We hear it all the time. Democrats versus Republicans; liberals versus conservatives; communists/socialists versus capitalists. Media outlets of all shapes and sizes exhaust this theme in order to push their ideology to its readers or viewers. Many times, its of a "liberal" persuasion. There is also conservative-based media, namely Fox News, although they present slightly more balanced coverage than its liberal counter-parts. Radio is almost entirely conservative.
I'm not here to talk about the media, however. I'm here to explain why both liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, and socialists and communists are hypocrites based on what they advocate on their platform. Both parties have consistently turned away from their core beliefs to pander to special interests. Some may suggest special interests groups are merely large organizations of constituents with the goal of influencing their elected representatives. Although this is technically true, what good is a party ideology if its members adjust their philosophy at the mention of unlimited campaign funding? Special interests have changed entire party platforms. What was once a party of non-interventionism, the Republicans are now a party of pre-emptive war and "national security". What was once a party of "the little man", the Democrats now court the vote of corporations and Wall Street banks.
Neither party has done much good for this country in the last decade. Frankly, I'm tired of hearing all of the arguments between the two. The way I see it, neither party has an official platform since they claim to advocate one policy, but endorse the complete opposite. Yet they know this, which leads me to question the integrity of our elected leaders. Do they really have the best interests of the American people in mind? Or are they just worried about their own well-being? Currently, there are congressional representatives still holding public office for almost five decades! Here are the names of a few:
John Dingell - served in the House for 56 consecutive years.
Daniel Inouye - served in the House and Senate consecutively for 52 years
John Conyers - served in the House for 47 consecutive years
These are the top three. Now, how do you think they're able to maintain their position for so long? Is it because they are outstanding reps who've served their constituency to the best of their ability? It's possible. Maybe even likely. But would you believe it? With all the corruption running amok in our government, the notion they truly care about the country is laughable. When unions, corporate giants, and lobbyists come knocking while waving wads of cash and promising significant campaign donations in return for a specific vote on a particular bill, it's no wonder some of these individuals have held their post as long as they have.
Allow me to get to provide examples before I continue on what could potentially be a never-ending rant. Let's start with the Republicans. In regards to core principles, the self-proclaimed party of fiscal discipline does not practice what they preach. Every election year we hear the cliche campaign pitch of cutting spending and balancing the budget. Yet, it never happens. For example, this year Congressman Paul Ryan (R -WI), chair of the Budget Committee, proposed a "Republican" budget that was a supposed contrast to the president's previously disapproved budget. Although he did cut spending by roughly 3 trillion, his budget was proposing $3.6 trillion in government spending and also would've increased the deficit over a ten-year period. So, if I understand it correctly, Republicans believe they are being fiscally responsibly by spending less than the Democrats even though they still spend like Democrats. That is not a true cut in spending. That is not a balanced budget.
Moving away from politicians, let's get to the conservative public. What does a traditional conservative believe? Limited government, free markets, strong national defense, non-interventionism. So why would someone who supports limited government insist the government enforce morality through legislation? Why would they support the Patriot Act, which gives our government permission to spy on us without a warrant? That's not limited government. It's authoritarianism.
Why would a traditional conservative support preemptive and on-going wars, the expansion of an American empire, and trillions of dollars to pay for them while simultaneously calling for cuts in the budget?
Unfortunately, this philosophy is not a new brand of conservatism. In fact, in the 18th century, conservatives were described as "members of the establishment who opposed [change] and wanted to maintain a theocratic system of government based on royalty, where the working-class people were disenfranchised and paid taxes and fees to the wealthy aristocracy" (Price, 2004). Sounds a lot like the Religious Right.
In contrast to modern-day conservatives, true limited-government, constitution-loving individuals were labeled "liberals", but not in the modern day sense. The classical view of liberalism is more aligned with the Libertarian Party. Liberalism sees a government with too much power as dangerous to a free society, one where an individual is allowed to make their own choices and take their own risks, as long as they don't interfere or affect the rights of others. This includes economics. Basically, liberalism is the closest thing to anarchy without the actual anarchy! Liberalism is not unreasonable, though. It understands that people must be punished for crimes towards others. It understands the basic functions of a government (i.e. maintaining a standing military, emergency services, and funding infrastructure projects). However, it does not allow for the government to augment its power at the expense of its citizens' rights. This philosophy is what Republicans and conservatives should be embracing, since they are the ones calling for it.
On the other hand, Democrats are not much better. In fact, their hypocrisy is much easier to reveal. For instance, Democrats and/or liberals (modern version) believe the government has no control over a woman's reproductive rights. They scream for choice, referring to Roe v. Wade as their "constitutional right". Yet, when it comes to the 2nd amendment, they wish to see it eradicated. This is a common hypocrisy because liberals love to argue that conservatives hide behind the first amendment...second amendment... fourth amendment...so on. But when a liberal politician, or a liberal member of the media says something controversial, they themselves run to the first amendment and declare "freedom of speech". However, this only works if it aligns with their views. Liberals are some of the most tolerant people... until you disagree with them. When this happens, they become the intolerant bigots.
The Democrats in our government lean on the principle of liberty in an individual's personal life, but think they're too stupid to take care of themselves financially. They tax, spend, and regulate our businesses to the brink of ruin. They insist we need large government programs like Social Security because we're not intelligent or responsible enough to plan for our own retirement. They maintain other failing programs like Medicaid and Medicare because we can't pay for our own medical care. Though the issue with health care is generally true, the reason millions of our citizens cannot pay is due to the rising prices in virtually every industry of our economy. Rising prices are a result of inflation -- an increase in the money supply. Democrats claim that printing money and injecting it into the economy creates economic growth. This couldn't be further from the truth. It's simple logic. The more you have of something, the less valuable it is. So why would the dollar be more valuable if you create more out of thin air? Blame this on Keynesian economics -- the belief that government spending causes economic prosperity.
Keynesian economics has been an utter failure wherever it's been implemented. Do you need a good example? Google "Greece economy" and you'll discover why they are in the financial bind they are in today, as well as the rest of Europe.
However, it gets worse. Liberals/Democrats today proclaim their fervent support of civil rights and racial equality. Yet they support policies like affirmative action and hate-crime legislation, both of which view individuals as part of a group (usually race). Ironically enough, it was southern Democrats, many of whom were members of the Klu Klux Klan, who passed Jim Crow laws and led the charge against the civil rights movement in the 1950's and 60's.
Both ideologies have it wrong. A party cannot push for freedom on one end while calling for control on the other. R.G. Price explains it well:
"Now it has to be explained why these views are all wrong and actually mask political and economic realities. Free-market capitalism and Liberalism (in both the economic and social sense) go hand in hand with each other. It is the fact that people fail to understand this that makes the current "Conservative" movement in America so misdirected. Capitalism is actually the driving force behind the breakdown of all of the old bonds of society.... While supporting 'capitalism', conservatives denounce social liberalism, yet they fail to recognize that market capitalism promotes, and benefits from, social liberalism. They support capitalism and then complain about the effects of capitalism without seeing the relationship between the two things.... 'Conservative' citizens who support right-wing politicians are in fact contributing to the very problems that they are trying to oppose, and the result is that as the economics shift more and more to the Right, the social situation becomes more and more liberal. The conservatives then keep pressing more and more to the Right, thinking that that is the answer, but in fact it is not. The fact is that social liberalism is beneficial to corporations. The more liberal that society is, the more opportunities there are for making money..." (Price, 2004)
He goes further, this time debunking the Religious Right's contribution to the American political system:
".... This is where the fundamental break between American society and religious conservatism occurs.
Most major religions, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and others, are based on the idea of limiting an individual's desires. Fundamentally, religious societies are typically societies where people are encouraged to control their desires and limit their possessions and worldliness. Capitalist society, though, is based on the exact opposite of that. Despite the fact that FDR's New Deal appeared to be anti-business on its face, and despite the fact that the Keynesian economics of the post-WWII era in America relied on government intervention in the economy, this intervention was all designed to promote capitalism, and the means of doing that was through the promotion of consumerism.... This is why it is quite obvious that places like Las Vegas are in fact both extremely liberal and extremely capitalistic" (Price, 2004).
Why did I write this ridiculously long article on the hypocrisy of our two-party system? Because I'm fed up with people's ignorance. It seems like no one takes the time anymore to learn. Knowledge is power. If we the people ever plan on regaining such power, we have to obtain knowledge. Without it, we're clueless and will subsequently be digging our own graves.
REFERENCES:
Price, R.G. (2004). Redefining the political spectrum - the rational spectrum. Retrieved April 27, 2012 from http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/redefining_the_political_spectru.htm
*The link to the article above is a great read for political junkies like myself. It's well written and explained. I highly recommed you read it.
Friday, April 27, 2012
Monday, April 23, 2012
The American Presidents: George Washington
 |
| George Washington |
Date of Birth: Feb 22, 1732
Date of Death: Dec 14, 1799
Birthplace: Colonial Beach, VA
Political Party: Federalist
Experience prior to the Presidency:
- British soldier during the French and Indian War
- Became politician for home state of Virginia, serving in its House of Burgesses from 1759 to 1774.
