It's a sad sight to watch the three American car companies all located in Detroit (Ford, GM, Chrysler) in the shape they're in and on the brink of failure.
Even if they were "bailed out" (and we've seen how well that's helped the markets lately, can you tell I'm being sarcastic?) it would only be a short term infusion and they'd probably go right back into the same condition.
Ford, GM, and Chrysler failed for three reasons: (1) Uncompetitive product in the market place until it was too late, (2) Union greed, (3) backwards healthcare benefits to employees.
Uncompetitive Product -- who had the hybrid first? Ford and GM, or Toyota and Honda? Toyota and Honda of course. Which brands are generally considered by most people to be smoother rides, better power, and last longer with fewer problems? Even if it's not true, most people will just generally assume the Japanese brands are better. And Ford and GM and Chrysler didn't do much to fight that or improve from where they were. Combine that with an environment of rising gas prices over the past 6 years and still marketing HUMMERS in spite of that, and it's a recipe for failure.
Union Greed -- I don't have anything against unions, or at least not the concept thereof, but there is a line and a point of going too far. When you've got unions at every plant that just keep demanding more and more when they're already making a very above average wage, of course that's going to hurt the car companies. Japanese companies generally don't have problems with Labor Unions for one reason: They treat their employees well and genuinely listen to them. The Japanese spend 5 times more money and time training new employees than Americans do. American companies don't have as motivated of employees so their workers just mindlessly go to work everyday in routine fashion, demanding more and more hoping to be happy with more wages but they aren't because lack of money is not the source of their dissatisfaction with their jobs.
Healthcare plans -- The average American corporation could stand to learn a thing or two from WHOLE FOODS MARKET. Rather than providing low deductible low co-pay plans to their workers, they provide their employees with high deductible healthplans, COMBINED with matching Health Savings accounts, just like the way many employers match on 401ks. So the employees are free to use their HSA funds whereever they like, like acupuncturists, massage therapists, advanced testing labs, etc. Because these high-deductible plans are inexpensive, the employer doesn't have to worry about dramatic price increases from year to year. They also force the cost of medicine to go down because the employee bears the majority of the cost, they will now go looking for the hospital or doctor who provides the lowest cost of a given procedure.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Michael Medved's loathing....
I was outside in my car listening to Michael Medved, and I heard him discuss last night's election.
He said he was disappointed but not as disappointed as he was and as heartbroken as he was when Bush Sr lost in 1996 thanks to "some idiot from Texas named Ross Perot."
Michael Medved has historically opposed third parties and said America just "needs two healthy parties." Boooo!!!!
Michael Medved, you're a hack for the two-party system in this country, just like everyone else in the mainstream media. You right-wing talk radio people try to pretend that you're some underground resistance force to this "elite/mainstream media," when in fact you're just as much a part of the mainstream elite media. The only difference is you talk right-wing religious/imperialist/zionist propaganda all day long.
He said he was disappointed but not as disappointed as he was and as heartbroken as he was when Bush Sr lost in 1996 thanks to "some idiot from Texas named Ross Perot."
Michael Medved has historically opposed third parties and said America just "needs two healthy parties." Boooo!!!!
Michael Medved, you're a hack for the two-party system in this country, just like everyone else in the mainstream media. You right-wing talk radio people try to pretend that you're some underground resistance force to this "elite/mainstream media," when in fact you're just as much a part of the mainstream elite media. The only difference is you talk right-wing religious/imperialist/zionist propaganda all day long.
Reflections on this past year's election cycle
In the final analysis I am happy that America finally has taken a step in righting past wrongs and elected a black man as president. I am also happy that John McCain graciously, admirably, and honorably stepped down.
Now, I must say some things about both campaigns (and remember, I voted for Bob Barr/Wayne Root):
-- John McCain began as the real John McCain. The John McCain most people have come to know, love, and respect. He was condemning Obama critics whom he felt stepped out of line left and right. He ran a clean campaign. But some time in early August, things changed. Rudy Giuliani was horribly disrespectful at the RNC Convention. Baseless allegations of friendship with William Ayers started flying out from McCain surrogates with no condemnation from McCain. Then the Rashid Khalidi red herring/strawman was put up. Then a 501c3 organization put out an ad yesterday playing clips of Jeremiah Wright sermons. That was all desparation.
