to go to public school. You pay taxes but not a monthly fee of some kind that burdens you instantly in your budget. Secondly, education is a necessity. I don't need a doctor. Why should I be required to have one?
Critics say "Well say that when you get sick." If I get sick, I'm responsible enough to set aside my own finances to pay for the treatment. I also live my life well, so I doubt I'll be catching Swine Flu 2.0.
Also, ask yourself if we really want anything else in our lives imitating our education system?
Then ask yourself when we are done making our healthcare system like our education system, what other government run agency or department will our education system be compared to for the reforms for free college at the price of "volunteerism" that is going to be proposed next?
Sorry to be so quick to shoot holes in this but you do not pay to go to public school. You pay taxes but not a monthly fee of some kind that burdens you instantly in your budget. Secondly, education is a necessity. I don't need a doctor. Why should I be required to have one?
Critics say "Well say that when you get sick." If I get sick, I'm responsible enough to set aside my own finances to pay for the treatment. I also live my life well, so I doubt I'll be catching Swine Flu 2.0.
Also, ask yourself if we really want anything else in our lives imitating our education system?
Then ask yourself when we are done making our healthcare system like our education system, what other government run agency or department will our education system be compared to for the reforms for free college at the price of "volunteerism" that is going to be proposed next?
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Legal Action For Death Threats
In America we do not allow a person to specifically threaten another person. For some reason we do allow, under 'freedom of speech', allow people to threaten ambiguously large numbers of people. These threats range from political (Republicans, Democrats, Socialists, Anarchists), to racist (Muslims, Jews) and I believe those threats should be treated as a worse crime.
A threat against one person should not be considered more serious than a threat against many. This shooter in Washington D.C., the name of whom I will not glorify on my blog, had a forum through which he threatened to kill gentiles. This could have been prevented. It should have been prevented. Our legal system needs to stop protecting the threatening of life in any form. It is not free speech, it is a threat to our security. Our nation's security is our citizen's security because our people are the nation.
I call for action and I urge you to do so as well. As I said yesterday I am running for city council in my town, I urge you to run for office in your areas as well. We need American's in office who know what needs to change and how we can fix it. My stand on this is to urge the Bangor code to pass a law making death threats against not only a person but groups of people as well to be illegal and punishable.
Thank you for reading and I hope you will stand up and be heard as well.
A threat against one person should not be considered more serious than a threat against many. This shooter in Washington D.C., the name of whom I will not glorify on my blog, had a forum through which he threatened to kill gentiles. This could have been prevented. It should have been prevented. Our legal system needs to stop protecting the threatening of life in any form. It is not free speech, it is a threat to our security. Our nation's security is our citizen's security because our people are the nation.
I call for action and I urge you to do so as well. As I said yesterday I am running for city council in my town, I urge you to run for office in your areas as well. We need American's in office who know what needs to change and how we can fix it. My stand on this is to urge the Bangor code to pass a law making death threats against not only a person but groups of people as well to be illegal and punishable.
Thank you for reading and I hope you will stand up and be heard as well.
A Final Note On Torture
Waterboarding is torture. The other techniques require the use of occassional chains, slapping, and blindfolding. If it is not torture, which those may not necessarily be, they are in the least unusual if not cruel. I do not oppose them because they violate the Geneva conventions. If they do, fine, if they don't, so what. We have a Constitution in this country that says no cruel and unusual punishment. While that is often interpreted as a right given to our citizens, I believe it is also a command. We can not experience those punishments based on our 6th Amendment. What do we think gives us the right to conduct those practices on someone else? I think the Constitution tells us not to use those techniques and so I agree with them being banned as they already are based on the Constitution.
As for the photos, what idiot decided to take not just a few pictures, but thousands. The torture was wrong, but taking photos was perhaps the dumbest option for someone who was there to take. I will give the person closest to the photos right now a little hint: burn them. End the arguement, risk your job over it, but we can not allow Nancy Pelosi and others to get their way and give our enemies ammunition for recruitment. It is as simple as that. You may lose your job I understand, but it will be a brave sacrafice for our nation's security.
