With all the negative news going on out there right now, I thought I would take the lighter route today and share a video I found on YouTube of a 2004 fundraiser for the Republican Governor's Association. Check it out:
This is why I love this guy. His humor, values, and straightforwardness are exactly what this country needs. Some people are afraid that his religious beliefs are going to take over the country, but that hasn't happened before with any other Christian president, and it won't happen with this one either. Mike has the experience necessary to take our country in the direction it needs to go, the most executive experience of any candidate, Democrat or Republican.
Today marks a big day in the Huckabee campaign. They have set a goal to raise more money online in the month of November than they have in the entire year. This morning we were over $350,000 short, and the most ever raised in one day just over $220,000. Donations tend to surge as it gets later in the day, but so far we are only $150,000 from our goal.
Mike has the experience necessary to take our country in the direction it needs to go, the most executive experience of any candidate, Democrat or Republican. If you are interested in donating, or just interested in more information on Mike and what he stands for, visit www.mikehuckabee.com. Trust me, you won't be disappointed.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Belgium Update
I'm sure everyone has been on the edge of their seats waiting to hear the news on Belgium. In an earlier post I discussed how Belgium has been without a government for months and how over 60% of the country would not be surprised if Belgium ceased to exist all-together. It has been well over 5 months (170+ days) since the elections and the government has still failed to exist. There have been multiple negotiation rounds, even consultations with the King. Now, all hopes are pinned on the prime minister-designate Yves Leterme of the Flemish Christian-Democrats to create a well-working government; although at this point most would probably settle for any government at all.
Under his direction parties on both sides of the language border have succeeded in concluding several partial agreements on justice and immigration. However according to the European Observer, much of the southern region of Belgium does not think Leterme is up to the task at hand. This is due to the fact that three vital issues still need to be resolved. The first is the issue of the electoral district of Brussels and its surrounding Flemish municipalities. Flemish parties are pushing for a split of the district without compensation to the French-speaking minority living in the surrounding area. This would result in the inability of the minority to vote for politicians from the largely francophone Brussels (aka the move is strongly opposed by French speakers). The second issue is the devolution of powers. While the Flemish are pushing for more power for the regions, the francophone speaking parties fear that this is a move to gradually break up the country. The third a final major issue is that it is unlikely that there is enough money to implement the political party agreements, which would make the renegotiation of these deals necessary.
The issue of the government desperately needs to be resolved in order to save this small country. Currently the outgoing government is prohibited from making important decisions and may only address current affairs. Also, Belgium may not be able to sign the latest EU treaty in December if no government has been set up by then. For more clarification on the political parties, see my earlier post.
Under his direction parties on both sides of the language border have succeeded in concluding several partial agreements on justice and immigration. However according to the European Observer, much of the southern region of Belgium does not think Leterme is up to the task at hand. This is due to the fact that three vital issues still need to be resolved. The first is the issue of the electoral district of Brussels and its surrounding Flemish municipalities. Flemish parties are pushing for a split of the district without compensation to the French-speaking minority living in the surrounding area. This would result in the inability of the minority to vote for politicians from the largely francophone Brussels (aka the move is strongly opposed by French speakers). The second issue is the devolution of powers. While the Flemish are pushing for more power for the regions, the francophone speaking parties fear that this is a move to gradually break up the country. The third a final major issue is that it is unlikely that there is enough money to implement the political party agreements, which would make the renegotiation of these deals necessary.
The issue of the government desperately needs to be resolved in order to save this small country. Currently the outgoing government is prohibited from making important decisions and may only address current affairs. Also, Belgium may not be able to sign the latest EU treaty in December if no government has been set up by then. For more clarification on the political parties, see my earlier post.
Bill Clinton 'Opposed Iraq' From the Start, Or Did He?
Bill Clinton, on the campaign trail in Iowa for his wife Hillary, told a crowd that he opposed the Iraq war from the start. "Even though I approved of Afghanistan and opposed Iraq from the beginning," he said, "I still resent that I was not asked or given the opportunity to support those soldiers."
The issue? Well, he kind of said the opposite at the beginning of the war. In May of 2003, Clinton was quoted as saying, "I supported the president when he asked for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq," and later that year he told reporters that he supported President Bush's handling of the war.
Again in June of 2004 in an interview with Time Magazine, he said, "So, you're sitting there as president, you're reeling in the aftermath of (Sept. 11), so, yeah, you want to go get (Usama) bin Laden and do Afghanistan and all that. But you also have to say, 'Well, my first responsibility now is to try everything possible to make sure that this terrorist network and other terrorist networks cannot reach chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material. I've got to do that.' That's why I supported the Iraq thing."
Sounds to me like he supported it from the start, and now that it is unpopular, he has flip-flopped. But the bigger question is why he would take a position opposite of his wife, the one who he is campaigning for. Hillary was and still is proud of her support of the Iraq war in the beginning stages. She has since changed her opinion, but she is proud of the fact that she supported it when the best intelligence we had told us that Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction.
Here is a piece of advice to all presidential candidates: Figure out what you stand for, stand for it from the start, and let your supporters know it from the beginning. We all know what flip-flopping can get you (John Kerry), so it really isn't that good of a strategy. Be firm in your beliefs, and be proud of them. A true candidate would rather not be elected because they held strong to their values, rather than be elected on someone else's platform. The American people are searching for a candidate who will be honest with them, and that is the only way anyone is going to have a successful term in the White House beginning in 2008.
The issue? Well, he kind of said the opposite at the beginning of the war. In May of 2003, Clinton was quoted as saying, "I supported the president when he asked for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq," and later that year he told reporters that he supported President Bush's handling of the war.
Again in June of 2004 in an interview with Time Magazine, he said, "So, you're sitting there as president, you're reeling in the aftermath of (Sept. 11), so, yeah, you want to go get (Usama) bin Laden and do Afghanistan and all that. But you also have to say, 'Well, my first responsibility now is to try everything possible to make sure that this terrorist network and other terrorist networks cannot reach chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material. I've got to do that.' That's why I supported the Iraq thing."
Sounds to me like he supported it from the start, and now that it is unpopular, he has flip-flopped. But the bigger question is why he would take a position opposite of his wife, the one who he is campaigning for. Hillary was and still is proud of her support of the Iraq war in the beginning stages. She has since changed her opinion, but she is proud of the fact that she supported it when the best intelligence we had told us that Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction.
Here is a piece of advice to all presidential candidates: Figure out what you stand for, stand for it from the start, and let your supporters know it from the beginning. We all know what flip-flopping can get you (John Kerry), so it really isn't that good of a strategy. Be firm in your beliefs, and be proud of them. A true candidate would rather not be elected because they held strong to their values, rather than be elected on someone else's platform. The American people are searching for a candidate who will be honest with them, and that is the only way anyone is going to have a successful term in the White House beginning in 2008.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Fred Thompson Lashes Out At Fox News
In a recent interview on Fox News, Fred Thompson got a little defensive with Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace. Some people are comparing this to Bill Clinton's temper tantrum on Fox News last year. Take a look:
I really don't see anything wrong with what Thompson did here. I do somewhat agree with what the analysts said about him, but I think that he did a good job in defending himself against them. I mean, what was he supposed to do, just sit back and say, 'Well, if that's what you think then so be it.'? No. He offered clear facts without raising his voice, and reminded Wallace that he still is running second in most national polls, so not everyone agrees with what those analysts are saying.
However, if Thompson thinks Fox News is biased against him, he is going to have a real problem reaching the White House in 2008, because Fox is by far the most conservative mainstream news network in the country. People across the nation, especially Republicans, listen to Fox News and value the opinions of most of its commentators, and any remarks made could greatly influence the election.