-- Right wing talk radio was also disgraceful this entire time. I remember an instance in which on the Mike Gallagher show an African American girl called in and said she supported Barack Obama and then Gallagher shouted her down and said to her that the only reason she's supporting Obama is because he's black and so is she. On the Bill Bennett show, former Senator Rick Santorum said that the only reason Obama's ahead is because he's black. WOW.
And need we remember the footage of people outside of a McCain rally waiting to get in, yelling out derogatory remarks like "Mohammed Obama" and other sorts of bigoted and racist even, remarks. I had never seen such a thing since the last time I watched a KKK documentary.
McCain would have still lost had all this not been the case because of the history-making aura of electing the first black president. But it would not have been the landslide it was. America has not seen an election that distant in terms of the winner and the loser since 1996, and that was only because of Ross Perot taking votes mostly away from Bob Dole.
I know that John McCain will go back to being the old John McCain now that this is over.
Now, I must say some things about both campaigns (and remember, I voted for Bob Barr/Wayne Root):
-- John McCain began as the real John McCain. The John McCain most people have come to know, love, and respect. He was condemning Obama critics whom he felt stepped out of line left and right. He ran a clean campaign. But some time in early August, things changed. Rudy Giuliani was horribly disrespectful at the RNC Convention. Baseless allegations of friendship with William Ayers started flying out from McCain surrogates with no condemnation from McCain. Then the Rashid Khalidi red herring/strawman was put up. Then a 501c3 organization put out an ad yesterday playing clips of Jeremiah Wright sermons. That was all desparation.
-- Right wing talk radio was also disgraceful this entire time. I remember an instance in which on the Mike Gallagher show an African American girl called in and said she supported Barack Obama and then Gallagher shouted her down and said to her that the only reason she's supporting Obama is because he's black and so is she. On the Bill Bennett show, former Senator Rick Santorum said that the only reason Obama's ahead is because he's black. WOW.
And need we remember the footage of people outside of a McCain rally waiting to get in, yelling out derogatory remarks like "Mohammed Obama" and other sorts of bigoted and racist even, remarks. I had never seen such a thing since the last time I watched a KKK documentary.
McCain would have still lost had all this not been the case because of the history-making aura of electing the first black president. But it would not have been the landslide it was. America has not seen an election that distant in terms of the winner and the loser since 1996, and that was only because of Ross Perot taking votes mostly away from Bob Dole.
I know that John McCain will go back to being the old John McCain now that this is over.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Electoral College Part II
So I had an idea in my head that maybe the electoral college isn't quite such a bad thing if changes were made to it.
In its current incarnation, most states electoral colleges go the way of the popular vote of that state. All or nothing. I have heard recently that the way Virginia, I think it is, has an electoral college that goes the way of the national popular vote. Don't know if that's true or not, and if so they must do it at the last minute or just take a sample.
Well, the electoral college could be kept as a viable system IF the colleges changed to where they delegate their votes proportionately. Not all or nothing.
Suppose for example Texans vote 61% for McCain and 37% for Obama, then 61% of the electoral votes for Texas go to McCain, and 37% go to Obama. So if Texas has 28 electoral votes, then McCain gets roughly 17 and Obama gets 11.
That would make people like myself who feel like their vote doesn't matter in a red or blue state no longer feel disenfranchised.
In its current incarnation, most states electoral colleges go the way of the popular vote of that state. All or nothing. I have heard recently that the way Virginia, I think it is, has an electoral college that goes the way of the national popular vote. Don't know if that's true or not, and if so they must do it at the last minute or just take a sample.
Well, the electoral college could be kept as a viable system IF the colleges changed to where they delegate their votes proportionately. Not all or nothing.
Suppose for example Texans vote 61% for McCain and 37% for Obama, then 61% of the electoral votes for Texas go to McCain, and 37% go to Obama. So if Texas has 28 electoral votes, then McCain gets roughly 17 and Obama gets 11.
That would make people like myself who feel like their vote doesn't matter in a red or blue state no longer feel disenfranchised.