As for the photos, what idiot decided to take not just a few pictures, but thousands. The torture was wrong, but taking photos was perhaps the dumbest option for someone who was there to take. I will give the person closest to the photos right now a little hint: burn them. End the arguement, risk your job over it, but we can not allow Nancy Pelosi and others to get their way and give our enemies ammunition for recruitment. It is as simple as that. You may lose your job I understand, but it will be a brave sacrafice for our nation's security.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
A Reality Check
"Spread the wealth." A term found often in the doctrine of those who support Communism and Socialism. Anyone who denies it is either ignorant to reality or are lying.
"Pay your fair share." An implied phrase to those who earn more money than others. It is a command for them to support more people by giving their money to others (spread the wealth). In this it is expected that the fair share is helping as many people as possible be equalized until you are equal in wealth to them.
Those who support these two statements are commonly members of the Democratic Party. Barack Hussein Obama (HEY, he said it in Cairo, paws off the name, it is his name so back off, I'm not a racist, see earlier post on race to see evidence I am not a racist), anyhow, Barack has used these phrases. Our leader. The Soviet Union may be gone from its power, but Amerika is coming regardless. The wheels are still in motion and it is coming.
Now, my interpretation of "fair share". A persons fair share in America should be supporting one person (and bloodline children.) A person's fair share is supporting themself. End of story. It isn't a lot. It is just the American dream. It is what makes America unique to the world. The American Dream means the government doesn't take away from you what you want, earn, and you do not get punished for having something. What we have seen from Obama is punish the rich. PUNISH them for earning more than me and you.
You work your entire life. You pay taxes, and you give to charities at your local mall or you do something to help charities like everyone else. You make roughly 24-40 thousand a year. If you earn 40 thousand a year, how would you feel if the government took 28 thousand from you? The government took 70% of what you have worked so hard to earn. Now you know how a millionaire feels. They get an immense 70% INCOME TAX. They pay that much because it is considered their fair share. The only reason a tax cut seems to help the rich is because the rich pay WAY more than the 5 percent or 8 percent income tax you pay. If you are lucky enough not to live in Maine and perhaps Florida, you pay no income tax no matter what. Other states that have it (everyone pays federal, but states have it too) do it similar to the federal tax and combined it equals 70% in several cases of higher wealth brackets. Now, here is the kicker. The lowest earning 40% of American's pay no income tax. WHERE IS THEIR FAIR SHARE? First of all, how is paying for someone elses homeless shelter paying your fair share? Secondly, how is going to a homeless shelter you didn't pay for doing your fair share?
I am doing this blog today to denounce the users of the terms above. They are anti-American. They want to remove our way of life and with our nation being free, and powerful they want to remove our freedom which is what makes us powerful. Democratic "ideals" will ruin our nation. Our Constitution is being ignored and yes, this is my official announcement (not for office, even though I am running for Bangor city council) of my anger. I announce I am angry. The government better listen close because I'm coming. You got inside it, and so will I. However, instead of going in to bring in your buddies, I'm going in to get you out. You have been warned.
"Pay your fair share." An implied phrase to those who earn more money than others. It is a command for them to support more people by giving their money to others (spread the wealth). In this it is expected that the fair share is helping as many people as possible be equalized until you are equal in wealth to them.
Those who support these two statements are commonly members of the Democratic Party. Barack Hussein Obama (HEY, he said it in Cairo, paws off the name, it is his name so back off, I'm not a racist, see earlier post on race to see evidence I am not a racist), anyhow, Barack has used these phrases. Our leader. The Soviet Union may be gone from its power, but Amerika is coming regardless. The wheels are still in motion and it is coming.
Now, my interpretation of "fair share". A persons fair share in America should be supporting one person (and bloodline children.) A person's fair share is supporting themself. End of story. It isn't a lot. It is just the American dream. It is what makes America unique to the world. The American Dream means the government doesn't take away from you what you want, earn, and you do not get punished for having something. What we have seen from Obama is punish the rich. PUNISH them for earning more than me and you.