- Unanimously selected as Commander-in-Chief of Continental Forces in 1775 during the Revolutionary War
His Presidency
George Washington took the oath of office on April 30, 1789 in New York City, becoming our nation's first president. His priority as the first executive was to establish an effective executive structure for future presidents. In order to do so, Washington focused on maintaining relations between the New England and Southern states, hoping to avoid sectionalism which had the potential to divide the nation. Despite his success, he could not, however, mend relations between his Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, and his Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton. This had more to do with politics than personality. Washington supported many of Hamilton's controversial fiscal policies, such as the assumption of state debts, the Bank of the United States, and the excise tax. Because of this support, Jefferson and his Democratic-Republicans often targeted the administration.To further understand why Hamilton's policies were so controversial, a thorough definition of each will be provided.
Assumption of state debts: After the Revolutionary War, many states had racked up war debts. Some were able to pay, others were not. Alexander Hamilton thought up the plan to help these debt-ridden states by proposing a policy which would shift their debt unto the federal government. The government would then ask the states that already paid to pay again. This was a very unpopular plan, especially for Virginians. However, Hamilton skillfully persuaded them to accept his proposal on the grounds the nation's capital will be relocated from New York to a location near the Potomac River. Hence, the proposal was adopted and signed into law.
My spin: Although this policy was unfair to the states who successfully paid their debts, it was a necessary step to establish a foundation for an American economy. By removing the debts from poorer states, it ensured our nation, in its infancy, would progress towards prosperity.
 |
| First Bank of U.S in Philadelphia |
To see more of Jefferson's argument against the Bank of the United States, please visit http://www.constitution.org/mon/tj-bank.htm
Hamilton, on the other hand, believed a central bank was necessary to stabilize and improve the nation's credit. He made a convincing argument, and Congress passed the formation of a the bank for a twenty-year term.
My spin: In my opinion, this is a stain on Washington's administration. A modern-day version of a national bank is the Federal Reserve, which I blame for many of our current economic problems. I agree with Jefferson. Nothing in the Constitution says Congress is authorized to establish a central bank. A national bank is the fastest way to corruption. Like Jefferson mentioned, it also greatly increases the size and scope of the federal government. The Revolutionary War was fought to get away from a tyrant king, yet we create a bank which has the potential to breed a tryannical government.
Excise tax: An excise tax is a tax on the sale of a particular good, item, or activity. Having just fought a war over taxation, the U.S. Congress wanted a reliable source of income that was relatively unobtrusive and easy to collect. Tariffs and excise taxes were authorized by the Constitution and recommended by Alexander Hamilton in 1789 to tax foreign imports and set up low excise taxes to provide the federal government with enough money to pay its operating expenses and to redeem at full value U.S. federal debts and the debts the states had accumulated during the war (Wikipedia). The tax was justified as Hamilton reasoned the country start out on a sound financial basis with good credit.
However, as expected, there were opponents of the tax. In 1791, angry farmers from Pennsylvania launched a series of attacks on tax agents in opposition to the tax placed on their cash crop -- the grains harvested and used for whiskey production. The tax eliminated any form of profit for the farmers. This became known as the Whiskey Rebellion.
The rebellion got out of hand as the farmers would start riots in numerous towns and physically assualt tax collectors in those towns. In 1794, the farmers attacked a federal marshal in Allegheny County, PA while a group of several hundred attacked the home of a regional inspector, burning the house and his barn to the ground.
This prompted President Washington to call in the militia utilizing the Militia Law of 1792, which allowed the use of militia to "execute the laws of the union (and) suppress insurrections". It was the first time the law was used, and a test to establish the power of the federal government over individual states.
The presidents order brought forth an army of approximately 13,000, and he placed them under the command of General Harry Lee, father of famous civil war general, Robert E. Lee. However, Washington himself lead the troops in a show of presidential authority. He squashed the rebellion, and restored order.
My spin: Many may possibly see this as abuse of power. However, since the excise tax was constitutional, a rebellion against it was unjustified. President Washington exhibited exceptional leadership ablity, leading the front of his militia against a violent mob. He also exercised the proper amount of force. However, his upholding of the tax remained extremely unpopular with the general public.
Foreign Policy
Despite the consistent attacks, Washington was easily re-elected in 1792. He had enjoyed a relatively quiet and uneventful presidency so far. That would all change.The following year, President Washington declared neutrality while a war waged between France and Britain. A conflict ensued inside between his cabinet, primarily and not suprisingly, between Jefferson and Hamilton. Jefferson's party (Democratic-Republicans) sided with the French, while Hamilton's (Federalists) sided with the British. Realizing the need to develop close commercial ties with the British, the president agreed to take make peace with England. This angered the pro-French Jeffersonians. However, Washington had his reasons. He was shocked by the brutatlity of the French Revolution, and enraged by the meddling of French minister to the United States, Edmond Genet, with internal affairs of the American political system. Because of the division within his own cabinet, he felt it necessary to remain neutral and avoid playing favorites.
Jay's Treaty: In 1794, President Washington sent a diplomat by the name of Jonh Jay to offer terms of a peace treaty that would be beneficial to both nations. The issue Washington faced was the British refusing to leave the forts they established in the Northwest Territory -- now known as Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Illinois, and Wisconsin. Additionally, Britain captured American ships and forced the sailors on board to fight in their war between France. The U.S. responded by passing maritime navigation laws which hurt Britain economically. These laws essentially started a trade war and threatened the progress and prosperity of the American economy.
John Jay returned after successfully negotiating terms of peace and Washington accordingly accepted the terms of the treaty. It eliminated British control of western ports in the Northwest territory; allowed the U.S. to claim any damages regarding the seizure of their ships; and permitted the U.S. a limited amount of trade in the West Indies.
The Democratic-Republicans strongly opposed this treaty, as did the American people. It was viewed as a surrender to British demands, inciting more criticism of Washington and his policies, including the excise tax.
My spin: The treaty establised peace between the two nations, and ended the British military occupation in the Northwest Territory. It aslo terminated the dangerous trade war while authorizing trade, although limited, in the British controlled West Indies. It was a win-win.
Pinckney's Treaty (Treaty of San Lorenzo of 1795): As a young nation, Washington wanted official recognition of the world's superpowers: Britian, Spain, and France. He had accomplished this with England, now he was looking for France and Spain to do the same. France was upset that the U.S. had not yet agreed to the terms of the alliance made in 1778 during the Revolutionary War, so they refused to acknowledge the U.S. Spain, on the other hand, controlled New Orleans. The city was crucial for American farmers in the western territories who would usually transport goods by overland routes, a process which was very time-consuming and expensive. New Orleans would allow them to transport their goods to the east in an economically friendly way.
Washington dispatched Thomas Pinckney to strike a deal with Spain. Realizing America's new friendship with Great Britain -- a key rival -- Spain decided to balance the power and strengthen its own relationship with the U.S by offering the following concessions:
1) They would recognize the U.S. border at the Mississippi River and the 31st parallel -- the northern border of Florida.
2) They granted Americans the right to deposit -- to temporarily store goods for shipment -- in New Orleans. American farmers got what they needed.
My spin: The United States was practically recognized as a legitimate nation (2 out of 3 ain't bad!). Also, the American agricultural industry was given a huge boost when New Orleans was opened and considerably expanded U.S. territory. Also on the plus side, Spain had another international friend.
Conclusion: President Washington presided over the nation's first eight years under the Constitution. Like every leader, there were obstacles and challenges to overcome. Washington declined to run for a third-term. He felt old and decided to retire to his home near Mount Vernon. When he left, the U.S. financial system was stable. Not talked about above, Washington's administration also removed the Indian "threat" east of the Mississippi, and scored major political and diplomatic victories with the Jay and Pinckney treaties. During his tenure, he realized a disturbing trend of partisan politics. In his farewell address to Congress, he urged his fellow countrymen to stay away from such eager party spirit. He also warned of foreign entanglements and permanent alliances. This is the message he left hoping it would be followed for the sake of the country's future. He was succeeded by his Vice-President, John Adams.
Grade: B+
References:
Excise tax: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excise_tax_in_the_United_States#Historical_Background
Monday, April 16, 2012
How to fix Social Security
Everybody with a job pays the "Social Security" tax, along with many others. I'm not sure what the rate is, but I know it can be quite a bit, especially if happened to pull in a bonus for month. The money taken from this tax goes to the Social Security Trust Fund which provides a subsistence allowance to retirees and the disabled. So what's the problem? Many argue that the fund is broken; insolvent. They believe that we should privatize it, or at least allow some of the younger workers the option to invest a portion of their social security payments into a personal retirement plan. Furthermore, others have called for a complete repeal of Social Security, calling it an "entitlement" system. I agree with the idea that giving younger Americans the option to take personal responsibility for their own retirement, however, I strongly oppose the dismantling of our Social Security system.