Keep a bad system alive on life support or try something else?
I live in Texas. My mother is a teacher. I also sell mutual funds and a lot of my clients are teachers or they work for the school system.
Here in Texas if you're a teacher you aren't part of Social Security. You don't pay taxes into it and you get nothing from it unless you have credits from previous non-school systems employment, like maybe if you worked at a pizza joint while you were in college. You get the idea. Instead, you're part of a retirement system called Texas T.R.S. -- Texas Teachers Retirement Systems.
How are they different? Here's how: Social Security is designed (stupidly) so that people who are currently working pay taxes into social security. Those taxes are given to people who are currently retired. Based on what you pay into the system you get a number of credits that determine how much you'll get when you retire. That worked fine back in 1935 when you people in those days had more children. At that time there were approximately 13 retirees for every worker. Today, there are less than 3.
T.R.S. is completely different -- instead of being set up as a pyramid, retirees pay the same they'd pay into social security into an account that earns them 5% each year. Then at retirement,
they take the number of years you served, multiply that by 2.3%, and then that is the factor for your annual payout.
Teachers have told me that T.R.S. payouts are better than social security and that T.R.S. is not under the same solvency crisis Social Stupidity, errrr, Social Security is under. Even if TRS payouts were actually the same or slightly less, T.R.S. is an inherently superior system. It is not dependent on birthrates.
Here in Texas if you're a teacher you aren't part of Social Security. You don't pay taxes into it and you get nothing from it unless you have credits from previous non-school systems employment, like maybe if you worked at a pizza joint while you were in college. You get the idea. Instead, you're part of a retirement system called Texas T.R.S. -- Texas Teachers Retirement Systems.
How are they different? Here's how: Social Security is designed (stupidly) so that people who are currently working pay taxes into social security. Those taxes are given to people who are currently retired. Based on what you pay into the system you get a number of credits that determine how much you'll get when you retire. That worked fine back in 1935 when you people in those days had more children. At that time there were approximately 13 retirees for every worker. Today, there are less than 3.
T.R.S. is completely different -- instead of being set up as a pyramid, retirees pay the same they'd pay into social security into an account that earns them 5% each year. Then at retirement,
they take the number of years you served, multiply that by 2.3%, and then that is the factor for your annual payout.
Teachers have told me that T.R.S. payouts are better than social security and that T.R.S. is not under the same solvency crisis Social Stupidity, errrr, Social Security is under. Even if TRS payouts were actually the same or slightly less, T.R.S. is an inherently superior system. It is not dependent on birthrates.
Monday, November 3, 2008
My thoughts on Obama
Well it's an hour-and-a-half away from November 4th, and as I sit here I'd like to say something briefly. This will not be one of my longer posts.
I will be happy if Obama wins the presidency for one reason and one reason only: America will finally have an African-American president. And not only that, but also the fact that he will be the second ever non-Protestant President. Maybe 3rd if you're so bold as to include Thomas Jefferson, who was a Deist but his parents were Protestants. This is important, as it will help young African American and Hispanic kids in lower income neighborhoods grow up to see a man who's half-Black on TV everyday as president to believe that the only force that can restrain them in terms of achievement is themselves.
Yes, Obama is a member of the Democrat party. Yes, the Democrat party in conjunction with the Republican party run a loose oligarchy that controls American politics and keeps other political parties out. Yes, he believes in "spreading the wealth around." Yes, he's wrong on health care. But I can at least be happy about that one thing.
I will be happy if Obama wins the presidency for one reason and one reason only: America will finally have an African-American president. And not only that, but also the fact that he will be the second ever non-Protestant President. Maybe 3rd if you're so bold as to include Thomas Jefferson, who was a Deist but his parents were Protestants. This is important, as it will help young African American and Hispanic kids in lower income neighborhoods grow up to see a man who's half-Black on TV everyday as president to believe that the only force that can restrain them in terms of achievement is themselves.