You work your entire life. You pay taxes, and you give to charities at your local mall or you do something to help charities like everyone else. You make roughly 24-40 thousand a year. If you earn 40 thousand a year, how would you feel if the government took 28 thousand from you? The government took 70% of what you have worked so hard to earn. Now you know how a millionaire feels. They get an immense 70% INCOME TAX. They pay that much because it is considered their fair share. The only reason a tax cut seems to help the rich is because the rich pay WAY more than the 5 percent or 8 percent income tax you pay. If you are lucky enough not to live in Maine and perhaps Florida, you pay no income tax no matter what. Other states that have it (everyone pays federal, but states have it too) do it similar to the federal tax and combined it equals 70% in several cases of higher wealth brackets. Now, here is the kicker. The lowest earning 40% of American's pay no income tax. WHERE IS THEIR FAIR SHARE? First of all, how is paying for someone elses homeless shelter paying your fair share? Secondly, how is going to a homeless shelter you didn't pay for doing your fair share?
I am doing this blog today to denounce the users of the terms above. They are anti-American. They want to remove our way of life and with our nation being free, and powerful they want to remove our freedom which is what makes us powerful. Democratic "ideals" will ruin our nation. Our Constitution is being ignored and yes, this is my official announcement (not for office, even though I am running for Bangor city council) of my anger. I announce I am angry. The government better listen close because I'm coming. You got inside it, and so will I. However, instead of going in to bring in your buddies, I'm going in to get you out. You have been warned.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Healthcare From Maine
Let me explain a few things to you about Democrats. In Maine we all agree a safety net is necessary. No Republican honestly opposes helping those in dire need. We oppose expanding for things which makes government the only way to survive.
Today President Obama announced the government health care plan. A so called 'pay as you go' plan that I've heard it called. They say it will not remove choice. They say you can choose any doctor you want. They say it will lower costs. Lowering cost is good for the consumer, but not for the one who has very expensive equipment to pay for.
In Maine, we have Mainecare. It has not paid for 2004-2009. The state of Maine had a good "cover some, not all" idea at the start. It has since expanded from those who need it to almost anyone who applies. Then in the past few years Dirigo healthcare went into place. It was a complete mistake. The program they used expensively failed, crashed, lost files, and was just a waste of money. This waste continues.
Today doctors can decide not to accept Mainecare. This is because if they did, the independantly working ones (dentists, therapists, ect...) would not get paid like the hospitals are not getting paid. Blue Hill hospital went bankrupt due to the state not making payments on Mainecare. For Maine, this was difficult because it moved the people in the north even further south to get care in Maine. For Canadians, the travel was made even further (for those needing treatments NOT available in "nationally insured" healthcare Canada.)
Now, Obama's plan supporters say it will not remove choice. Today you can choose not to have insurance. One of the first things they said was that there should be a requirement for people to have insurance of some kind. They outright lied about choice. Even if you can choose your provider (government or insurance companies owned by the government, and insurance companies - Note: AIG as an example) the providers may be limited as they are in Maine. In order to supposedly protect Maine jobs, only Maine insurance companies are allowed. There are only three. Now, for our unionized mills (which happen to be all of them) the lack of competing insurance companies made the companies buy insurance (because of the unions) for all of their workers that is much higher than in other states. This is partly why most mills in Maine have shut down. How long until the plan becomes so massive that nobody can choose anything other than the government plan which they intend, and I quote, "to make competitive with other companies to force lower premiums."
One thing, our nation has the most advanced healthcare technology in the world. This is why Fidel, in what Micheal Moore called the utopian system, had to go to four different countries to be able to get the medical treatment he needed. Since he was dictator of Cuba, we didn't let him come here and so his choices were very limited. However people all over the world are coming to the United States for medical treatment. This treatment, this technology, is not cheap. Just like the latest I-phone won't be cheap, neither will be the medical technology which has to be absolutely perfect to avoid lawsuits and gain approval by the CDC or FDA I am not sure which does medical treatments, probably a mix of both.
If you make premiums cheap to compete with insurance companies, they lower their premiums but the cost of treatment doesn't go down. However, the government has a little bit of help because with Obama's plan the government tells the doctor how much the treatment costs regardless of the staff, equipment, and hours of labor the doctor will use to treat the patient. The insurance companies get a bill from the doctor, not the other way around. So when the insurance companies go under - Maine has three companies. New Hampshire has 21 - the government will become the only choice. Choice will be limited.