I am by no means a Fred Thompson fan (I do like him more than most other candidates in the race), but I think that he needs to have MORE moments like this to show the American people 1) that he isn't going to fall asleep midsentence as he seems to be during the debates, and 2) that he truly is passionate about becoming the next President of the United States. Since he did get into the race so late, he needs to let the American people get to know who he is and what he is about. It seems to me like he has virtually disappeared from the news since his announcement in September that he was going to run, and that is showing in his slow decline in national poll numbers. If he wants to be considered a serious candidate, he should start being a little more controversial and getting himself back in the national spotlight.
I really don't see anything wrong with what Thompson did here. I do somewhat agree with what the analysts said about him, but I think that he did a good job in defending himself against them. I mean, what was he supposed to do, just sit back and say, 'Well, if that's what you think then so be it.'? No. He offered clear facts without raising his voice, and reminded Wallace that he still is running second in most national polls, so not everyone agrees with what those analysts are saying.
However, if Thompson thinks Fox News is biased against him, he is going to have a real problem reaching the White House in 2008, because Fox is by far the most conservative mainstream news network in the country. People across the nation, especially Republicans, listen to Fox News and value the opinions of most of its commentators, and any remarks made could greatly influence the election.
I am by no means a Fred Thompson fan (I do like him more than most other candidates in the race), but I think that he needs to have MORE moments like this to show the American people 1) that he isn't going to fall asleep midsentence as he seems to be during the debates, and 2) that he truly is passionate about becoming the next President of the United States. Since he did get into the race so late, he needs to let the American people get to know who he is and what he is about. It seems to me like he has virtually disappeared from the news since his announcement in September that he was going to run, and that is showing in his slow decline in national poll numbers. If he wants to be considered a serious candidate, he should start being a little more controversial and getting himself back in the national spotlight.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Fixing Social Security
The basic principle behind social security: The average person is incapable of saving money for hard times and retirement and thus becomes a burden on society if/when such times arise, in order to eliminate such burden the money is mandatorily taken from the people through taxes and the government then saves it for them until they retire or fall on hard times. Seems like a good plan, but there are problems. The way it works now is that the people who are working pay the expenses of the people who are retiring. In the past this plan worked well, the ratio of working people to retired people was large enough so that there was no shortage of cash. As time has gone on that ratio has changed and people are now living longer leaving the system with a shortage of cash. My solution to this problem has several aspects, which not only solve this problem but also help us with our national debt. The first action I would say we should take would be to determine how much money every living person has put into social security with interest. Next we privatize accounts and put the amount determined into that account. At this point we encounter the problem of not having enough money again. To fix this problem we make a small increase on the federal income tax to correct the balance for people retiring in that year. The tax increase would decrease every year until we reached a balance point of the amount someone put into social security being the amount that they get upon retirement. (No one likes a tax increase but it is far better than having people who have paid into the system one day get nothing) Another way to lower costs and keep the system working would be to increase the age at which benefits are available every now and again as the average life expectancy increases. As with any other asset the balance of a person’s private account could be willed to someone else upon his or her death. As far as the national debt aspect goes many of the accounts will sit inactive for years accumulating money until a person retires. The government should then take that money and spend it when we go to war or have some other national need that exceeds our budget. One the account is called in upon that persons retirement the balance is restored plus the higher interest given on a government bond if it was used while it was still growing. The money to pay these people back would come from the same tax increase or budget cuts that we would use to pay back a debt to a foreign country, except now our own people get the interest payments instead of a foreign government. I thought this was a pretty good idea so give me some feedback and try to find any problems.
The Business of Government
Over the years a lot of cash has passed through the hands of the American government and some has slipped through the fingers towards worthless spending. The problem is that when you are dealing with trillions of dollars “some” is a whole bunch of money. My solution, run our government more like a business. The president or a governor is like a CEO and under him the executive branch of the country or a state should run like a business to provide several products to consumers. Products range from security and trade agreements to mail routes and roadways. The consumers of these products are the American people, and yet at the same time the American people are also the shareholders. Because all of the customers are shareholders this rules out the need to make a profit, but the need to run efficiently is still there. Going with this analogy the Supreme Court would be a board of directors and congress would simply be a small group of shareholders selected by all of the other shareholders to vote on their behalf in order to save time. Running the country in such a manner was clearly on the minds of some when our government was designed, there are departments specializing in a certain product and various divisions responsible for various aspects of the particular product. Take for instance on a small scale a state has the responsibility to provide security to its citizens and they are willing to pay a reasonable amount. That state then sets up a structure of state police, sheriffs, and local police. The idea is on a daily basis the local police handle the needs of a group of people and if the needs grow to large on a particular day (sporting events, concerts) the sheriffs are called in. If the needs grown even larger (protests, riots) then the state police are called in. In this fashion adequate security is provided efficiently with minimal cost. In regards to these aspects our government currently employs such practices. The problem arises when say for instance the local police become inefficient at providing security (to many police for to few problems) or provide poor customer service (tasering and shooting people when it is not justified). At this point the police need to be threatened with budget cuts and if there is still a problem the people should vote to allow private contractors to provide security as long as they operate within the limits of the law, effectively putting that local police force out of a job. Now apply this to larger organizations such as the Social Security Administration. The product of this “company” is economic security, that being said they need to create a product features that the consumers (citizens) want for a price that they can afford (taxes). If the product features are insufficient or the prices are to high then people should be able to opt out of paying for social security and eventually that company will go bankrupt and private companies will take its place. By putting in place such measures that make our government operate in this fashion it not only becomes more efficient but the costs become lower and people can spend their money on other things than taxes. In short out government was supposed to run like a business and we are somewhat there, now we just need to get the rest of the way.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Taking Money from Vets
Let's roleplay for a bit shall we? You joined the military after 9/11 in hopes of protecting our country, and before you know it you got sent over to Iraq. You do your duty and serve out your tour, and now you're on your way home. However, mom and dad are a little hard up on cash, and you haven't exactly recieved a college degree yourself, so you decide to sign back on to the military where you knew you could earn a decent wage doing something you know and have grown to atleast tolerate. That shiney $20,000 sign-on bonus wasn't too shabby either. Now, 5 months before your second tour was supposed to finish, you get injured and lose a leg. You get sent home early, but now you ride in a wheel chair. If that wasn't enough to ruin your day, wait a few days until you get a letter in the mail from the government asking for some of that sign-on bonus back.
That's right, the government is taking money back from injured soldiers because they are unable to finish their tours of duty. This is just disgusting. I would like to see someone defend this position. In fact, I will personally give $25 to anyone who convinces me that this is justified. My family is full of veterans, and when this subject was discussed over dinner Grandpa Yams almost lost his teeth he was so pissed off. Even being the known Conservative that he is, he practically screamed about how our administration is full of idiots. Needless to say, everyone else in the restaurant was mildy amused/horrified at his outburst.
You can read more about the story at this website. It describes a man named Jordan Fox who was blinded in his right eye and had back injuries from a bomb, and who now owes the government $3000. Disgusting. Thank you Bush Administration for finally making my choice easier on which party to vote for in the coming election. I better hear some public apologies soon.
On a lighter note, hopefully you guys had a nice Thanksgiving!
Monday, November 19, 2007
HuckChuckFacts
Here is Mike Huckabee's first commercial that is airing in Iowa for this week only. After all of the negative campaigning by other candidates that has been going on in recent weeks, Huckabee thought he would shake things up with this ad featuring Chuck Norris. Watch:
I really like this ad. It shows that Mike is having a good time running for President, as well as taking positive stances on the issues, and this ad strategy will really appeal to young voters. My personal favorite line was, "Chuck Norris doesn't endorse. He tells America how it's gonna be." Too true.