Yes, Obama is a member of the Democrat party. Yes, the Democrat party in conjunction with the Republican party run a loose oligarchy that controls American politics and keeps other political parties out. Yes, he believes in "spreading the wealth around." Yes, he's wrong on health care. But I can at least be happy about that one thing.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Karl Marx, Socialism, and Spreading the wealth around
So Barack Obama meets a phony plumber who asks why he should have to pay more taxes if he were to take over a business he does not own. Obama's reply is that we should spread the wealth around, more or less. I'm not quoting here, so don't accuse me of not giving the whole exchange or quoting out of context.
Now the whole media and the whole right wing are in a frenzy, bringing up "socialism" and "Karl Marx" and the quote, "To each according to his need, to each according to his ability."
Joe Biden even went on a news program and was asked if Obama was a Marxist.
The only reason I call all of this silly nonsense is because the media and the right wing have JUST NOW, JUST NOW decided to call the democrats on what they've always stood for which is income redistribution.
So all these years of social security, medicaid, welfare, food stamps, Great Society, War on Poverty, etc etc etc. All those decades of all those entitlements and the media and the right are just now calling the Dems on it. WOW!! No wonder our country is in the messed up state it's in. We live under this both idiotic and corrupt regime propped up by an idiotic and corporate interlocking directorate controlled media.
Whenever you require higher income people to pay a higher tax rate than lower income people for the purposes of social welfare benefits, that's income redistribution. That's socialism.
Granted, we do not have a brand of socialism in this country anywhere near like the European Union. They have extremely high taxes for everything and most of the people love it. They think they're giving to the "greater good." They give their people "free" healthcare. So we definitely aren't as socialist as they are.
And I am not totally against social programs to help the very poor in our society, but it should be limited to people in genuine need, not lazy bums who don't wanna work or want to keep having more kids at everyone else's expense.
Now the whole media and the whole right wing are in a frenzy, bringing up "socialism" and "Karl Marx" and the quote, "To each according to his need, to each according to his ability."
Joe Biden even went on a news program and was asked if Obama was a Marxist.
The only reason I call all of this silly nonsense is because the media and the right wing have JUST NOW, JUST NOW decided to call the democrats on what they've always stood for which is income redistribution.
So all these years of social security, medicaid, welfare, food stamps, Great Society, War on Poverty, etc etc etc. All those decades of all those entitlements and the media and the right are just now calling the Dems on it. WOW!! No wonder our country is in the messed up state it's in. We live under this both idiotic and corrupt regime propped up by an idiotic and corporate interlocking directorate controlled media.
Whenever you require higher income people to pay a higher tax rate than lower income people for the purposes of social welfare benefits, that's income redistribution. That's socialism.
Granted, we do not have a brand of socialism in this country anywhere near like the European Union. They have extremely high taxes for everything and most of the people love it. They think they're giving to the "greater good." They give their people "free" healthcare. So we definitely aren't as socialist as they are.
And I am not totally against social programs to help the very poor in our society, but it should be limited to people in genuine need, not lazy bums who don't wanna work or want to keep having more kids at everyone else's expense.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Listen to Jesse Ventura
The former Minnesota Governor, Navy Seal, Viet Nam veteran, and yes, pro-wrestler, whose real name is James Janos, has an important message for us to hear. All of us need to at least hear once what he has to say.
America is approaching fascism.
Now I know already what you're saying....nutbag, lunatic, crazy conspiracy theorist, etc. etc.
So now that we're past that, allow me to give you the message of Mr. Ventura: You've got the perfect merging of government and corporate interests, the control of our entire political system by two political parties who are controlled by corporations, the blocking of 3rd party candidates from participation in debates because of the debates being put in control of a government controlled by the two parties.
You've got ministers like John Hagee and Rod Parsley on the far right, and Jeremiah Wright on the far left endorsing presidential candidates. How can that be? I thought ministers ran churches, which were 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations and that the minute they endorsed candidates they lost that. What's happening?
You've got personal liberties being taken away and it goes beyond and before the Patriot Act, like how Jesse's house was bugged back in 1999 when he first became governor. And that was a personal house, not the governor's mansion. Or the fact that with the Patriot Act the government can sneak into your house when you're not there, search the premises, and leave with no warrant and no notification, all in the name of fighting terrorism.