They say you can choose your doctor. Today a doctor can refuse Mainecare. Mainecare doesn't pay up. The doctors go bankrupt and go out of business and don't treat people if they can't afford to operate. Obama's plan makes it so doctors can not refuse a patient with Obamacare. This means even if the government doesn't pay because it doesn't have the money that the doctor must treat the person at their own cost getting an IOU as Maine hospitals have been getting for many years now. The doctors go out of business, so the choice of doctors is limited. It becomes limited to those using cheaper equipment that may not be top quality and as advanced as other technologies, and may have fewer support staff who may double check and make sure operations go as necessary. Just think if you want a double-bypass surgery with only the doctor in the room. For those with staff and able to perform, the wait times will increase because there will be fewer doctors available because they go bankrupt. Choose your doctor and government insurance today so you can't get treatment later.
They say it will lower costs. Only because they choose what the operations will cost. The doctors and hospitals won't be able to charge the government, the government will give what it thinks is "fair". I have heard supporters, a few months back a debate topic was whether or not we should apply the French system here, and in France doctors earn a third less than they do here. My opponents would say that it was because doctors in France were glad to do more for less, the doctors were willing to charge France less as an act of patriotism. Looking into it, NO. France gives the doctors what they think is fair. It is easy to make your healthcare cost the cheapest per capita in the world when you choose what you pay your doctor. What they don't tell you is the government in France has to pay for doctor's college in order to help make sure they do not have massive debt to be a doctor. The result is a mediocre trained medical force with only the education the government could afford.
So when the government has the healthcare under its full control, enjoy getting your simple cough looked at today in order to not have the emergency room tomorrow.
Thank you for reading and if you disagree, PLEASE, I beg of you, reply and lets make this a discussion. This has been another production of the ravings of a madman, chirp chirp.
Today President Obama announced the government health care plan. A so called 'pay as you go' plan that I've heard it called. They say it will not remove choice. They say you can choose any doctor you want. They say it will lower costs. Lowering cost is good for the consumer, but not for the one who has very expensive equipment to pay for.
In Maine, we have Mainecare. It has not paid for 2004-2009. The state of Maine had a good "cover some, not all" idea at the start. It has since expanded from those who need it to almost anyone who applies. Then in the past few years Dirigo healthcare went into place. It was a complete mistake. The program they used expensively failed, crashed, lost files, and was just a waste of money. This waste continues.
Today doctors can decide not to accept Mainecare. This is because if they did, the independantly working ones (dentists, therapists, ect...) would not get paid like the hospitals are not getting paid. Blue Hill hospital went bankrupt due to the state not making payments on Mainecare. For Maine, this was difficult because it moved the people in the north even further south to get care in Maine. For Canadians, the travel was made even further (for those needing treatments NOT available in "nationally insured" healthcare Canada.)
Now, Obama's plan supporters say it will not remove choice. Today you can choose not to have insurance. One of the first things they said was that there should be a requirement for people to have insurance of some kind. They outright lied about choice. Even if you can choose your provider (government or insurance companies owned by the government, and insurance companies - Note: AIG as an example) the providers may be limited as they are in Maine. In order to supposedly protect Maine jobs, only Maine insurance companies are allowed. There are only three. Now, for our unionized mills (which happen to be all of them) the lack of competing insurance companies made the companies buy insurance (because of the unions) for all of their workers that is much higher than in other states. This is partly why most mills in Maine have shut down. How long until the plan becomes so massive that nobody can choose anything other than the government plan which they intend, and I quote, "to make competitive with other companies to force lower premiums."
One thing, our nation has the most advanced healthcare technology in the world. This is why Fidel, in what Micheal Moore called the utopian system, had to go to four different countries to be able to get the medical treatment he needed. Since he was dictator of Cuba, we didn't let him come here and so his choices were very limited. However people all over the world are coming to the United States for medical treatment. This treatment, this technology, is not cheap. Just like the latest I-phone won't be cheap, neither will be the medical technology which has to be absolutely perfect to avoid lawsuits and gain approval by the CDC or FDA I am not sure which does medical treatments, probably a mix of both.