Huckabee issued the following statement about the commercials on his website: "The Chuck Norris ad is doing exactly what I said I would hope it would do...create some interest, give people a Thanksgiving week break from the nasty and savage ads that have been run by other campaigns, and drive people to our website to get the FULL story of the Huckabee campaign. It is working! Fox and even other networks have been running the ad and talking about it all day; website traffic is fantastic, and it is being called 'the best ad of the campaign so far.'"
For those of you who didn't care for this style of ad, don't worry. It is only being run on a limited basis this week only and on the Internet, and more serious ads will be coming out next week. However, this ad does seem to be getting Huckabee some positive attention. It was posted on YouTube yesterday and already has received almost 200,000 hits. Something must be working, and hopefully the upward trend continues.
I really like this ad. It shows that Mike is having a good time running for President, as well as taking positive stances on the issues, and this ad strategy will really appeal to young voters. My personal favorite line was, "Chuck Norris doesn't endorse. He tells America how it's gonna be." Too true.
Huckabee issued the following statement about the commercials on his website: "The Chuck Norris ad is doing exactly what I said I would hope it would do...create some interest, give people a Thanksgiving week break from the nasty and savage ads that have been run by other campaigns, and drive people to our website to get the FULL story of the Huckabee campaign. It is working! Fox and even other networks have been running the ad and talking about it all day; website traffic is fantastic, and it is being called 'the best ad of the campaign so far.'"
For those of you who didn't care for this style of ad, don't worry. It is only being run on a limited basis this week only and on the Internet, and more serious ads will be coming out next week. However, this ad does seem to be getting Huckabee some positive attention. It was posted on YouTube yesterday and already has received almost 200,000 hits. Something must be working, and hopefully the upward trend continues.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Trouble with the VA
I just read an article on CNN about problems that the VA has with caring for our troops. Quotes from the article site problems such as a 62-year old disability rating system and not being ready for this war. A true testament to the inherent flaws of a bureaucracy. The department that handles veteran’s affairs for one of the world’s military superpowers has not changed its injury ranking systems since World War II. Quite possibly because since then we haven’t made that many advances in medical technology relating to the diagnosis and treatment of injuries. Either that or maybe there was no need to update the system, we haven’t been in that many conflicts since WWII and the few that we have been in have been minor. Seeing as neither of those statements is true I’m sure someone out there has a good answer, we just haven’t heard it yet. As far as the VA being ready to handle the influx in wounded veterans that usually accompanies a conflict one would assume that procedures are, and have been in place for quite some time. If your department’s sole duty is to deal with veterans it would probably be a good idea to have procedures in place so that when wartime rolls around you are ready for said influx. The solution to this problem? A new department called the Department of Efficiency, in the true form of the United States government this department would slowly and inefficiently ensure that all other departments are managed efficiently.
The Difference Between Legal and Illegal Immigration
While I was not planning on writing about illegal immigration again, tonight after seeing the latest episode of the show Family Guy I decided to. Yes, I do understand that the show is a comedy however as with anything written by a person some of their values carry through. In this particular episode I noticed the recurring theme that is see all the time when immigration is the subject of debate, the swapping of terminology back and forth between illegal immigrant and immigrant. This leads to such arguments as, “America is a nation of immigrants, and if you are against immigration than you are against America”. This however is a ridiculous association to make, I am not against immigration and I am not against the changing of laws. Our country was built by immigrants and the ability for the people to change laws is a fundamental concept of democracy. However, until a law is changed it must be enforced, and thus all those considered currently to be illegal immigrants must be treated as criminals for doing something illegal, and all those currently considered immigrants must be treated as American citizens because they went through the proper channels. I understand that the process costs money and that many poor people can’t afford it, but did anyone stop and think of why? Maybe because our welfare and social security are strained and more poor people burden it more. Maybe because statistically the poor are more likely to turn to crime to survive (point proven by the fact that people break the law when entering the country) and we do not want to spend more money on police and increased insurance rates. Maybe it is because we want to increase the ration of educated people as opposed to uneducated people so are nation as a whole is smarter rather than stupider. Or how about the fact that as more and more jobs become automated we have less of a need for uneducated people and more of a need for educated people. We have standards and procedures set-up so that we get the people we want immigrating and keep out the people we don’t want (I’m talking about intellect and wealth here, not race or nation of origin). If we decide that we need a group of people with a different skill set or a different ratio of current skill sets, then by all means we need to change the law. This brings me back to my original point, illegal means not legal. That one word prefacing the word immigrant cannot just be tossed out during a debate because it changes the context of the word. In case there are still people who cannot grasp the fact that the context of the concept matters allow me to illustrate my point.
Buying Prescription Drugs = Legal
Buying Illicit Drugs = Illegal
Having Sex = Legal
Having Sex with a 10-year old = Illegal
Building and Detonating an Atomic bomb as part of the Manhattan project = Legal
Building and Detonating an Atomic bomb as part of a project to blow up Manhattan = Illegal
CONTEXT MATTERS!!!!!
Hopefully I have clarified the difference between Illegal and Legal Immigration.
Buying Prescription Drugs = Legal
Buying Illicit Drugs = Illegal
Having Sex = Legal
Having Sex with a 10-year old = Illegal
Building and Detonating an Atomic bomb as part of the Manhattan project = Legal
Building and Detonating an Atomic bomb as part of a project to blow up Manhattan = Illegal
CONTEXT MATTERS!!!!!
Hopefully I have clarified the difference between Illegal and Legal Immigration.
Iraq Funding
Less than 2 months ago President Bush addressed the nation and explained his strategy to start slowly drawing down troops in Iraq before the end of this year and continuing reductions based on progress. (Described in my post “Bush Addresses The Nation”) The speech given by the president seemed to be an affirmation that the Iraqi’s were standing up and we could begin slowly standing down. However, such plans are not good enough for congressional Democrats, who last week put forward a 50 billion dollar war spending bill with stipulations of a clear timeline and a change of mission focus. Needless to say the vote failed. Personally, I’m glad; every time I see a vote such as this fail I believe it is a good thing. That does not however mean that I want these votes to stop coming. I believe that the best thing for America at this point would be for these bills to keep coming and put more pressure on the Iraqi government and yet fail to pass at the same time so as to allow the administrations plan for a successful withdrawal to stay on track. These bills are a kick in the pants to the Iraqi government to get moving and if they stop coming it may take us even longer and cost us even more to finish the job. The only thing worse than democrats not proposing anymore bills of this type would be if democrats actually passed a bill of this type. Such a bill actually passing would most likely lead to a reduction in our success. (Described in my post “Iraq Update”) The key here is balance, the Republicans want an exquisitely well done job and the Democrats want out fast, put the two together and you get a reasonably stable Iraq capable of finishing some of the odds and ends itself with the majority of American troops out in a reasonable amount of time.
CNN Takes It Easy on Clinton During Debate
CNN has been criticized over the past few days for not challenging presidential hopeful, Senator Hillary Clinton, with tough questions regarding her positions on the issue. This is coming after a very poor performance by the Senator in a debate a couple of weeks ago hosted by MSNBC's Tim Russert. Clinton was upset after the debate, saying that she was picked on by Russert and the other candidates, and her campaign gave a stern warning to CNN's Wolf Blitzer not to have a repeat performance, and he seemed to heed her request.How was it easy? One of her questions asked from Maria Parra-Sandoval, a senior political science major at UNLV, was, "This is a fun question for you. Do you prefer diamonds or pearls?" The only problem is that this isn't the question that Parra-Sandoval wanted to ask. Her original question was, "Yucca Mountain, Nevada, is the proposed site for the country's nuclear repository. Despite scientific evidence that it is a vulnerable site, the federal government continues to push for the plan to move forward. The evidence relied on is unsound and the risks involved in transporting high-level radioactive waste across the country are high. What will you do to ensure that the best site is chosen for the storage of spent nuclear reactor fuel?" Just a bit harder, but CNN decided against it at the last minute.