It's painfully obvious that the system is indeed broken. It is underfunded, therefore, providing an unreasonable amount a person can live on with rising prices in today's market. When FDR created Social Security as part of his "New Deal", it proved to be a huge success. Of course, in those days, there were five workers to every retiree. Flip that scenario. There is now only one worker to every five retirees, so you can understand how much of a burden we are putting on the trust fund. But does this mean we abolish the system? Does this mean we destroy a program that unfairly denies benefits to those who put into it themselves? No. The question is not, how do we get rid of it? The question is, how do we fix it?
It's not an easy one to answer. Many retirees and disabled citizens depend on social security. To eradicate it would be irresponsible because not only are you taking someone's income, you're stripping them of their livelihood.
So I ask again: how do we fix it?
We can start off by getting Americans working again. The more money we are bringing in, the more the government has to fund it. But how do we get Americans working? It's government's job to create an environment of competition among businesses; for success. First things first: cut the red tape. Get rid of unnecessary, burdensome regulations. The only regulation a government should impose on the market is to ensure monopolies don't occur. After all, we want competition, not a single company who can charge what it wants.
Second, we cut corporate taxes! Sounds simple enough. But what we must remember is that cutting taxes and deregulating our economy isn't enough to get businesses hiring again. They need to see optimism. If they are confident that our market isn't going to collapse, or the economy is on the upswing, then they will hire. Unfortunately, with the debt the United States has accrued due to trillions of dollars of deficit spending, there's not much to go around. Also, inflation is a major concern. The Federal Reserve believes its policy of printing money is aiding some sort of economic recovery, when in fact, it's only exacerbating the situation. (Note: Inflation is not a rise in prices. Inflation is the increase of the money supply causing a rise in prices. This is basic economics. The more money in circulation, the less the value of a dollar. A dollar now buys less, resulting in higher prices to make up for the lost value.) The Fed needs to be abolished and the money supply deflated. Bring in a competing currency -- like gold and silver -- to offset the loss of cash. A balanced budget needs to passed with severe cuts in the trillions, and payment of the entire national debt. This will create a positive environment for businesses to succeed.
A large portion of the cuts I mentioned above are coming from the Department of Defense. We will not scale back our military. I would like to maintain that, if possible. However, overseas spending is what's hurting the back of the Unites States economy. Wars cost money. So do the bases we use to house our troops. Most U.S. military bases cost millions to maintain -- we have hundreds! I bet if we brought home all military personnel, we might just have enough to keep social security solvent.
Some may ask the question: "But Chris, isn't Social Security big government? Isn't it an entitlement program?" Yeah, maybe so. But wouldn't you want a return on your investment? Is it not fair to receive the very same benefits others got when you supported them? I think it is. So what if it's an entitlement program? When the time comes, you'll be receiving the same benefits.
But, to be fair, if our incompetent politicians can't come up with a solution to the problem, social security will have to be gradually phased out. Here's how this plan works:
1) Those already receiving benefits can continue to claim them if they so choose.
2) For those of a certain age or younger, give them the option of a) continuing paying into the system b) getting off of the system and financing their own retirement, or c) allow them to invest a portion into a private account.
3) If necessary, increase the retirement age. We shouldn't have to do this if we follow the steps above (i.e, balanced budget, paying down debt, removing troops from foreign soil).
4) Cut some benefits for those who also have private retirement accounts. I generally wouldn't support this, but desperate times for call for desperate measures.
5) This is an absolute last resort, because I would absolutely hate to do this: Raise the SS tax.
These are just some ideas. I don't know if they would actually work, but at least I'm attempting to think of a solution to a very real dilemma. I'm also being brutally honest. I mean, how many politicians do you know say they're going to raise your taxes (besides President Obama)? I can literally count them on one hand!
Supporting SS for me is troubling because I generally favor smaller government. But because it worked before, it means we can make it work again. We're just going to have to think outside of the box.
It's painfully obvious that the system is indeed broken. It is underfunded, therefore, providing an unreasonable amount a person can live on with rising prices in today's market. When FDR created Social Security as part of his "New Deal", it proved to be a huge success. Of course, in those days, there were five workers to every retiree. Flip that scenario. There is now only one worker to every five retirees, so you can understand how much of a burden we are putting on the trust fund. But does this mean we abolish the system? Does this mean we destroy a program that unfairly denies benefits to those who put into it themselves? No. The question is not, how do we get rid of it? The question is, how do we fix it?
It's not an easy one to answer. Many retirees and disabled citizens depend on social security. To eradicate it would be irresponsible because not only are you taking someone's income, you're stripping them of their livelihood.
So I ask again: how do we fix it?
We can start off by getting Americans working again. The more money we are bringing in, the more the government has to fund it. But how do we get Americans working? It's government's job to create an environment of competition among businesses; for success. First things first: cut the red tape. Get rid of unnecessary, burdensome regulations. The only regulation a government should impose on the market is to ensure monopolies don't occur. After all, we want competition, not a single company who can charge what it wants.
Second, we cut corporate taxes! Sounds simple enough. But what we must remember is that cutting taxes and deregulating our economy isn't enough to get businesses hiring again. They need to see optimism. If they are confident that our market isn't going to collapse, or the economy is on the upswing, then they will hire. Unfortunately, with the debt the United States has accrued due to trillions of dollars of deficit spending, there's not much to go around. Also, inflation is a major concern. The Federal Reserve believes its policy of printing money is aiding some sort of economic recovery, when in fact, it's only exacerbating the situation. (Note: Inflation is not a rise in prices. Inflation is the increase of the money supply causing a rise in prices. This is basic economics. The more money in circulation, the less the value of a dollar. A dollar now buys less, resulting in higher prices to make up for the lost value.) The Fed needs to be abolished and the money supply deflated. Bring in a competing currency -- like gold and silver -- to offset the loss of cash. A balanced budget needs to passed with severe cuts in the trillions, and payment of the entire national debt. This will create a positive environment for businesses to succeed.
A large portion of the cuts I mentioned above are coming from the Department of Defense. We will not scale back our military. I would like to maintain that, if possible. However, overseas spending is what's hurting the back of the Unites States economy. Wars cost money. So do the bases we use to house our troops. Most U.S. military bases cost millions to maintain -- we have hundreds! I bet if we brought home all military personnel, we might just have enough to keep social security solvent.
Some may ask the question: "But Chris, isn't Social Security big government? Isn't it an entitlement program?" Yeah, maybe so. But wouldn't you want a return on your investment? Is it not fair to receive the very same benefits others got when you supported them? I think it is. So what if it's an entitlement program? When the time comes, you'll be receiving the same benefits.
But, to be fair, if our incompetent politicians can't come up with a solution to the problem, social security will have to be gradually phased out. Here's how this plan works:
1) Those already receiving benefits can continue to claim them if they so choose.
2) For those of a certain age or younger, give them the option of a) continuing paying into the system b) getting off of the system and financing their own retirement, or c) allow them to invest a portion into a private account.
3) If necessary, increase the retirement age. We shouldn't have to do this if we follow the steps above (i.e, balanced budget, paying down debt, removing troops from foreign soil).
4) Cut some benefits for those who also have private retirement accounts. I generally wouldn't support this, but desperate times for call for desperate measures.
5) This is an absolute last resort, because I would absolutely hate to do this: Raise the SS tax.
These are just some ideas. I don't know if they would actually work, but at least I'm attempting to think of a solution to a very real dilemma. I'm also being brutally honest. I mean, how many politicians do you know say they're going to raise your taxes (besides President Obama)? I can literally count them on one hand!
Supporting SS for me is troubling because I generally favor smaller government. But because it worked before, it means we can make it work again. We're just going to have to think outside of the box.
Friday, April 13, 2012
War Propaganda, Only Sheep Believe It
I love animals. I especially love dogs. There's a reason they're called "man's best friend". And because I'm an animal lover, I really, really hate to beat a dead horse. I don't mean that in a literal sense.
What I'm referring to is my distaste for United States foreign policy in the past decade. The combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan has devastated the American economy, further jeopardized national security, and worst of all, cost many lives. Fortunately, our government executed a full withdrawal from Iraq this past December (at least that's what we're told). As for Afghanistan, we're still there. It's been over a decade and there seems to be no end in sight.
I'm a firm believer that if we do utilize our military, we need to have a clear purpose and exit plan. In other words, get the job done and then leave. Don't "overstay our welcome". At first, I supported the invasion of Iraq because I believed our action would remove a benevolent, murderous dictator from power -- a dictator who was put in power by our government. The mission was accomplished. Saddam was defeated and captured. We stayed to provide security while a democratic government could be formed. Once that happened, our mission was over... or was it? No. We were told that there were insurgents still inside the country and also spilling over from Iran to oppose our military. I didn't buy it. As far as I was concerned, it was time to leave. But we stayed eight more years... eight more years!
Combat operations in Afghanistan were completely unnecessary, as were the lives lost in its campaign. The Taliban regime in Afghanistan had admitted to harboring the Al Qaeda masterminds, including Osama bin Laden, behind 9/11. Although the Taliban didn't have a navy or an air force, we still found it necessary to invade the desolate country in the name of "justice". Not only that, but we didn't stop to think that we are on their territory, patrolling through mountainous ravines which the enemy knows better than anyone else. Also, historically, every country that has invaded Afghanistan has never succeeded. That includes the former Soviet Union. So why would it be any different? I mean, we've been there for over 10 years now! If we're still talking about "not leaving until we win", that tells me these last 10 years was a complete waste of time, money, and resources, as well as the lives of our soldiers.