If you make premiums cheap to compete with insurance companies, they lower their premiums but the cost of treatment doesn't go down. However, the government has a little bit of help because with Obama's plan the government tells the doctor how much the treatment costs regardless of the staff, equipment, and hours of labor the doctor will use to treat the patient. The insurance companies get a bill from the doctor, not the other way around. So when the insurance companies go under - Maine has three companies. New Hampshire has 21 - the government will become the only choice. Choice will be limited.
They say you can choose your doctor. Today a doctor can refuse Mainecare. Mainecare doesn't pay up. The doctors go bankrupt and go out of business and don't treat people if they can't afford to operate. Obama's plan makes it so doctors can not refuse a patient with Obamacare. This means even if the government doesn't pay because it doesn't have the money that the doctor must treat the person at their own cost getting an IOU as Maine hospitals have been getting for many years now. The doctors go out of business, so the choice of doctors is limited. It becomes limited to those using cheaper equipment that may not be top quality and as advanced as other technologies, and may have fewer support staff who may double check and make sure operations go as necessary. Just think if you want a double-bypass surgery with only the doctor in the room. For those with staff and able to perform, the wait times will increase because there will be fewer doctors available because they go bankrupt. Choose your doctor and government insurance today so you can't get treatment later.
They say it will lower costs. Only because they choose what the operations will cost. The doctors and hospitals won't be able to charge the government, the government will give what it thinks is "fair". I have heard supporters, a few months back a debate topic was whether or not we should apply the French system here, and in France doctors earn a third less than they do here. My opponents would say that it was because doctors in France were glad to do more for less, the doctors were willing to charge France less as an act of patriotism. Looking into it, NO. France gives the doctors what they think is fair. It is easy to make your healthcare cost the cheapest per capita in the world when you choose what you pay your doctor. What they don't tell you is the government in France has to pay for doctor's college in order to help make sure they do not have massive debt to be a doctor. The result is a mediocre trained medical force with only the education the government could afford.
So when the government has the healthcare under its full control, enjoy getting your simple cough looked at today in order to not have the emergency room tomorrow.
Thank you for reading and if you disagree, PLEASE, I beg of you, reply and lets make this a discussion. This has been another production of the ravings of a madman, chirp chirp.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
My New Bailout (Post-Bailout) Proposal
I have had a spark of genius here at 12:53 at night. The approach to this financial crisis has been adequate in intention. Although it may have failed (or gone too far which I believe it has) the reason to have the government intervene in the companies was necessary. It hit me as I was thinking of how something can be too big to fail.
It is too big to fail when it becomes such a large portion of the economic pie that if it failed, or went bankrupt, the system would shut down with it. Now how can something be allowed to get that big? I don't have a clue. I'm not an expert. However history has taught me that the regulations against monopolies could be applied here.
A company in a monopoly can't be allowed to be a monopoly to protect the free market part of free market. If there is no competition, the prices go up to unreasonable prices and rely on the benevolent dictatorship of the company owners. In America that can not happen anymore. We determined it hindered freedom, and bye bye monopolies. However, just by being a large company and not being a monopoly has proven to be a hazard to our freedom.
Simply because when the companies need to be bailed out by the government we lose freedom because it is then supplied to us by the monopoly of government. The only monopoly (besides basic utilities) that is legal in this country by the Constitution. However, the monopoly of government isn't supposed to be a monopoly of the economy. The government involvement should save the companies with whatever money is necessary. Rationalize this by cutting the FEDERAL funding for schools. Get the government out of schools like it is supposed to be and fund a saving of the economy. Lovely how it is a win win.
Then, once the companies are saved with bankruptcy managed by the government (with money put in to make sure the system is preserved as long as possible to make necessary changed) then split the companies into pieces. So they operate as different companies. This way if one fails the system doesn't collapse. The monopoly isn't the only large thing that can hurt us now. We have become such a large economy that even the largest companies, if they fail, cause catastrophic damage. The process the government is going through can alter their current pattern of just nationalization to true, good intended reform of the system.