The college student has even been taking some heat for asking the question from her peers, even though she had no choice in the matter. She was told by one student that she was giving the university a bad name for asking such a question, and a rumor is going around campus the she, a Mexican-American, had set back the Chicano movement.
RedState had the following to say on the issue: "Meanwhile, one of the most powerful and influential news organizations out there has decided to stack its commentariat deck in favor of Hillary Clinton, not be upfront about it and tell audience members to ask her trivial questions about whether she prefers diamonds or pearls instead of asking her about, oh, more important matters. Gosh. And people are somehow still surprised that the Blogosphere has risen up as an alternative source of news and information."
I really can't believe that CNN would actually do this during a presidential debate. If anything, getting Clinton riled up would give them higher ratings, because everyone is just waiting to see her mess up. Apparently the Clinton political machine is as strong as ever, and they can pretty much influence the entire world, so I am eager to see what is going to happen over the next few months and see how things pan out.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Stem Cells for Everyone!
A while ago I made a post concerning stem cell research. Well, many people are against using human embryos in research, regardless of the beneficial procedures that said research could produce. However, there have been recent discoveries that could solve the problem while keeping both the researchers and the pro-life supporters happy. A professor from Kyoto University named Shinya Yamanaka developed a procedure that turns mice skins cells into mice stem cells. His results have been reproduced by other researchers, which prove that it isn’t some hoax, and he is apparently making strides in doing the same in humans.
What does this mean for us? If this technique could be reproduced in humans, we could take a person’s skin cells, and turn them into stem cells that could be used to cure many disorders, fix otherwise deadly wounds, and perhaps even cure diseases. To top the whole scenario off, this wouldn’t involve killing, or even creating, any embryos, effectively destroying the current argument against further investigations.
I really like this idea. Personally, I think the gains that our current techniques would provide outweigh any ethical dilemmas that it would create. However, even I don’t much like the idea of messing with human embryos if it can be avoided. Also, there’s the fact that our current procedures have less than a 1% success rate, and that these new techniques could theoretically have a much higher chance of being successful. Overall, I think we should allocate a large amount of resources towards investigating these new ways of ethically researching stem cells, and any therapies they would allow. I eagerly look towards a future where we could have access to personalized stem cells without angering half the population due to ethical beliefs.
What does this mean for us? If this technique could be reproduced in humans, we could take a person’s skin cells, and turn them into stem cells that could be used to cure many disorders, fix otherwise deadly wounds, and perhaps even cure diseases. To top the whole scenario off, this wouldn’t involve killing, or even creating, any embryos, effectively destroying the current argument against further investigations.
I really like this idea. Personally, I think the gains that our current techniques would provide outweigh any ethical dilemmas that it would create. However, even I don’t much like the idea of messing with human embryos if it can be avoided. Also, there’s the fact that our current procedures have less than a 1% success rate, and that these new techniques could theoretically have a much higher chance of being successful. Overall, I think we should allocate a large amount of resources towards investigating these new ways of ethically researching stem cells, and any therapies they would allow. I eagerly look towards a future where we could have access to personalized stem cells without angering half the population due to ethical beliefs.
Vote or.... wait?
With the excitement of the upcoming election quickly approaching, many first timers are finally registering to vote. As the myriads of opinionated 18-21 year olds are finally getting their first crack at electing a president, there exists another group of people trying to make their vote count. Legal immigrants, those who did the paper work and are living and working here legally, have to apply for citizenship before they can vote in the election. To apply for citizenship, one must pass a test, fill out a lot of paperwork, and apparently wait forever.
According to a recent CNN.com article, http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/16/nv.immigration.voters/index.html, many legal immigrants are getting stuck in a paper-trail instead of being granted their citizenship. Homeland Security says the whole thing should take 7 months, but Manny Barajas took the first step towards becoming a citizen 6 months ago, and hasn’t received a response, effectively stopping him in his tracks. He was hoping on voting in the primaries this year, but now he might not even be able to vote in the general election.
Another man in the same process named Felipe Lopez has been in the process for 2 years and still isn’t a citizen. He claims that he applied in January last year, passed his citizenship test 16 months ago, and even finished his background test 3 times, the last one being 4 months ago. He hasn’t received word on his citizenship status. The government claims that there are currently 900,000 pending applications, almost two times as many as there were last year. They say that this is simply due to a lack of resources, but this registered voter is skeptical.
The government is supposed to be the most informed organization in the country, so why did their analysts fail to realize that a huge election approaching would lead to higher numbers of people applying for status that would allow them to vote? They would. Unfortunately, they would also realize that these immigrants they are giving the right to vote to would also more than likely vote Democratic. My opinion, they don’t want to let these guys vote, so instead of assigning a few more minimum wage workers to fill out papers and mail envelops, they are cutting back and making a backlog. If these people can’t vote, that is one less person voting for a democrat in ‘08. With the types of activities this administration has been known for doing, is it really that big of a stretch for them to attempt something like this.
According to a recent CNN.com article, http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/16/nv.immigration.voters/index.html, many legal immigrants are getting stuck in a paper-trail instead of being granted their citizenship. Homeland Security says the whole thing should take 7 months, but Manny Barajas took the first step towards becoming a citizen 6 months ago, and hasn’t received a response, effectively stopping him in his tracks. He was hoping on voting in the primaries this year, but now he might not even be able to vote in the general election.
Another man in the same process named Felipe Lopez has been in the process for 2 years and still isn’t a citizen. He claims that he applied in January last year, passed his citizenship test 16 months ago, and even finished his background test 3 times, the last one being 4 months ago. He hasn’t received word on his citizenship status. The government claims that there are currently 900,000 pending applications, almost two times as many as there were last year. They say that this is simply due to a lack of resources, but this registered voter is skeptical.
The government is supposed to be the most informed organization in the country, so why did their analysts fail to realize that a huge election approaching would lead to higher numbers of people applying for status that would allow them to vote? They would. Unfortunately, they would also realize that these immigrants they are giving the right to vote to would also more than likely vote Democratic. My opinion, they don’t want to let these guys vote, so instead of assigning a few more minimum wage workers to fill out papers and mail envelops, they are cutting back and making a backlog. If these people can’t vote, that is one less person voting for a democrat in ‘08. With the types of activities this administration has been known for doing, is it really that big of a stretch for them to attempt something like this.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Boy Scouts in Massachusettes Called "Warmongers"
A Boy Scout troop in Cambridge, Massachusetts was accused of being pro-war after holding a collection of supplies for troops serving overseas. The collection was being held at 33 polling sites on election day in Cambridge, but after a complaint, the boxes were removed. When the election board was asked why they were removed, they cited that organizations supporting a political message are not permitted to be within 150 of polling sites, even though they were granted permission by the election board to hold the collection on two separate occasions before the polls were open. To watch the video for the complete story, visit Fox News.Since when is supporting American troops a political message? Have we really gotten to a point in this country where we can't do anything nice for other people without being reprimanded for it? No wonder the Democratic Party is being labeled anti-American, well, because frankly some of them are.
Fortunately we have people like Boston radio host, Dan Ray, to counteract this act of maliciousness with a supply drive of his own. After he heard about the news, he decided to open up the lobby of his radio station to serve as a collection site for all types of toiletries to be sent to the troops.