We need to learn to keep our noses out of every one's business and quit insisting we build military bases all over the world. That's called imperialism. The Roman Empire did that as well, and look what happened to them. We will meet the same fate if we don't change something soon.
What fired me up this time? Well, a relative had posted a picture message on Facebook which read as follows:
"Please click 'Share' if you would pause for a moment to pray for the men and women in our army that is fighting to keep us safe."
*sigh* -- Our men and women in the military are not fighting to keep us safe. They can't keep us safe if they're over 10,000 miles away. And yes, a prayer is most definitely needed. Our government is asking our troops to maintain their empire. Their spilling their blood, not to preserve our freedoms, but our government's desire for world domination.
Look at this way. We have a problem with illegal immigration, right? We have over 11 million undocumented immigrants in this country. Everyday, the come over by the thousands. Now, if our troops are in Afghanistan hunting for terrorists on the Pakistani border, how can they keep us safe when terrorists can sneak in across our borders which are inadequately guarded. It's not logical.
Plus, if you take the example of the Palestinian man who shot and killed seven Jewish school children in France as a protest against France's foreign intervention in the Middle East. Hmm, maybe our intervention is pissing off a lot of radical Muslim extremists as well? In fact, I would say that's a good bet. We've been involved in the dirty business of planting puppet governments in Iran, Iraq, and Egypt. In fact, the United States, along with Great Britain, deposed of popular prime minister Mohammad Mossaddegh because he nationalized Iran's oil industry. When this happened, the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi's took control and practically destroyed all political opposition. That's when Ayotollah Ruhollah Khomeini denounced the Pahlavi regime. He was arrested, and once released in 1964, he blamed the U.S. government for replacing a great leader with an autocratic one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#Pahlavi_dynasty_.281925.E2.80.931979.29
So did we piss some people off? Hell yeah we did! But all you hear from the media and the politicians is the terrorists are just evil people. We did nothing to provoke any attacks. We need to continue to fight the war in Afghanistan to ensure the safety of our citizens. Also, we need to implement a Patriot Act which allows us to spy on anyone in the country without a warrant. Don't worry about if it's constitutional. It's for the safety of our citizens.
This is just war propaganda. The sad thing is, there are many people out there who buy this lie and believe we are the only good guys. Yes, they attacked us and there needs to be justice. The terrorists are not innocent by any means, but we shouldn't invade countries who are not a legitimate threat to us. Afghanistan does not have a navy or an air force and is over 10,000 miles away.
It's perfectly OK to support our troops. They're just doing their job. I just don't support our government's policy of pre-emptive attacks. It's wrong and makes us the bad guys just as much as the terrorists.
Don't buy into the propaganda people. Our troops are not defending our freedoms; they're not keeping us safe. On the contrary, we are putting their lives in danger, as well as ours. If we truly want to feel safe, remove all of our troops from foreign soil and place them on our borders where they can truly keep us safe from the terrorists who are trying to enter our country.
What I'm referring to is my distaste for United States foreign policy in the past decade. The combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan has devastated the American economy, further jeopardized national security, and worst of all, cost many lives. Fortunately, our government executed a full withdrawal from Iraq this past December (at least that's what we're told). As for Afghanistan, we're still there. It's been over a decade and there seems to be no end in sight.
I'm a firm believer that if we do utilize our military, we need to have a clear purpose and exit plan. In other words, get the job done and then leave. Don't "overstay our welcome". At first, I supported the invasion of Iraq because I believed our action would remove a benevolent, murderous dictator from power -- a dictator who was put in power by our government. The mission was accomplished. Saddam was defeated and captured. We stayed to provide security while a democratic government could be formed. Once that happened, our mission was over... or was it? No. We were told that there were insurgents still inside the country and also spilling over from Iran to oppose our military. I didn't buy it. As far as I was concerned, it was time to leave. But we stayed eight more years... eight more years!
Combat operations in Afghanistan were completely unnecessary, as were the lives lost in its campaign. The Taliban regime in Afghanistan had admitted to harboring the Al Qaeda masterminds, including Osama bin Laden, behind 9/11. Although the Taliban didn't have a navy or an air force, we still found it necessary to invade the desolate country in the name of "justice". Not only that, but we didn't stop to think that we are on their territory, patrolling through mountainous ravines which the enemy knows better than anyone else. Also, historically, every country that has invaded Afghanistan has never succeeded. That includes the former Soviet Union. So why would it be any different? I mean, we've been there for over 10 years now! If we're still talking about "not leaving until we win", that tells me these last 10 years was a complete waste of time, money, and resources, as well as the lives of our soldiers.
We need to learn to keep our noses out of every one's business and quit insisting we build military bases all over the world. That's called imperialism. The Roman Empire did that as well, and look what happened to them. We will meet the same fate if we don't change something soon.
What fired me up this time? Well, a relative had posted a picture message on Facebook which read as follows:
"Please click 'Share' if you would pause for a moment to pray for the men and women in our army that is fighting to keep us safe."
*sigh* -- Our men and women in the military are not fighting to keep us safe. They can't keep us safe if they're over 10,000 miles away. And yes, a prayer is most definitely needed. Our government is asking our troops to maintain their empire. Their spilling their blood, not to preserve our freedoms, but our government's desire for world domination.
Look at this way. We have a problem with illegal immigration, right? We have over 11 million undocumented immigrants in this country. Everyday, the come over by the thousands. Now, if our troops are in Afghanistan hunting for terrorists on the Pakistani border, how can they keep us safe when terrorists can sneak in across our borders which are inadequately guarded. It's not logical.
Plus, if you take the example of the Palestinian man who shot and killed seven Jewish school children in France as a protest against France's foreign intervention in the Middle East. Hmm, maybe our intervention is pissing off a lot of radical Muslim extremists as well? In fact, I would say that's a good bet. We've been involved in the dirty business of planting puppet governments in Iran, Iraq, and Egypt. In fact, the United States, along with Great Britain, deposed of popular prime minister Mohammad Mossaddegh because he nationalized Iran's oil industry. When this happened, the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi's took control and practically destroyed all political opposition. That's when Ayotollah Ruhollah Khomeini denounced the Pahlavi regime. He was arrested, and once released in 1964, he blamed the U.S. government for replacing a great leader with an autocratic one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#Pahlavi_dynasty_.281925.E2.80.931979.29
So did we piss some people off? Hell yeah we did! But all you hear from the media and the politicians is the terrorists are just evil people. We did nothing to provoke any attacks. We need to continue to fight the war in Afghanistan to ensure the safety of our citizens. Also, we need to implement a Patriot Act which allows us to spy on anyone in the country without a warrant. Don't worry about if it's constitutional. It's for the safety of our citizens.
This is just war propaganda. The sad thing is, there are many people out there who buy this lie and believe we are the only good guys. Yes, they attacked us and there needs to be justice. The terrorists are not innocent by any means, but we shouldn't invade countries who are not a legitimate threat to us. Afghanistan does not have a navy or an air force and is over 10,000 miles away.
It's perfectly OK to support our troops. They're just doing their job. I just don't support our government's policy of pre-emptive attacks. It's wrong and makes us the bad guys just as much as the terrorists.
Don't buy into the propaganda people. Our troops are not defending our freedoms; they're not keeping us safe. On the contrary, we are putting their lives in danger, as well as ours. If we truly want to feel safe, remove all of our troops from foreign soil and place them on our borders where they can truly keep us safe from the terrorists who are trying to enter our country.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Rick Santorum suspends his campaign for President...
I'm sure you've heard by now that former Senator Rick Santorum suspended his campaign for president, clearing the way for the remaining candidates to have an opportunity to pick up additional delegates. His three-year-old daughter Bella is battling a life threatening illness called Trisomy 18. She was hospitalized on Friday in Virginia, and Santorum was by her side the entire time.
I tip my hat to Senator Santorum. Despite everything he's sacrificed in his campaign - time, money, and family - he ultimately sees his responsibility as a father first. I wish the Senator good luck with any future endeavors and send my best wishes to his daughter, Bella.
So now the question is: How will this affect the Republican primary? Will Mitt Romney, who at this point is clearly the front-runner and will inevitably get the nomination, continue his dominance or will Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich find ways to spoil the former Massachusetts Governor's hopes in his second attempt for President?
Personally, I would like to see Ron Paul gain a majority, if not all, of Rick Santorum's delegates. He actually has a vision for this country, and its not just regurgitated talking points that most politicians resort to when they have no idea what they are talking about. As for Newt Gingrich, I just don't trust him. Sure, I agree with some of his views regarding economics. But overall, I think he would be dangerous, especially in the area of foreign policy.
Mitt Romney... where do I begin? This guy doesn't have any principles. He supports whatever the general public supports. He's a flip-flopper. First, he's pro-choice, then he's pro-life. First he says he "doesn't line up with the NRA", then when running for president as a Republican, he's been a life-long member. You name it, he's probably flipped on it. He's not consistent with his views, therefore, there's reason to believe he won't be consistent as president.