It is too big to fail when it becomes such a large portion of the economic pie that if it failed, or went bankrupt, the system would shut down with it. Now how can something be allowed to get that big? I don't have a clue. I'm not an expert. However history has taught me that the regulations against monopolies could be applied here.
A company in a monopoly can't be allowed to be a monopoly to protect the free market part of free market. If there is no competition, the prices go up to unreasonable prices and rely on the benevolent dictatorship of the company owners. In America that can not happen anymore. We determined it hindered freedom, and bye bye monopolies. However, just by being a large company and not being a monopoly has proven to be a hazard to our freedom.
Simply because when the companies need to be bailed out by the government we lose freedom because it is then supplied to us by the monopoly of government. The only monopoly (besides basic utilities) that is legal in this country by the Constitution. However, the monopoly of government isn't supposed to be a monopoly of the economy. The government involvement should save the companies with whatever money is necessary. Rationalize this by cutting the FEDERAL funding for schools. Get the government out of schools like it is supposed to be and fund a saving of the economy. Lovely how it is a win win.
Then, once the companies are saved with bankruptcy managed by the government (with money put in to make sure the system is preserved as long as possible to make necessary changed) then split the companies into pieces. So they operate as different companies. This way if one fails the system doesn't collapse. The monopoly isn't the only large thing that can hurt us now. We have become such a large economy that even the largest companies, if they fail, cause catastrophic damage. The process the government is going through can alter their current pattern of just nationalization to true, good intended reform of the system.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Thats right. I'm angry.
If you are mistreated in the workplace complain to the supervisor. If you disagree with a policy go above whoever gave the order. You do not have to quit your job because they harass you further for speaking out. Stand up for yourself. If you are in the right you will not lose your job. If they fire you go to the papers, go to the lawyers, never stop pushing for what is right. If you see someone else being pressured to leave instead of being fired stand up. They may not be the best of workers, but they still deserve the proper treatment like everyone else. A workplace should never be "survival of the fittest." A policy of two people can be out on vacation on any given day is reasonable. When three people request the same week off, and their vacation is chopped up so they get different days is not reasonable or following common sense. When a 'first come, first serve' policy for vacations is removed for a specific request day in which neither arrival, or seniority is a factor for alloting vacations the policy is flawed, contrary to common sense, and unfair. When 97% performance of a worker drops to a 70% rating when forced to work in groups with other members who do not have the same higher standards and slack off it is not right to determine their worth on a group rating over the individual rating. When the standards are lowered after complaints to make the rating back to over 90% without a change in quality the policy is wrong, unproductive, and detrimental to quality. When someone who works for thirty years stands up on one occassion against a new policy and instead of being fired is inspected, intimidated, and harassed to the point of having a heart attack the company is wrong. The list of examples of mistreatment go on, and on, and on. They all come from the (place that if you want to know the name of, just send me an e-mail). I only see the results of what working there does to people. I only hear their complaints. I know they do not make their condition, or their complaints known to the superiors of superiors or the public. I know that I will not sit by any longer watching that place mistreat its workers, lower its quality standards, and insult the public's intelligence. I am taking a stand. I can only stand asking for its workers to speak out. I can only ask the management to change its policies to previous ways when worker morale was much higher.
The reasoning for standing up: common sense. Lower morale, lower quality, lay offs with no replacements are all caused in this case by changing common sense policies that made a relatively good working environment that provided a much better service for customers. Those changes are all bad for a business. Happy employees are more productive. It is proven. Lower quality always means less service or safety to make a few more pennies lost by other connecting factors. Not replacing workers layed off leads to fewer workers, more work, and less happiness and quality. A business with high quality and happy workers will always have happier, and thus more, customers.
The reasoning for standing up: common sense. Lower morale, lower quality, lay offs with no replacements are all caused in this case by changing common sense policies that made a relatively good working environment that provided a much better service for customers. Those changes are all bad for a business. Happy employees are more productive. It is proven. Lower quality always means less service or safety to make a few more pennies lost by other connecting factors. Not replacing workers layed off leads to fewer workers, more work, and less happiness and quality. A business with high quality and happy workers will always have happier, and thus more, customers.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