"We weren't trying to support the war. We were just trying to support our friends and neighbors and family that are overseas serving us. We were all kind of in shock, the kids were hurt, they didn't know what to say over this controversy," Jamisean Patterson, Committee Chair for Troop 45 told Fox News.
I have said this once, and I am sure I will say it many times again, just because you do not support the war does not mean that you shouldn't support troops. These brave men and women are making so many sacrifices to fight for this country, and the least we can do is to send them a few toiletries to make their lives a little less difficult from time to time. I am really sick and tired of the people who make everything into a huge political issue and cannot let people do something nice for someone else. This will only teach the kids that giving to others isn't okay, and that we should let things like political biases determine who we can and can't do nice things for.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Huckabee Surging in Iowa
A recent poll conducted by CBS and the New York Times shows Mike Huckabee gaining momentum in Iowa, with 21% of the vote, second only to Mitt Romney with 27%. The only thing is that Huckabee has spent only $500,000 in the state holding the first caucus in the country, while Romney has spent millions upon millions on TV commercials and other advertising. Why is Iowa so important? Winning the caucus could be worth about $30 million in free advertising and extra name recognition from news broadcasters trying to determine if the momentum will hold.
He responded to the poll results with a statement on his website. It read, "There's definitely momentum as people are paying attention to my message. We are seeing first hand why it's crucial for the Iowa caucuses to be first -- Iowa Republicans are looking beyond my campaign budget and are relating to my values and where I stand on important issues."
Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, has had to take a slightly different approach from Romney, lacking the needed funds to produce these advertisement. While Romney had millions of dollars of his own money to contribute to his campaign, Huckabee has had to rely on word of mouth, traveling from small town to small town, setting up shop in a local pizza shop and speaking to whoever will listen, and it seems to be working.
"Huckabee is a very good candidate in the sense he makes a very good appearance," CBS News chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer said. "I think that Huckabee actually has a chance to win out there… If he does, that puts a whole new spin on the race. I'm still not sure he would be the favorite to get the nomination, but he's certainly going to be a factor as we move on down the road."
Hampered by a lack of fundraising early on in his campaign, people are starting to put their money where their mouth is now that he is becoming a viable candidate. In the month of October, the campaign set a goal of $200,000 in online donations, and supporters responded by raising over $1,000,000, and they are on pace to exceed that amount this month.
Looking ahead to the general election, Huckabee seems to be the Republican Party's best bet to beat Sen. Hillary Clinton. A recent poll by Rasmussen Reports shows Huckabee trailing Clinton by only three percent (43-46), the smallest margin of all Republican candidates. And he is not unfamiliar with running against the Clinton machine. While running for Lt. Governor and later Governor of Arkansas, Bill and Hillary Clinton endorsed and campaigned for each of the candidates facing Huckabee over a span of 12 years, and he beat them all four times.
He responded to the poll results with a statement on his website. It read, "There's definitely momentum as people are paying attention to my message. We are seeing first hand why it's crucial for the Iowa caucuses to be first -- Iowa Republicans are looking beyond my campaign budget and are relating to my values and where I stand on important issues."
Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, has had to take a slightly different approach from Romney, lacking the needed funds to produce these advertisement. While Romney had millions of dollars of his own money to contribute to his campaign, Huckabee has had to rely on word of mouth, traveling from small town to small town, setting up shop in a local pizza shop and speaking to whoever will listen, and it seems to be working.
"Huckabee is a very good candidate in the sense he makes a very good appearance," CBS News chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer said. "I think that Huckabee actually has a chance to win out there… If he does, that puts a whole new spin on the race. I'm still not sure he would be the favorite to get the nomination, but he's certainly going to be a factor as we move on down the road."
Hampered by a lack of fundraising early on in his campaign, people are starting to put their money where their mouth is now that he is becoming a viable candidate. In the month of October, the campaign set a goal of $200,000 in online donations, and supporters responded by raising over $1,000,000, and they are on pace to exceed that amount this month.
Looking ahead to the general election, Huckabee seems to be the Republican Party's best bet to beat Sen. Hillary Clinton. A recent poll by Rasmussen Reports shows Huckabee trailing Clinton by only three percent (43-46), the smallest margin of all Republican candidates. And he is not unfamiliar with running against the Clinton machine. While running for Lt. Governor and later Governor of Arkansas, Bill and Hillary Clinton endorsed and campaigned for each of the candidates facing Huckabee over a span of 12 years, and he beat them all four times.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Veteran's Day
I was a little surprised yesterday evening when I was reading the news online and saw that it was Veteran's Day. I got caught up in everything that was going on in my life, and completely was unaware of everything that was going on. I thought I would take a little time out of my day today, since I forgot yesterday, and pay tribute to those who have served this country to give us the freedoms that are taken advantage of each and every day. Here is a short video:
I think it is kind of sad that most Americans, including myself, are too caught up in football and everything else to forget about a day as important as this. In the middle of a war especially, we are reminded every day of the sacrifices the soldiers are making to protect you and me. Whether you are for the war or not, recognize what they have done, and pray for them. I'm sure they could use it.
I think it is kind of sad that most Americans, including myself, are too caught up in football and everything else to forget about a day as important as this. In the middle of a war especially, we are reminded every day of the sacrifices the soldiers are making to protect you and me. Whether you are for the war or not, recognize what they have done, and pray for them. I'm sure they could use it.
Drivers Licenses for Illegal Immigrants
Recently New York Governor Eliot Spitzer suggested a plan to allow illegal immigrants apply for a driver’s licenses. The theory behind this proposal he said would be to make traffic safer by bringing out those “living in the shadows” and issuing them credentials. Such a suggestion brings up several questions such as: Really? Is this dude serious? Where does he get his crack? (Cause it must be some real good stuff).
Now I am going to try and examine the logic behind this, first off let’s start with the concept that licensing drivers makes sense and leads to safer roadways. Now that seems pretty legitimate however what doesn’t make sense is licensing people who should not even be on the roads in the first place. Illegal immigrants are first and foremost ILLEGAL (as the name implies). When someone without documentation is found in this country they should be arrested, questioned, processed, and then either deported or detained. What if some terrorist is in this country without documentation and wants to plant a bomb in New York, however instead of arresting him the police bring him to driving school.
This country has a process for allowing foreigners to enter this country for tourism, business, studies, working, or permanent citizenship. If a person wants to do anyone of those things then they need to follow the process that is set in place for such action. If you want own a gun, drive a car, operate heavy machinery, work in a government job then you must go through a process first. Just because you feel the process is to hard or takes to long does not give you the right to forge documentation and do the thing you want. It is the same with illegal immigration, processes are in place and they must be followed for the security of this nation, both physical and economical.
Now I am going to try and examine the logic behind this, first off let’s start with the concept that licensing drivers makes sense and leads to safer roadways. Now that seems pretty legitimate however what doesn’t make sense is licensing people who should not even be on the roads in the first place. Illegal immigrants are first and foremost ILLEGAL (as the name implies). When someone without documentation is found in this country they should be arrested, questioned, processed, and then either deported or detained. What if some terrorist is in this country without documentation and wants to plant a bomb in New York, however instead of arresting him the police bring him to driving school.