You've got the government media complex using its surrogates back in 2002 and 2003 to attack those who were against this nonsense war in Iraq as unpatriotic and wanting America to "get attacked again," or that the "smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud." Fear mongering to rally the masses to a both statism and an imperialist foreign policy.
Now we've got the government buying interest in banks and doing favors for their corporate buddies like AIG which is costing us a trillion dollars.
Just you wait til our dollar's worth toilet paper.
Be very careful, especially those who think more government is the best answer in any situation. The more you let government do for you, the more control they'll take of your lives and the quicker you'll see your freedoms vanish.
America is approaching fascism.
Now I know already what you're saying....nutbag, lunatic, crazy conspiracy theorist, etc. etc.
So now that we're past that, allow me to give you the message of Mr. Ventura: You've got the perfect merging of government and corporate interests, the control of our entire political system by two political parties who are controlled by corporations, the blocking of 3rd party candidates from participation in debates because of the debates being put in control of a government controlled by the two parties.
You've got ministers like John Hagee and Rod Parsley on the far right, and Jeremiah Wright on the far left endorsing presidential candidates. How can that be? I thought ministers ran churches, which were 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations and that the minute they endorsed candidates they lost that. What's happening?
You've got personal liberties being taken away and it goes beyond and before the Patriot Act, like how Jesse's house was bugged back in 1999 when he first became governor. And that was a personal house, not the governor's mansion. Or the fact that with the Patriot Act the government can sneak into your house when you're not there, search the premises, and leave with no warrant and no notification, all in the name of fighting terrorism.
You've got the government media complex using its surrogates back in 2002 and 2003 to attack those who were against this nonsense war in Iraq as unpatriotic and wanting America to "get attacked again," or that the "smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud." Fear mongering to rally the masses to a both statism and an imperialist foreign policy.
Now we've got the government buying interest in banks and doing favors for their corporate buddies like AIG which is costing us a trillion dollars.
Just you wait til our dollar's worth toilet paper.
Be very careful, especially those who think more government is the best answer in any situation. The more you let government do for you, the more control they'll take of your lives and the quicker you'll see your freedoms vanish.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
The United States of Corporate Socialism
$28 Billion BEAR STERNS
$200 Billion Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
$ 85 Billion AIG
There's more to that list, but to just give the most notable examples. Then you have yesterday's
use of $700 Billion dollars like it was toilet paper. It's really a shame.
I'm really disappointed in the Republican party. Yes, there were quite a few members who voted against the bail-out, but still far too many given the "principles of the party."
The Republicans are supposed to be the party of not only the party of limited government but also opposition to excessive entitlements.
But they seem to have thrown away those beliefs 25 years ago. First it was Nixon abandoning the Gold Standard in the early 70s. Then the bail out of the savings and loan industry in the late 1980s. Then the Chrysler bail out. Now all these financial institutions who bought too many mortgage-backed bonds. Who bails you and me out when we get in a financial crunch?? NOBODY. Unless you're ultra poor and can get food stamps and Medicaid.
We are capitalists when the economy's good, and socialists when companies start to fail. How much more billions do we have to print and borrow before Wall Street will be happy again? Spoiled children.
Get ready for inflation. Get ready for cost of living to rise worse than before, and of course these crooked CEO's whose butts are being saved by this trash can full of pork are gonna drag their feet on raising wages for workers.
People are really hurting in this country. If it's not rising gas prices (and we can think BIG BROTHER for standing in the way of those going down), it's BIG BROTHER Bernanke and the Fed printing more money, now an additional $700 Billion on top of the absurd amount, or it's greedy corporations not appreciating their employees, etc, etc.
Now, as far as the blame game goes, the private and public sectors are both responsible. A pox on both your houses. On the one hand, you've got Bill Clinton's Community Redevelopment Act in the late 90s. Then you've got Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (who at some level were subordinate to the Fed) who don't even follow their own 80% loan to value guidelines because BIG BROTHER'S telling them give more loans to unqualified buyers and make it look like we're doing something. On the private sector side, you've got greedy banks who answer to Wall Street's quarterly earnings expectations. Wanting to show as many mortgage sales as possible. Even if it means not verifying income. Even if it means lending 115% of the value of a home with just closing costs down. Even if it means people getting into an ARM that adjusts after 2 years.