Also, Romney gives off this smug-rich-guy vibe. He doesn't seem like the common, everyday person. To be fair, most politicians don't. But there's just something about him that bothers me. Maybe it's his arrogance (does anyone else sense this?), or maybe it's the smug grin on his face that says, "You people are suckers."
I see Rick Santorum's dropping out as a domino effect which will ultimately lead to a Mitt Romney vs. Barack Obama showdown in the general election.
Like I said earlier, I would like to see Ron Paul give Romney a run for his money. However, I don't see this as reality. As much as I would love a Ron Paul presidency, it'll never happen. It's no secret Ron Paul is not a friend of the banks and corporations that live off of the Federal Reserve system.
If Romney gets the nod -- he most likely will -- then I will either write in Ron Paul, or vote for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, who in many regards, is similar to Ron Paul. He shares the same views for foreign policy as well as the principles behind economic and personal freedom.
It's going to be an interesting next few weeks in the Republican primary. Will Gingrich or Paul drop because they can't compete with Romney financially, or will both candidates surge and give Romney a bitter fight to the end?
I tip my hat to Senator Santorum. Despite everything he's sacrificed in his campaign - time, money, and family - he ultimately sees his responsibility as a father first. I wish the Senator good luck with any future endeavors and send my best wishes to his daughter, Bella.
So now the question is: How will this affect the Republican primary? Will Mitt Romney, who at this point is clearly the front-runner and will inevitably get the nomination, continue his dominance or will Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich find ways to spoil the former Massachusetts Governor's hopes in his second attempt for President?
Personally, I would like to see Ron Paul gain a majority, if not all, of Rick Santorum's delegates. He actually has a vision for this country, and its not just regurgitated talking points that most politicians resort to when they have no idea what they are talking about. As for Newt Gingrich, I just don't trust him. Sure, I agree with some of his views regarding economics. But overall, I think he would be dangerous, especially in the area of foreign policy.
Mitt Romney... where do I begin? This guy doesn't have any principles. He supports whatever the general public supports. He's a flip-flopper. First, he's pro-choice, then he's pro-life. First he says he "doesn't line up with the NRA", then when running for president as a Republican, he's been a life-long member. You name it, he's probably flipped on it. He's not consistent with his views, therefore, there's reason to believe he won't be consistent as president.
Also, Romney gives off this smug-rich-guy vibe. He doesn't seem like the common, everyday person. To be fair, most politicians don't. But there's just something about him that bothers me. Maybe it's his arrogance (does anyone else sense this?), or maybe it's the smug grin on his face that says, "You people are suckers."
I see Rick Santorum's dropping out as a domino effect which will ultimately lead to a Mitt Romney vs. Barack Obama showdown in the general election.
Like I said earlier, I would like to see Ron Paul give Romney a run for his money. However, I don't see this as reality. As much as I would love a Ron Paul presidency, it'll never happen. It's no secret Ron Paul is not a friend of the banks and corporations that live off of the Federal Reserve system.
If Romney gets the nod -- he most likely will -- then I will either write in Ron Paul, or vote for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, who in many regards, is similar to Ron Paul. He shares the same views for foreign policy as well as the principles behind economic and personal freedom.
It's going to be an interesting next few weeks in the Republican primary. Will Gingrich or Paul drop because they can't compete with Romney financially, or will both candidates surge and give Romney a bitter fight to the end?
Sunday, April 8, 2012
To Run or Not to Run...
When I first enrolled into college, I had an idea of what I wanted to do. I wanted to run for office, touting a political science degree to do so. However, after some time, I changed my major to journalism. Politics is a cut-throat business -- yes, a business. Politicians are now making a living being a "public servant", unlike the days during the Founding Fathers when representatives made a living outside of government. Most were farmers or small business owners who would usually return to their respective occupations after one or two terms. My, how things have changed!
Politics is also rarely personal. The media monitors your every move, waiting for you to make a mistake so they have another newsworthy scandal to boost their ratings. Political opponents will also exploit your emotions by citing attacks against your family. I didn't want to put my wife and kids through that ordeal. It was not a price I was willing to pay.
So, what better profession than journalism? I can still follow politics, do what I love (write), and try to make a difference with ideas. I find it enjoying, hence the reason for this blog. Sometimes, though, I feel like I'm wasting my time because no one is reading it. For that reason (also my doubt about the strength of my writing ability) have made me reconsider the option of running for public office. I won't abandon my responsibility as a student. I will finish school; get my degree. But in the meantime, I could actually contribute to society by serving as a state representative.
Right now, I feel inadequate as a provider. I've been unemployed for quite some time (going on two years?). I was permanently "laid off" due to poor financial management by the owner of my previous employer. Since then, I've had my resume posted in the Michigan Talent Bank, but no one has come knocking for my services. As a Marine Corps veteran with tons of experience in the administrative field, it pisses me off that I'm not qualified to serve as an office assistant in some rinky-dink RV/outdoor store. And applying for a position within the federal government is more hassle than what it's worth.
Luckily, my going to school generates an income from the VA. I get paid enough to cover the rent, while my wife's job covers the rest of the bills, groceries, and other miscellaneous expenses. Also, I draw disability from the VA, but its only enough for minor expenses.
Anyways, sorry to complain about my life. I didn't intend to, but I felt this would help explain why my wanting to be a state representative makes me feel like I'm actually doing something; like the work I do is appreciated.
However, as much as I would like to, I cannot run for office. The following points will elaborate as to why:
1) I don't have the money. Everyone knows it takes money to win a campaign. Usually the more you have, the better chance of victory.
2) I don't have the time. Campaigning will pretty much be my full-time job. I would have to attend fundraisers, town hall meetings and rallies. It would require cutting into my studying time. Worst of all, it would force Carmen to adjust her schedule. If she can't, I certainly don't have the time to drag my children along. My oldest has school to attend.
3) I don't have any legitimate experience. What's on my resume? Marine Corps veteran... worked for the collection industry... currently unemployed. The only political experience I have is volunteering for Congressman Justin Amash, who at that time was running to replace long-time 3rd district representative, Vern Ehlers. Other than that, nothing.
4) Because of #3, I don't think I can muster enough support. My youth and inexperience is a turn-off for likely voters. Ronald Reagan proved this theory to be true. In his re-election campaign in 1984, after Walter Mondale accused him of being too old to make sound decisions as president, he reframed the argument against his opponent's "youth and inexperience". It worked.
5) My political positions will alienate many voters. I am not really a Republican, and I'm definitely not a Democrat. However, I do hold some liberal views on certain issues, while holding very conservative views on others. I think this balance is attractive, yet from what I watch, read, and hear, this is not the case. Most either want all-liberal candidates or all-conservative candidates.
Those five "excuses" are prohibiting me from running for office. I don't even know if I'm old enough at this point. I'm only 26. But that shouldn't restrict me from running. If 18 is considered adequate to defend this country, it should be old enough to run for office -- especially at the state level!
Maybe I'm getting in over my head. At this point, I'm thinking I should stick with journalism and stay away from the public arena for my family's sake, as well as mine.
What do you think? Could you ever see me running for office?
Politics is also rarely personal. The media monitors your every move, waiting for you to make a mistake so they have another newsworthy scandal to boost their ratings. Political opponents will also exploit your emotions by citing attacks against your family. I didn't want to put my wife and kids through that ordeal. It was not a price I was willing to pay.
So, what better profession than journalism? I can still follow politics, do what I love (write), and try to make a difference with ideas. I find it enjoying, hence the reason for this blog. Sometimes, though, I feel like I'm wasting my time because no one is reading it. For that reason (also my doubt about the strength of my writing ability) have made me reconsider the option of running for public office. I won't abandon my responsibility as a student. I will finish school; get my degree. But in the meantime, I could actually contribute to society by serving as a state representative.
Right now, I feel inadequate as a provider. I've been unemployed for quite some time (going on two years?). I was permanently "laid off" due to poor financial management by the owner of my previous employer. Since then, I've had my resume posted in the Michigan Talent Bank, but no one has come knocking for my services. As a Marine Corps veteran with tons of experience in the administrative field, it pisses me off that I'm not qualified to serve as an office assistant in some rinky-dink RV/outdoor store. And applying for a position within the federal government is more hassle than what it's worth.
Luckily, my going to school generates an income from the VA. I get paid enough to cover the rent, while my wife's job covers the rest of the bills, groceries, and other miscellaneous expenses. Also, I draw disability from the VA, but its only enough for minor expenses.
Anyways, sorry to complain about my life. I didn't intend to, but I felt this would help explain why my wanting to be a state representative makes me feel like I'm actually doing something; like the work I do is appreciated.
However, as much as I would like to, I cannot run for office. The following points will elaborate as to why:
1) I don't have the money. Everyone knows it takes money to win a campaign. Usually the more you have, the better chance of victory.
2) I don't have the time. Campaigning will pretty much be my full-time job. I would have to attend fundraisers, town hall meetings and rallies. It would require cutting into my studying time. Worst of all, it would force Carmen to adjust her schedule. If she can't, I certainly don't have the time to drag my children along. My oldest has school to attend.