This country has a process for allowing foreigners to enter this country for tourism, business, studies, working, or permanent citizenship. If a person wants to do anyone of those things then they need to follow the process that is set in place for such action. If you want own a gun, drive a car, operate heavy machinery, work in a government job then you must go through a process first. Just because you feel the process is to hard or takes to long does not give you the right to forge documentation and do the thing you want. It is the same with illegal immigration, processes are in place and they must be followed for the security of this nation, both physical and economical.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Iraq Update
Recently Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, the 2nd ranking US commander in Iraq was quoted by CNN as saying that the troop surge has allowed many insurgent safe havens to be eliminated and signs of normality are returning. The general was also cited as say that troops have switched to an oversight role in some areas and the trend will continue in the coming months. The question on my mind is currently, Is this a stable trend? The answer to this question I believe will play a large part in determining the 2008 elections. If this trend is stable and we see continued success in Iraq it will be a huge boost to Republicans, if the opposite is true and the current success changes to failure it would mean a boost to the Democrats. Since President Bush is currently in control of the war one may think that the current strategies will lead to continued success and the boost will go to the Republicans. However there is a catch, as Marcus Tullius Cicero once said “The sinews of war are infinite money”. If success in Iraq continues the Democrats have only one hope, and that is to use their control of Congress to cut war funding. If they time such cuts in funding well enough they may be able to reverse success in Iraq around the time of elections and regain their boost. While it is interesting to hypothesize about who will get the checkmate in this game of political chess, we are currently looking 10 moves away and what happens between now and then is anyone’s guess.
Universal Health Care
A hot topic for debate recently has been about universal health care. After hearing a lecture about this topic from a finance professor the other day I came up with an idea that may alleviate this problem. The basic premise of universal health care is that a person’s health is a vital necessity much like food and water. Those who cannot maintain their own health become a burden on the system by spreading disease and using hospitals when they cannot pay for such service.
My solution to this problem is in relation to the recent hike in minimum wage, quite simply, cancel the increase. Rather than increase the minimum wage as planned we should instead require a minimum level of heath insurance to be provided by all employers to their full time employee’s. The next step would be to pass legislation that requires all citizens have that same minimum level of health insurance (if not provided by their employer then the person is responsible).
My personal view is that items such as insurance are the responsibility of a person. A person should be responsible for weighing the risks and rewards of insuring their property or their health and then make the decision and live with the consequences. The problem it seems is that the average person is incapable of making this decision and thus burdening the system. In most cases of necessities the choice of what to buy only affects that single person; if you don’t buy food then you starve to death, end of story. However if you get sick and are uninsured you cannot go to the hospital and the disease spreads affecting others. The principle is much the same as car insurance, it is not required so much as to protect the person who owns it, rather it is required in case that person causes an accident that affect others.
Unlike the European system of universal heath care in which everyone’s taxes go into a big pot and people abuse the system creating long wait times for medical care my solution eliminates those problems. Because what is being provided is health insurance if a person goes in for every little cold than their premiums rise and more comes out of their pay check, thus encouraging personal responsibility. Another advantage of this approach is that because the money is not all put into a big pot each person is responsible for their own heath and the cost is not passed on to another person. Lastly because those with more money can pay for premium service there are no long lines because heath care becomes a business rather than a service and businesses are far more efficient than government regulated bureaucracies.
In effect our current system is a pyramid model with premium heath care on the top, followed by moderate, low, and at the bottom none. What this policy would do is shift the whole pyramid up replacing the none with low, the low with moderate, the moderate with premium, and the premium with ultra premium. A question that some may ask is, why isn’t it better to go with the European system where everyone has a mid-range level of healthcare provided through taxes by the government. The answer to this was provided to me back in ’03 when I had the pleasure of sitting in on a discussion with former Surgeon General Richard Carmona. During this discussion the same question was asked the essence of the response was that in the United States people pay more for healthcare and prescription drugs than they do in Europe, however, it is this extra cost that allows the pioneering and research into new drugs and treatments in the United States.
Simply put I find that the solution I am suggesting offers America a solution to our health care problems without bringing in new problems such as the one’s faced in Europe. This concept is new to me and is a work in progress so if you have and ideas or suggestions leave a comment.
My solution to this problem is in relation to the recent hike in minimum wage, quite simply, cancel the increase. Rather than increase the minimum wage as planned we should instead require a minimum level of heath insurance to be provided by all employers to their full time employee’s. The next step would be to pass legislation that requires all citizens have that same minimum level of health insurance (if not provided by their employer then the person is responsible).
My personal view is that items such as insurance are the responsibility of a person. A person should be responsible for weighing the risks and rewards of insuring their property or their health and then make the decision and live with the consequences. The problem it seems is that the average person is incapable of making this decision and thus burdening the system. In most cases of necessities the choice of what to buy only affects that single person; if you don’t buy food then you starve to death, end of story. However if you get sick and are uninsured you cannot go to the hospital and the disease spreads affecting others. The principle is much the same as car insurance, it is not required so much as to protect the person who owns it, rather it is required in case that person causes an accident that affect others.
Unlike the European system of universal heath care in which everyone’s taxes go into a big pot and people abuse the system creating long wait times for medical care my solution eliminates those problems. Because what is being provided is health insurance if a person goes in for every little cold than their premiums rise and more comes out of their pay check, thus encouraging personal responsibility. Another advantage of this approach is that because the money is not all put into a big pot each person is responsible for their own heath and the cost is not passed on to another person. Lastly because those with more money can pay for premium service there are no long lines because heath care becomes a business rather than a service and businesses are far more efficient than government regulated bureaucracies.
In effect our current system is a pyramid model with premium heath care on the top, followed by moderate, low, and at the bottom none. What this policy would do is shift the whole pyramid up replacing the none with low, the low with moderate, the moderate with premium, and the premium with ultra premium. A question that some may ask is, why isn’t it better to go with the European system where everyone has a mid-range level of healthcare provided through taxes by the government. The answer to this was provided to me back in ’03 when I had the pleasure of sitting in on a discussion with former Surgeon General Richard Carmona. During this discussion the same question was asked the essence of the response was that in the United States people pay more for healthcare and prescription drugs than they do in Europe, however, it is this extra cost that allows the pioneering and research into new drugs and treatments in the United States.
Simply put I find that the solution I am suggesting offers America a solution to our health care problems without bringing in new problems such as the one’s faced in Europe. This concept is new to me and is a work in progress so if you have and ideas or suggestions leave a comment.
Friday, November 9, 2007
23 Illegal Immigrants Arrested at O'Hare Airport
For those of you claiming that illegals are here just to get by and pose no risk to this country, here is yet another case of why they have to go. Almost two dozen were arrested on Wednesday for trying to use fake badges to enter secured areas of Chicago's O'Hare Airpot. They were supposedly hired by the employment agency, Ideal Staffing, who also had its office manager and corporate secretary arrested after an eight month investigation.
The investigation was mainly focused on the ID badges issued by the Department of Aviation, and they found the 110 of the 134 badges given to Ideal Staffing didn't match the people who was wearing them. Oops.
Richard Fitzgerald, a U.S. Attorney, said in a statement, "If we are to ensure public safety, we must know who has access to the secure areas of airports. A fundamental component of airport safety is preventing the use of false identification badges, and punishing those who commit or enable such violations."
I think that ChicagoRay, a Chicago-area blogger, summed it up great in his post: More Jobs Americans Wouldn't Do?. While it might have cost a little more than minimum wage, qualified Americans could have easily been found for these positions. The nation's unemployment rate is about 4.7% right now, and several of those people have been laid off from factories cutting workers, so you can't tell me that there aren't people out there will good work experience, at least better than the illegals.
While I recognize the fact that not all illegal aliens are pulling stunts like these and are just trying to make an honest living, we need to look at the big picture and see that our safety is ask risk because of a select few. Therefore, any of them currently here caught doing anything (else) illegal need to be prosecuted and immediately deported. We, as a nation, cannot afford to have another September 11 on our hands right now. I do believe that we are considerably safer today than we were six years ago, but there are clearly still holes in the system that need to be fixed, and the best way to do that is to rid the country of those who are not supposed to be here or not doing the things that they are supposed to do, such as infilitrating secure areas of airports.