There was a time in this country when you couldn't get a home loan unless you had 20% down payment and closing costs. Nowadays you can get a home loan from a respected lender like CITIMORTGAGE for just Closing costs + 5% of purchase price. And they're considered a selective lender. Imagine all the sluttier banks out there.
$200 Billion Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
$ 85 Billion AIG
There's more to that list, but to just give the most notable examples. Then you have yesterday's
use of $700 Billion dollars like it was toilet paper. It's really a shame.
I'm really disappointed in the Republican party. Yes, there were quite a few members who voted against the bail-out, but still far too many given the "principles of the party."
The Republicans are supposed to be the party of not only the party of limited government but also opposition to excessive entitlements.
But they seem to have thrown away those beliefs 25 years ago. First it was Nixon abandoning the Gold Standard in the early 70s. Then the bail out of the savings and loan industry in the late 1980s. Then the Chrysler bail out. Now all these financial institutions who bought too many mortgage-backed bonds. Who bails you and me out when we get in a financial crunch?? NOBODY. Unless you're ultra poor and can get food stamps and Medicaid.
We are capitalists when the economy's good, and socialists when companies start to fail. How much more billions do we have to print and borrow before Wall Street will be happy again? Spoiled children.
Get ready for inflation. Get ready for cost of living to rise worse than before, and of course these crooked CEO's whose butts are being saved by this trash can full of pork are gonna drag their feet on raising wages for workers.
People are really hurting in this country. If it's not rising gas prices (and we can think BIG BROTHER for standing in the way of those going down), it's BIG BROTHER Bernanke and the Fed printing more money, now an additional $700 Billion on top of the absurd amount, or it's greedy corporations not appreciating their employees, etc, etc.
Now, as far as the blame game goes, the private and public sectors are both responsible. A pox on both your houses. On the one hand, you've got Bill Clinton's Community Redevelopment Act in the late 90s. Then you've got Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (who at some level were subordinate to the Fed) who don't even follow their own 80% loan to value guidelines because BIG BROTHER'S telling them give more loans to unqualified buyers and make it look like we're doing something. On the private sector side, you've got greedy banks who answer to Wall Street's quarterly earnings expectations. Wanting to show as many mortgage sales as possible. Even if it means not verifying income. Even if it means lending 115% of the value of a home with just closing costs down. Even if it means people getting into an ARM that adjusts after 2 years.
There was a time in this country when you couldn't get a home loan unless you had 20% down payment and closing costs. Nowadays you can get a home loan from a respected lender like CITIMORTGAGE for just Closing costs + 5% of purchase price. And they're considered a selective lender. Imagine all the sluttier banks out there.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
The Electoral College
If you live in ANY of the former member-states of the Confederacy, or Wyoming, or Utah, or Montana, and you plan on voting for a Barack Obama, Bob Barr, or Cynthia McKinney, let me save you a little bit of gas money -- STAY HOME. Your vote doesn't count. It means NOTHING. Absolutely nothing. Its worthless for you.
If you live in any state on the east coast north of Virginia, or if you live anywhere on the West Coast, and you intend to vote for McCain, Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney, or the Constitution Party candidate (can't remember his name), my message for you is the same -- STAY HOME. Save the gas money. Your vote doesn't count in this "democracy."
That's right. Thanks to an old outdated unnecessary institution we call the electoral college, you are wasting your time by bothering to vote.
And don't come back and say to me, "Well, the closer the national popular vote is, the less of a mandate the winner can have." Not according to our 43rd commander in chief Mr. George Bush Jr. He said after defeating John Kerry 51% to 48% that he had a mandate. I guess after having lived through the 2000 election debacle, a guy that wins the popular and electoral votes, even only slightly, is now the beholder of a mandate.
If we abolished the electoral college once and for all, and made every vote count, then people might feel like they had more of a role in our "democracy" even if you're a lefty in Kansas, or a right-winger in NYC.
If you live in any state on the east coast north of Virginia, or if you live anywhere on the West Coast, and you intend to vote for McCain, Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney, or the Constitution Party candidate (can't remember his name), my message for you is the same -- STAY HOME. Save the gas money. Your vote doesn't count in this "democracy."