3) I don't have any legitimate experience. What's on my resume? Marine Corps veteran... worked for the collection industry... currently unemployed. The only political experience I have is volunteering for Congressman Justin Amash, who at that time was running to replace long-time 3rd district representative, Vern Ehlers. Other than that, nothing.
4) Because of #3, I don't think I can muster enough support. My youth and inexperience is a turn-off for likely voters. Ronald Reagan proved this theory to be true. In his re-election campaign in 1984, after Walter Mondale accused him of being too old to make sound decisions as president, he reframed the argument against his opponent's "youth and inexperience". It worked.
5) My political positions will alienate many voters. I am not really a Republican, and I'm definitely not a Democrat. However, I do hold some liberal views on certain issues, while holding very conservative views on others. I think this balance is attractive, yet from what I watch, read, and hear, this is not the case. Most either want all-liberal candidates or all-conservative candidates.
Those five "excuses" are prohibiting me from running for office. I don't even know if I'm old enough at this point. I'm only 26. But that shouldn't restrict me from running. If 18 is considered adequate to defend this country, it should be old enough to run for office -- especially at the state level!
Maybe I'm getting in over my head. At this point, I'm thinking I should stick with journalism and stay away from the public arena for my family's sake, as well as mine.
What do you think? Could you ever see me running for office?
Saturday, April 7, 2012
A Modern Day Prohibition
I haven't had a legitimate reason to post in the past few days because the start of the baseball season diverted my attention away from politics. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Following politics can be draining, especially when you hear the same thing over... and over... and over again. In fact, I don't miss it. Not to say I won't be following it, but you might notice a decline in the frequency of my posts.
Since I have nothing better to do while I wait for the laundry to finish, I find this to be a great opportunity to discuss my current dissertation on the legalization of marijuana. This paper is due two weeks from tomorrow (Sunday) and is required to be eight to ten pages in length. Luckily, I have enough material to make a healthy case for it.
First off, I would like to squash the rumors that marijuana is NOT a gateway drug. Yes, people that have used harder drugs also smoked marijuana in the past, but they did not do these drugs because of marijuana. This is just a fallacy intended to maintain support for the government's unwinnable "war on drugs".
While it's on my mind, allow me to explain my opposition to the war on drugs. Having been a staunch supporter of it, I now oppose it on the grounds that the government is actually exercising a type of prohibition. Sure, they tell you that the war on drugs is intended to keep unhealthy and deadly drugs out of the hands of our kids. But studies have shown that more adults smoke weed than minors. Also, marijuana use by minors has significantly decreased since the 1970's due to an anti-marijuana awareness campaign, not the war on drugs.
So, like I stated above, the war on drugs is actually a form of prohibition -- one that costs billions of dollars a year to maintain. This is not only wasteful spending, but unintelligent as well. I mean, why spend billions to stop marijuana from flowing in and out of this country when 11 states have already legalized medicinal marijuana? The "medicinal" marijuana is pretty easy to get, too. Moving on. Look what happened with the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920's. The intent was to restore the morality of society by trying to rid it of crime, corruption, lower taxes needed to support prisons and poorhouses, and to improve general health. Instead they got MORE crime (organized crime) and corruption, MORE taxes need to support prisons and poor houses, and the alcohol that was distributed was improperly brewed and contained dangerous chemical additives.
When we keep harmless substances, like marijuana, illegal, we're helping the drug cartels build their bank account. The modern-day drug cartels are similar to the organized crime syndicates of the 1920s. They are illegally distributing marijuana for profit. Also, the marijuana that is distributed is also improperly grown and enhanced using chemicals that are extremely unhealthy to the body, much like the beer brewed in the 1920s. Although re-legalizing alcohol didn't eradicate organized crime, the bootlegging business was finished. The same applies to marijuana and the drug cartels. If we legalize it, the smuggling of marijuana into our country will end, which then allows our government to focus on more harmful substances like cocaine and heroine.
Legalization also saves our government billions of dollars in taxpayer money in the prison industry. All of those who were convicted and are sitting in prison for simple possession charges will now be released. Taxpayer money will not be wasted housing and feeding these "criminals", although smoking marijuana is a victimless crime.
I've had others argue against legalization. I've been told that many individuals "will be driving around high all the time." Ha! People drive around drunk... what's the difference? And alcohol is legal! So are cigarettes, which bar warnings on their packs explaining the dangers of tobacco use. And that's what confuses me about the whole thing. Cigarettes, which contain rat poison and tar, are legal, yet marijuana -- which is unhealthy because of benevolent drug lords -- is not. If our government could regulate the growing of marijuana to ensure harmful chemicals aren't entering the body of its users, then legalizing it would make sense. Additionally, our government could also rake in extra revenue from marijuana sales. Cut billions of dollars of waste from the budget; bring billions in. It's a win-win.
If you still don't agree, then allow me to persuade you just once more. Alcohol and cigarettes are legal. If you don't drink, you don't buy alcohol, correct? If you don't smoke, you don't buy cigarettes, correct? Well, that's the beauty about it: no one is forcing you to. Marijuana can be legal but it doesn't mean you have to smoke it. And just to be sure that our children aren't exposed to it, ban it from public places, or designate special "cafes" allowed for adults 18 years or older.
All this fuss about a "dangerous drug" like marijuana being legalized is not a big deal, since we already have "drugs" like alcohol and cigarettes, both of which cause can cause a physical dependence. Marijuana is psychological and much, much easier to quit.
Since I have nothing better to do while I wait for the laundry to finish, I find this to be a great opportunity to discuss my current dissertation on the legalization of marijuana. This paper is due two weeks from tomorrow (Sunday) and is required to be eight to ten pages in length. Luckily, I have enough material to make a healthy case for it.
First off, I would like to squash the rumors that marijuana is NOT a gateway drug. Yes, people that have used harder drugs also smoked marijuana in the past, but they did not do these drugs because of marijuana. This is just a fallacy intended to maintain support for the government's unwinnable "war on drugs".
While it's on my mind, allow me to explain my opposition to the war on drugs. Having been a staunch supporter of it, I now oppose it on the grounds that the government is actually exercising a type of prohibition. Sure, they tell you that the war on drugs is intended to keep unhealthy and deadly drugs out of the hands of our kids. But studies have shown that more adults smoke weed than minors. Also, marijuana use by minors has significantly decreased since the 1970's due to an anti-marijuana awareness campaign, not the war on drugs.
So, like I stated above, the war on drugs is actually a form of prohibition -- one that costs billions of dollars a year to maintain. This is not only wasteful spending, but unintelligent as well. I mean, why spend billions to stop marijuana from flowing in and out of this country when 11 states have already legalized medicinal marijuana? The "medicinal" marijuana is pretty easy to get, too. Moving on. Look what happened with the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920's. The intent was to restore the morality of society by trying to rid it of crime, corruption, lower taxes needed to support prisons and poorhouses, and to improve general health. Instead they got MORE crime (organized crime) and corruption, MORE taxes need to support prisons and poor houses, and the alcohol that was distributed was improperly brewed and contained dangerous chemical additives.
When we keep harmless substances, like marijuana, illegal, we're helping the drug cartels build their bank account. The modern-day drug cartels are similar to the organized crime syndicates of the 1920s. They are illegally distributing marijuana for profit. Also, the marijuana that is distributed is also improperly grown and enhanced using chemicals that are extremely unhealthy to the body, much like the beer brewed in the 1920s. Although re-legalizing alcohol didn't eradicate organized crime, the bootlegging business was finished. The same applies to marijuana and the drug cartels. If we legalize it, the smuggling of marijuana into our country will end, which then allows our government to focus on more harmful substances like cocaine and heroine.
Legalization also saves our government billions of dollars in taxpayer money in the prison industry. All of those who were convicted and are sitting in prison for simple possession charges will now be released. Taxpayer money will not be wasted housing and feeding these "criminals", although smoking marijuana is a victimless crime.
I've had others argue against legalization. I've been told that many individuals "will be driving around high all the time." Ha! People drive around drunk... what's the difference? And alcohol is legal! So are cigarettes, which bar warnings on their packs explaining the dangers of tobacco use. And that's what confuses me about the whole thing. Cigarettes, which contain rat poison and tar, are legal, yet marijuana -- which is unhealthy because of benevolent drug lords -- is not. If our government could regulate the growing of marijuana to ensure harmful chemicals aren't entering the body of its users, then legalizing it would make sense. Additionally, our government could also rake in extra revenue from marijuana sales. Cut billions of dollars of waste from the budget; bring billions in. It's a win-win.
If you still don't agree, then allow me to persuade you just once more. Alcohol and cigarettes are legal. If you don't drink, you don't buy alcohol, correct? If you don't smoke, you don't buy cigarettes, correct? Well, that's the beauty about it: no one is forcing you to. Marijuana can be legal but it doesn't mean you have to smoke it. And just to be sure that our children aren't exposed to it, ban it from public places, or designate special "cafes" allowed for adults 18 years or older.