The investigation was mainly focused on the ID badges issued by the Department of Aviation, and they found the 110 of the 134 badges given to Ideal Staffing didn't match the people who was wearing them. Oops.
Richard Fitzgerald, a U.S. Attorney, said in a statement, "If we are to ensure public safety, we must know who has access to the secure areas of airports. A fundamental component of airport safety is preventing the use of false identification badges, and punishing those who commit or enable such violations."
I think that ChicagoRay, a Chicago-area blogger, summed it up great in his post: More Jobs Americans Wouldn't Do?. While it might have cost a little more than minimum wage, qualified Americans could have easily been found for these positions. The nation's unemployment rate is about 4.7% right now, and several of those people have been laid off from factories cutting workers, so you can't tell me that there aren't people out there will good work experience, at least better than the illegals.
While I recognize the fact that not all illegal aliens are pulling stunts like these and are just trying to make an honest living, we need to look at the big picture and see that our safety is ask risk because of a select few. Therefore, any of them currently here caught doing anything (else) illegal need to be prosecuted and immediately deported. We, as a nation, cannot afford to have another September 11 on our hands right now. I do believe that we are considerably safer today than we were six years ago, but there are clearly still holes in the system that need to be fixed, and the best way to do that is to rid the country of those who are not supposed to be here or not doing the things that they are supposed to do, such as infilitrating secure areas of airports.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Hugs=Detention in One Illinois Middle School
Thirteen-year-old Megan Coulter was giving her two friends a goodbye hug just before the weekend at Mascoutah Middle School in Mascoutah, IL when she was slapped with two days of detention, one for each hug. According to her mother, it wasn't even a real hug, just an arm around the shoulder and tight squeeze. "It's hilarious to the point of ridicule," her mother said. "I'm still dumbfounded that she's having to do this."
The school ordinance states, "Displays of affection should not occur on the school campus at any time. It is in poor taste, reflects poor judgment, and brings discredit to the school and to the persons involved." The superintendent is standing by the decision and thinks the punishment is fair. You can read more of the article here.
This is absolutely ridiculous. Are we getting to the point in this nation where we can't show any affection towards one another? I'm not even talking about affection towards a significant other, but to friends and even teachers. If we can't give hugs, then what is next? Shaking hands? Saying hello?
My favorite teacher in high school, on the last day of school before he retired, came around to each person in the class, gave them a big hug, and told us that he loves us. He was the greatest teacher that I ever had, and what about that brings discredit to the school and the persons involved? Nothing. These school administrators need to get their heads out of their butts and realize that these kids are people, just like they are, and they are going to be taught that it isn't okay to show any affection towards anyone at all, and that would be a real shame.
The parents of the student are going to the next school board meeting to ask them to review the policy and more specifically define "public displays of affection," and I hope they succeed, but this shouldn't have been an issue in the first place. People in general need to focus on what is really important in a school, education, and leave what the kids are doing as they are exiting the building alone, so long as they aren't bothering anyone else.
The school ordinance states, "Displays of affection should not occur on the school campus at any time. It is in poor taste, reflects poor judgment, and brings discredit to the school and to the persons involved." The superintendent is standing by the decision and thinks the punishment is fair. You can read more of the article here.
This is absolutely ridiculous. Are we getting to the point in this nation where we can't show any affection towards one another? I'm not even talking about affection towards a significant other, but to friends and even teachers. If we can't give hugs, then what is next? Shaking hands? Saying hello?My favorite teacher in high school, on the last day of school before he retired, came around to each person in the class, gave them a big hug, and told us that he loves us. He was the greatest teacher that I ever had, and what about that brings discredit to the school and the persons involved? Nothing. These school administrators need to get their heads out of their butts and realize that these kids are people, just like they are, and they are going to be taught that it isn't okay to show any affection towards anyone at all, and that would be a real shame.
The parents of the student are going to the next school board meeting to ask them to review the policy and more specifically define "public displays of affection," and I hope they succeed, but this shouldn't have been an issue in the first place. People in general need to focus on what is really important in a school, education, and leave what the kids are doing as they are exiting the building alone, so long as they aren't bothering anyone else.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Stephen Colbert Abandons White House Run
According to Breitbart.comStephen Colbert, host of the Colbert Report on Comedy Central, announced Monday that he will no longer pursue his presidential aspirations. This comes after the South Carolina Democratic Executive Council voted to keep him off of the state's primary ballot by a vote of 13-3.
"Although I lost by the slimmest margin in presidential election history—only 10 votes—I have chosen not to put the country through another agonizing Supreme Court battle," Colbert said in a statement. "It is time for this nation to heal."
Colbert intended to run only in his home state of South Carolina, a key primary state, and he wanted to run on the Democratic and Republican ballot, so he could lose twice. He later decided not to file with the Republican Party, since it required a filing fee of $35,000, much more than the Democrat's $2,500.
While I do find this whole thing is pretty funny, I really don't think that the presidential election is something to make a mockery of. Even though he had no intentions of winning, he still would have had votes cast for him that could have been used to support a serious candidate, and with the close elections we have had in the last decade, a few thousand extra votes can change who will become one of the most, if not the most, powerful people in the world.
Now I am sure this has caused a few more people to pay attention to the presidential election, it has caused a distraction from what is really important, the stances that the serious candidates take on the issues. I hate to act like the old fogy who ruins everyone's fun, but there are other ways to have a good time without detracting from something as this. I am hoping that, by writing in this blog, our words will spark an interest with someone who completely hated politics before, but now will pay a little more attention because they see how important their civic duty truly is.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
The international space station
Recently there was some trouble on the international space station in regards to one of the solar panels. As of Saturday this problem was fixed and the solar panels are being deployed as planed. This news event brings to light what I believe is one of the greatest moments of diplomacy in human history. The project that was started in 1998 and slated for completion in 2010 is the joint effort of countries all over the world. Even our cold war advisory Russia is in on the project. The fact that two countries can go from a 40 year nuclear standoff to collaboration on a space station in less than 20 years shows the progress that our world could make. Maybe in another 20 years there will be an international moon base. Regardless of the specifics the possibilities are endless of what can be accomplished through international collaboration. By spreading the cost of such monumental projects amongst multiple nations we can accomplish feats that no single countries budget committee would approve.
Media Censorship
A recurring theme that I have noticed over the last few years is one of media censorship. It seems like every time that someone uses a “curse word” on television a federal case is made out of it. My opinion on this matter is that words in and of themselves have no power without context and thus no word should be considered inherently inappropriate. For instance even the f-word which is considered the most inappropriate word of them all can be taken to mean a variety of different things based on the context. Another factor to consider is these words can be used to portray a particular artistic vision. By removing these curse words the artistic vision in some cases is skewed or not fulfilled and thus not only is it a censorship of speech but also a censorship of art.
Most curse words are simply words from older languages with common meaning that when translated were given vulgar connotations. When it really comes down to it curse words have similar meanings as other words and we have just placed them into a category of inappropriate. So it would seem that if we simply removed the broad language censorship from television and radio and replaced it with contextual censorship (to limit conversation on vulgar topics, much like there is a line between art and pornography but yet no color of ink is in and of itself banned) we would then over time remove the vulgar and inappropriate connotations from these words we so fear and they would no longer be considered inappropriate.
Most curse words are simply words from older languages with common meaning that when translated were given vulgar connotations. When it really comes down to it curse words have similar meanings as other words and we have just placed them into a category of inappropriate. So it would seem that if we simply removed the broad language censorship from television and radio and replaced it with contextual censorship (to limit conversation on vulgar topics, much like there is a line between art and pornography but yet no color of ink is in and of itself banned) we would then over time remove the vulgar and inappropriate connotations from these words we so fear and they would no longer be considered inappropriate.