All this fuss about a "dangerous drug" like marijuana being legalized is not a big deal, since we already have "drugs" like alcohol and cigarettes, both of which cause can cause a physical dependence. Marijuana is psychological and much, much easier to quit.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
President Obama: You will uphold... or else!
For someone who, at one point, supposedly taught constitutional law, President Obama doesn't have a clue about the process of checks and balances. He criticized the Supreme Court yesterday saying that "unelected judges" have no authority to overturn laws that have been passed by Congress. Really, Mr. President? Are you sure?
I'm not sure what the Harvard Law School curriculum is, but I do know they teach the landmark case Marbury v. Madison. This case determined that the Supreme Court does have the power to review any laws passed by Congress to actuate its constitutionality. I wonder if the president attended class that day...
The case to decide the fate of the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare, is politically significant for the president. The decision will have a direct impact on his re-election. It makes perfect sense that he is out defending his bill. He understands the importance. However, is antagonizing and insulting the Supreme Court the right way to do it?
Absolutely not.
In fact, this could affect the court's decision regarding the health care law. I mean, think logically for a second. Would you insult someone who literally had your political destiny in their hands? I sure wouldn't. But some think Obama is using intimidation and threats to get his way. Texas Republican Lamar Smith believes that "the President is trying to intimidate the Supreme Court and to that extent is trying to politicize the process."
This offended some in the judicial community. If it doesn't offend all, then something is wrong. But one judge in particular, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jerry E. Smith, took it personally.
He said that President Obama's statements "trouble a number of people who have read it somehow as a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority or to the appropriateness of the concept of judicial review". Judge Smith was so disturbed by the comments, he felt it necessary to issue an assignment -- due tomorrow afternoon -- to the Justice Dept. that "makes specific reference to president's statement" and the official position of the attorney general regarding judicial review. The assignment is a three-page, single spaced memorandum.
I applaud Judge Smith for standing up to the challenge. The president needs a reminder of his limited constitutional power.
This administration's lust of power is starting to scare me. First, it's the National Defense Authorization Act which allows the president to declare martial law, arrest American citizens without a formal charge, and detain these same individuals without due process. Then, a bill is enacted into law (the name of the bill escapes me) that restricts citizens from protesting near or inside buildings which are occupied by anyone with secret-service protection. Now he's going to tell the Supreme Court that they will abide by actions of Congress -- a Democratic congress. In fact, when the health care law was passed, not a single House or Senate Republican voted for it. The overwhelming majority shoved this "law" down the American people's throats.
I hope the Supreme Court, in spite of the president's threats, vote unanimously to overturn the law. I know I'm asking for a long shot, but it's possible.
Yet I see this as a sign. President Obama is desparate; scared, his back against the wall. Otherwise he would have no need to make public remarks in an attempt to persuade voters the Supreme Court is wrong. If we had even a sliver of evidence that revealed the Supreme Court upholding the law, there would not be a firestorm in the media.
The president is in the wrong. His comments show a lack of respect for the structure of our government. It's apparent he wants as much power as possible. It gets me thinking that maybe the rumors are true - maybe President Obama is a communist. A bit unfair, I know. But revisiting history, every communist regime has controlled - and oppressed - large portions of their population by obtaining absolute power. It is my belief that President Obama's actions are beginning to broadcast his true intentions and his idea of "change" for this country.
REFERENCES:
Fox Nation. (April 3, 2012). Obama takes aim at Supreme Court, calls them 'unelected group of people'. Retrieved April 4, 2012 from http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2012/04/02/obama-slams-activist-supreme-court-calls-them-unelected-group-people
Borchers, Callum. (April 4, 2012). Federal judge orders Justice Dept. to acknowledge courts' power. Retrieved from April 4, 2012 from http://bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2012/04/04/federal-judge-orders-justice-department-acknowledge-courts-power-after-president-obama-says-supreme-court-should-not-overturn-health-care-law/SWIxHnFAhE6LU9EtEU5t7M/story.html
I'm not sure what the Harvard Law School curriculum is, but I do know they teach the landmark case Marbury v. Madison. This case determined that the Supreme Court does have the power to review any laws passed by Congress to actuate its constitutionality. I wonder if the president attended class that day...
The case to decide the fate of the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare, is politically significant for the president. The decision will have a direct impact on his re-election. It makes perfect sense that he is out defending his bill. He understands the importance. However, is antagonizing and insulting the Supreme Court the right way to do it?
Absolutely not.
In fact, this could affect the court's decision regarding the health care law. I mean, think logically for a second. Would you insult someone who literally had your political destiny in their hands? I sure wouldn't. But some think Obama is using intimidation and threats to get his way. Texas Republican Lamar Smith believes that "the President is trying to intimidate the Supreme Court and to that extent is trying to politicize the process."
This offended some in the judicial community. If it doesn't offend all, then something is wrong. But one judge in particular, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jerry E. Smith, took it personally.
He said that President Obama's statements "trouble a number of people who have read it somehow as a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority or to the appropriateness of the concept of judicial review". Judge Smith was so disturbed by the comments, he felt it necessary to issue an assignment -- due tomorrow afternoon -- to the Justice Dept. that "makes specific reference to president's statement" and the official position of the attorney general regarding judicial review. The assignment is a three-page, single spaced memorandum.
I applaud Judge Smith for standing up to the challenge. The president needs a reminder of his limited constitutional power.
This administration's lust of power is starting to scare me. First, it's the National Defense Authorization Act which allows the president to declare martial law, arrest American citizens without a formal charge, and detain these same individuals without due process. Then, a bill is enacted into law (the name of the bill escapes me) that restricts citizens from protesting near or inside buildings which are occupied by anyone with secret-service protection. Now he's going to tell the Supreme Court that they will abide by actions of Congress -- a Democratic congress. In fact, when the health care law was passed, not a single House or Senate Republican voted for it. The overwhelming majority shoved this "law" down the American people's throats.
I hope the Supreme Court, in spite of the president's threats, vote unanimously to overturn the law. I know I'm asking for a long shot, but it's possible.
Yet I see this as a sign. President Obama is desparate; scared, his back against the wall. Otherwise he would have no need to make public remarks in an attempt to persuade voters the Supreme Court is wrong. If we had even a sliver of evidence that revealed the Supreme Court upholding the law, there would not be a firestorm in the media.
The president is in the wrong. His comments show a lack of respect for the structure of our government. It's apparent he wants as much power as possible. It gets me thinking that maybe the rumors are true - maybe President Obama is a communist. A bit unfair, I know. But revisiting history, every communist regime has controlled - and oppressed - large portions of their population by obtaining absolute power. It is my belief that President Obama's actions are beginning to broadcast his true intentions and his idea of "change" for this country.
REFERENCES:
Fox Nation. (April 3, 2012). Obama takes aim at Supreme Court, calls them 'unelected group of people'. Retrieved April 4, 2012 from http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2012/04/02/obama-slams-activist-supreme-court-calls-them-unelected-group-people
Borchers, Callum. (April 4, 2012). Federal judge orders Justice Dept. to acknowledge courts' power. Retrieved from April 4, 2012 from http://bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2012/04/04/federal-judge-orders-justice-department-acknowledge-courts-power-after-president-obama-says-supreme-court-should-not-overturn-health-care-law/SWIxHnFAhE6LU9EtEU5t7M/story.html
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
If I were President....
I've been thinking. If I was the President of the United States, what policies would I put in place? What policies would I remove? Will I be a president that panders to the lowest common denominator in order to get votes for re-election, or will I stick to my principles? I guess we would find out if I ever had a chance to become president (which I can't by the way). So I got the crazy idea of blogging the policies I would enact if I were in occupying the Oval Office. This is intended to be fun, so don't take this too seriously or get offended.
1) Eliminate the Department of Education. Give control back to the states and local districts.
2) Increase security at the southern border; reform immigration laws. With reform, I intend to lower the cost of application for citizenship. Grant temporary VISAs as long as those requesting them do not have a criminal record. Avoid massive deportations, as it would require a large portion of government spending.
3) Repeal the Patriot Act and decrease funding for homeland security to reasonable levels.
4) Repeal Obamacare and return to very limited public health options. Limited funding of Medicare and Medicaid.
5) Overturn Roe v. Wade and let the states decide what to do about abortion.
6) Further expand some free trade agreements. End the embargo on Cuba.
7) Protect the 2nd Amendment. Enforce the indivual right to own firearms to include a national concealed carry law.
8) Protect our environment, but not through the EPA. Dismantle the EPA; use the free-market to solve environmental problems.
9) Reduce dependence on foreign oil by opening federal land for drilling. Also, invest in research for alternate energy sources.
10) Implement a signficant tax cut for all businesses.
11) Institute a low, flat income tax.
12) Require a balanced budget amendment, use savings to pay down the national debt. Only utilize deficit spending in dire emergencies.
13) Gradually phase out social security. The elderly and the disabled will continue to receive subsistence. Those nearing retirement age will have the option of continuing on SS, or opting out. The rest will be left to invest in their own retirement.
14) End all corporate welfare.
15) Repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and leave the issue of marriage to the states.
16) End all affirmative action programs. These programs are pure discrimination.
17) Legalize and regulate marijuana much like alcohol and cigarettes.
18) Lower the drinking age to 18. If they are old enough to fight and die for our country, they are old enough for a beer.
19) Require semi-annual audits of the Federal Reserve Bank. If the Fed violates U.S. law, shut it down.
20) Require term limits for Congress. Four-terms as representative; two as Senator.
1) Withdraw troops from Afghanistan.
2) Bring home all U.S. troops from bases stationed overseas, and close the bases.
3) No military action will be used without a clear purpose and exit plan.
4) Resign as a member of the United Nations.
5) Maintain a strong military to ward off countries, such as Iran and North Korea.
6) Strengthen relations globally by diplomacy.
7) The U.S. will never go to war unless declared or war has been declared on us.
This is pretty much it. If I missed anything and would like to know my position on a certain issue, let me know. If you disagree with me on an issue, let me know. I would be more than happy to debate it with you. But keep in mind, this is just for fun. Don't get offended.
Also, what would you change if you could edit this list?
President Kuestner's domestic policy:
1) Eliminate the Department of Education. Give control back to the states and local districts.
2) Increase security at the southern border; reform immigration laws. With reform, I intend to lower the cost of application for citizenship. Grant temporary VISAs as long as those requesting them do not have a criminal record. Avoid massive deportations, as it would require a large portion of government spending.
3) Repeal the Patriot Act and decrease funding for homeland security to reasonable levels.
4) Repeal Obamacare and return to very limited public health options. Limited funding of Medicare and Medicaid.
5) Overturn Roe v. Wade and let the states decide what to do about abortion.
6) Further expand some free trade agreements. End the embargo on Cuba.
7) Protect the 2nd Amendment. Enforce the indivual right to own firearms to include a national concealed carry law.
8) Protect our environment, but not through the EPA. Dismantle the EPA; use the free-market to solve environmental problems.
9) Reduce dependence on foreign oil by opening federal land for drilling. Also, invest in research for alternate energy sources.
10) Implement a signficant tax cut for all businesses.
11) Institute a low, flat income tax.
12) Require a balanced budget amendment, use savings to pay down the national debt. Only utilize deficit spending in dire emergencies.
13) Gradually phase out social security. The elderly and the disabled will continue to receive subsistence. Those nearing retirement age will have the option of continuing on SS, or opting out. The rest will be left to invest in their own retirement.
14) End all corporate welfare.
15) Repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and leave the issue of marriage to the states.
16) End all affirmative action programs. These programs are pure discrimination.
17) Legalize and regulate marijuana much like alcohol and cigarettes.
18) Lower the drinking age to 18. If they are old enough to fight and die for our country, they are old enough for a beer.
19) Require semi-annual audits of the Federal Reserve Bank. If the Fed violates U.S. law, shut it down.
20) Require term limits for Congress. Four-terms as representative; two as Senator.
President Kuestner's Foreign Policy
1) Withdraw troops from Afghanistan.
2) Bring home all U.S. troops from bases stationed overseas, and close the bases.
3) No military action will be used without a clear purpose and exit plan.
4) Resign as a member of the United Nations.
5) Maintain a strong military to ward off countries, such as Iran and North Korea.
6) Strengthen relations globally by diplomacy.
7) The U.S. will never go to war unless declared or war has been declared on us.
This is pretty much it. If I missed anything and would like to know my position on a certain issue, let me know. If you disagree with me on an issue, let me know. I would be more than happy to debate it with you. But keep in mind, this is just for fun. Don't get offended.
Also, what would you change if you could edit this list?
Sunday, April 1, 2012
Affirmative Action Does Not Prevent Racism -- It Is Racism
I just recently purchased a book by Bernard Goldberg -- an eight time Emmy award winner for his work at CBS & HBO, and winner of the Alfred I. duPont-Columbia Award (the most prestigious of all broadcast journalism awards) -- titled Crazies to the Left of Me, Wimps to the Right: How One Side Lost Its Mind And the Other Lost Its Nerve. Its a brilliant little piece of work considering I've only read half. Anyway, Mr. Goldberg tells his story of his transformation from being a liberal to becoming a conservative. He accurately and passionately describes the sheer stupidity, ignorance, and above all, intolerance of the modern-day "liberal". A significant topic he touches upon is race, and how the Left is extremely hypocritical when they stake their claim as protectors and harbingers of civil rights among racial minorities, yet they egregiously support racist programs such as affirmative action. Which brings me to my "op-ed", if you will.
I agree with many of Mr. Goldberg's views on certain issues, but none more so than affirmative action. Affirmative action got its start with the late President John F. Kennedy, who though it was necessary to break down the walls of discrimination by prohibiting employers from denying individuals employment based on their race, sex, religion, and age. I'm not entirely sure if sexual orientation was yet considered during that time. President Kennedy was correct for doing so, but his intention was taken out of context. Today, affirmative action is understood to level the playing field for minorities who've endured past discrimination. Never mind that affirmative action is discrimination in itself, it's a noble idea.
If Martin Luther King, Jr. were alive today, he would be in heavy opposition to this program. Consider the following words:
What bugs me though about the black community is their idolization of Dr. King (rightfully so), yet their complete disregard for the message he portrayed. When he says someone should be judged by the content of their character, that does not mean overwhelmingly support a federal program requiring employers and colleges to give extra points on applications and admissions based on race, gender, and sexual orientation. Preferential quotas is blatant discrimination, no matter which way you look at it. For example, on one side you've got a black teenager who's dad is a doctor and mother is a lawyer, and on the other you have a white teenager who's dad is a mechanic and mother a waitress. Both apply to the same university. Despite the black teenager's background and financial status, he still gets extra points on his enrollment application simply because his skin is a different color other than white. It hardly seems fair to me.
Therefore, race/gender/sexual preference-based affirmative action, should be eliminated. An additional reason for termination is quotas also carry a limit. Black students can still be turned down because a college may have already met their quota for the month. Likewise with Asians, Hispanics, and many other ethnic backgrounds.
Once that happens, many on the Left are going to ask what can be done to help poor minorities in this country. That's not our concern. Reformation starts within the community, not from society. The black community has to change their own culture. They need strong leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr., not Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, who are not only racist themselves, but shamefully overuse the race card to promote their own political or economic agenda.
Looking ahead, individuals need to stop blaming society for their problems. Martin Luther King didn't. He did something about it. He rallied people of all colors, ethnicities, religions behind a common purpose: to eradicate the influence of racism. The black community, the Hispanic community, hell, even the white community need to turn the finger of blame on themselves. Values are taught inside the home. If we as a nation ever plan on defeating racism, crime, teen pregnancies, and giving fathers a sense of responsibility, it's time we start teaching those values again.
I agree with many of Mr. Goldberg's views on certain issues, but none more so than affirmative action. Affirmative action got its start with the late President John F. Kennedy, who though it was necessary to break down the walls of discrimination by prohibiting employers from denying individuals employment based on their race, sex, religion, and age. I'm not entirely sure if sexual orientation was yet considered during that time. President Kennedy was correct for doing so, but his intention was taken out of context. Today, affirmative action is understood to level the playing field for minorities who've endured past discrimination. Never mind that affirmative action is discrimination in itself, it's a noble idea.
If Martin Luther King, Jr. were alive today, he would be in heavy opposition to this program. Consider the following words:
"I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal. [...] I have a dream that one day my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."As you all may know, this is from Dr. King's "I Have a Dream Speech" -- a message of particular importance to the black community.
What bugs me though about the black community is their idolization of Dr. King (rightfully so), yet their complete disregard for the message he portrayed. When he says someone should be judged by the content of their character, that does not mean overwhelmingly support a federal program requiring employers and colleges to give extra points on applications and admissions based on race, gender, and sexual orientation. Preferential quotas is blatant discrimination, no matter which way you look at it. For example, on one side you've got a black teenager who's dad is a doctor and mother is a lawyer, and on the other you have a white teenager who's dad is a mechanic and mother a waitress. Both apply to the same university. Despite the black teenager's background and financial status, he still gets extra points on his enrollment application simply because his skin is a different color other than white. It hardly seems fair to me.
Therefore, race/gender/sexual preference-based affirmative action, should be eliminated. An additional reason for termination is quotas also carry a limit. Black students can still be turned down because a college may have already met their quota for the month. Likewise with Asians, Hispanics, and many other ethnic backgrounds.
Once that happens, many on the Left are going to ask what can be done to help poor minorities in this country. That's not our concern. Reformation starts within the community, not from society. The black community has to change their own culture. They need strong leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr., not Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, who are not only racist themselves, but shamefully overuse the race card to promote their own political or economic agenda.
Looking ahead, individuals need to stop blaming society for their problems. Martin Luther King didn't. He did something about it. He rallied people of all colors, ethnicities, religions behind a common purpose: to eradicate the influence of racism. The black community, the Hispanic community, hell, even the white community need to turn the finger of blame on themselves. Values are taught inside the home. If we as a nation ever plan on defeating racism, crime, teen pregnancies, and giving fathers a sense of responsibility, it's time we start teaching those values again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)