Why tax cut's do not actually favor the rich
Recently I stumbled upon this analogy for our tax system explained in simple terms written by Dr. David R Kamerschen a Professor of Economics at the University of Georgia.
“Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner and the bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
a. The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing
b. The fifth would pay $1
c. The sixth would pay $3
d. The seventh would pay $7
e. The eighth would pay $12
f. The ninth would pay $18
g. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59 ... ratios from our existing tax system
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." Dinner for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free, but what about the other six men, the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share"?
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to eat their meal.
So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so:
a. The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings)
b. The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings)
c. The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings)
d. The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings)
e. The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings)
f. The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings)
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more savings than me!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!”
While this explains our system in a humorous way the message is anything but. When ever there is a story on the news about some politician who supported “tax cuts that favor the rich” it is simply a spin put on the story to attract more viewers. In truth tax cuts favor the poor, as do taxes. Being economically conservative I believe in a fair and flat percentage tax system for everyone who makes more than a certain amount, so when I hear stories about tax cuts favoring the rich I feel that people really need to be enlightened about who our system really favors. It is a classic move to gain votes, tell the poor that the current system favors the rich and that you plan to fix the system. After all as human beings we are more than happy to place the blame for our own problems on anyone else. So when a politician comes around and says it is the fault of those with more that you have less, as humans we happily let ourselves be fooled into this false notion and place our vote behind the so called reformer.
“Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner and the bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
a. The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing
b. The fifth would pay $1
c. The sixth would pay $3
d. The seventh would pay $7
e. The eighth would pay $12
f. The ninth would pay $18
g. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59 ... ratios from our existing tax system
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." Dinner for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free, but what about the other six men, the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share"?
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to eat their meal.
So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so:
a. The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings)
b. The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings)
c. The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings)
d. The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings)
e. The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings)
f. The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings)
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more savings than me!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!”
While this explains our system in a humorous way the message is anything but. When ever there is a story on the news about some politician who supported “tax cuts that favor the rich” it is simply a spin put on the story to attract more viewers. In truth tax cuts favor the poor, as do taxes. Being economically conservative I believe in a fair and flat percentage tax system for everyone who makes more than a certain amount, so when I hear stories about tax cuts favoring the rich I feel that people really need to be enlightened about who our system really favors. It is a classic move to gain votes, tell the poor that the current system favors the rich and that you plan to fix the system. After all as human beings we are more than happy to place the blame for our own problems on anyone else. So when a politician comes around and says it is the fault of those with more that you have less, as humans we happily let ourselves be fooled into this false notion and place our vote behind the so called reformer.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
State of Emergency!
Pakistan's President, Pervez Musharraf, has very recently declared a state of emergency. He stated that Islamic extremism caused him to take such measures. What does this mean for his country? Well for starters; the constitution has been suspended, troops have been deployed in the capital, the independent media has been silenced, politicians opposing Musharraf have been rounded up, phone lines have been cut, and the nation's chief justice has even been replaced. Seems more like a dictator taking over than a state of emergency.
The "emergency" is apparently due to Musharraf's leadership being threatened by reappearance of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto. Other threats to Musharraf worth taking not of is a fairly defiant Supreme Court, and increase in Islam in the area. From what I've gathered, this isn't so much a state of emergency for the people of the country, but an emergency for Musharraf's future as leader of the country. Being one of our key allies in the War on Terror in the area, this whole ordeal holds a lot of importance for the United States.
Many political officials in other countries are getting involved in this, seeing this as a very dangerous situation. The U.S. is asking Musharraf to bring back democracy to his country, and Britain is also getting involved. As most of you know, Pakistan is a very important to both the U.S. and Britain in regards to stopping terrorism, making them a very important ally. This whole state of emergency could blow the whole relationship open though, as I don't think we could as easily validate our alliance with a country who basically threw democracy out the window because their leader is afraid of losing power.
Personally, I find this whole thing very interesting. What to do, what to do. By openly criticizing Musharraf we risk losing him as an ally. However, by allowing this to continue, more rights could be taken away form the population of Pakistan for an extended period of time, or even for good. Personally, I kind of find this pathetic. To me it sounds like this guy is afraid and can't get his country to think like he does. To combat this scenario, he chose to put the whole place on lockdown until everyone decides he's awesome again. If it was up to me, I'd demand he give them their rights back and restore the constitution. Thankfully, it isn't up to me, and people with more tact and charisma are in charge of our international affairs. I only hope they make good decisions and don't lead our country into even more violence.
The "emergency" is apparently due to Musharraf's leadership being threatened by reappearance of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto. Other threats to Musharraf worth taking not of is a fairly defiant Supreme Court, and increase in Islam in the area. From what I've gathered, this isn't so much a state of emergency for the people of the country, but an emergency for Musharraf's future as leader of the country. Being one of our key allies in the War on Terror in the area, this whole ordeal holds a lot of importance for the United States.
Many political officials in other countries are getting involved in this, seeing this as a very dangerous situation. The U.S. is asking Musharraf to bring back democracy to his country, and Britain is also getting involved. As most of you know, Pakistan is a very important to both the U.S. and Britain in regards to stopping terrorism, making them a very important ally. This whole state of emergency could blow the whole relationship open though, as I don't think we could as easily validate our alliance with a country who basically threw democracy out the window because their leader is afraid of losing power.
Personally, I find this whole thing very interesting. What to do, what to do. By openly criticizing Musharraf we risk losing him as an ally. However, by allowing this to continue, more rights could be taken away form the population of Pakistan for an extended period of time, or even for good. Personally, I kind of find this pathetic. To me it sounds like this guy is afraid and can't get his country to think like he does. To combat this scenario, he chose to put the whole place on lockdown until everyone decides he's awesome again. If it was up to me, I'd demand he give them their rights back and restore the constitution. Thankfully, it isn't up to me, and people with more tact and charisma are in charge of our international affairs. I only hope they make good decisions and don't lead our country into even more violence.
Friday, November 2, 2007
How Lower Taxes Leads to Lower Unemployment Rates and More Tax Revenue for the Government
With all of the talk of how bad the economy is right now and the recession that is supposed to be here any day now, the United States has posted yet another month of job growth, according to Yahoo! Finance. 166,000 previously unemployed workers found work last month, leaving the national unemployment rate at 4.7%, a pretty low number when looking at it from a historical standpoint.What is the cause for the job creation? I think a major factor is President Bush's tax cuts that were put into effect a few years ago. Some might wonder what that has to do with unemployment figures, but you have to look at the big picture. Companies are taxed, just like individuals, based on their incomes. Normally, they have a much larger incomes than individuals do, so they are in a higher tax bracket. Now when taxes are cut, companies have a larger share of their profits to use how they please, and many of them use this opportunity to hire more workers.
But if we cut taxes, how is the government going to have enough money to operate, seeing that we already have a huge deficit? Simple: the more jobs that are created due to the tax cuts, the more people that are paying taxes, rather than receiving unemployment benefits. Therefore, paying less taxes gives more money to the government by having more people contribute through income taxes.
There does, however, have to be a limit on how much we can lower taxes for this effect to work. If we lowered it to zero, then no matter how many jobs were created, no revenue would be brought in. There has to be a happy median to satisfy both sides of the equation. I think this has yet to be found, and more revenue would be raised if taxes were lowered again. This is only coming from a college student, but there are many people out there who agree with me. Hopefully, something will be done soon to fix it, as the state of the American economy depends on it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)