That's right. Thanks to an old outdated unnecessary institution we call the electoral college, you are wasting your time by bothering to vote.
And don't come back and say to me, "Well, the closer the national popular vote is, the less of a mandate the winner can have." Not according to our 43rd commander in chief Mr. George Bush Jr. He said after defeating John Kerry 51% to 48% that he had a mandate. I guess after having lived through the 2000 election debacle, a guy that wins the popular and electoral votes, even only slightly, is now the beholder of a mandate.
If we abolished the electoral college once and for all, and made every vote count, then people might feel like they had more of a role in our "democracy" even if you're a lefty in Kansas, or a right-winger in NYC.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Corrupted Justice Challenges legitimacy of Perverted Justice
We've all seen DATELINE NBC To Catch a Predator.
It was one of my favorite shows on TV. Every time it was on I'd sit in front of the TV with some snacks and watch as these idiot losers would show up to a house hoping for sex with who they thought was a 14 year old girl. And then this 7 foot tall skinny white guy with salt 'n pepper hair comes out and tells them to take a seat and basically humiliates them. Good stuff.
Well, questions have arisen in my mind as I have looked through youtube and found out about that the Murphy police department threw out the cases against the guys in the Murphy investigation and let them all go free. Is what Perverted Justice and Dateline are doing illegal? Is what they're doing not valid in a court of law??
If anyone is a legal expert, please respond, cuz I would like to know if it is the law (at least in Texas) that if you do a sting operation, then once someone says no, you cannot solicit them again. I've heard that someone caught on a Catch a Predator episode counter sued and showed he was called 11 times by one of the decoys.
Interesting issue.....
It was one of my favorite shows on TV. Every time it was on I'd sit in front of the TV with some snacks and watch as these idiot losers would show up to a house hoping for sex with who they thought was a 14 year old girl. And then this 7 foot tall skinny white guy with salt 'n pepper hair comes out and tells them to take a seat and basically humiliates them. Good stuff.
Well, questions have arisen in my mind as I have looked through youtube and found out about that the Murphy police department threw out the cases against the guys in the Murphy investigation and let them all go free. Is what Perverted Justice and Dateline are doing illegal? Is what they're doing not valid in a court of law??
If anyone is a legal expert, please respond, cuz I would like to know if it is the law (at least in Texas) that if you do a sting operation, then once someone says no, you cannot solicit them again. I've heard that someone caught on a Catch a Predator episode counter sued and showed he was called 11 times by one of the decoys.
Interesting issue.....
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Diddy address his "Saudi Arabia brothers and sisters"
Wow!! Amazing. Unreal.
Sean "Puff Daddy/P. Diddy" Combs has hit the height of a combination of hypocrisy and absurdity.
The man who has spent more than 10 years on various rap songs bragging about how much money he has; a man who VH1 estimates could put 100 people on an expensive cruise and deck them out in Versace with bottles of Crystal (I think that's how it's spelled), is now complaining about fuel prices.
In this morning's edition of the Austin American Statesman, Combs is quoted as saying, "I'm actually flying commercial," as opposed to constantly flying on a private jet.
Well, Mr Combs, and I'm talking to you not as some 50-something white guy who's never heard one of your songs and just assumes you rhyme words and say things like "Yo yo yo homeboy," but rather as a 25 (almost 26-year old) who is very familiar with your work going all the way back to B.I.G. and Craig Mack, I just have to say to you (1) stop complaining, cuz you're probably flying business class which is better than I've ever flown, (2) do something about it, (3) I thought you had, as you stated in the 2002 hit with Fabolous and Jagged Edge "Trade it all" that you had "The kind of money that don't matter if a few crumbs are blown," so what then is a few more crumbs on fuel costs as we transition our transportation economy from a petroleum based to a bio-fuel/hydrogen/electric based transportation system. You do have so much money, after all.
And you are NEVER going to work for the State Department in any capacity since you don't even know how to refer to a people. Saudi Arabia brothers and sisters?? C'mon now.
Sean "Puff Daddy/P. Diddy" Combs has hit the height of a combination of hypocrisy and absurdity.
The man who has spent more than 10 years on various rap songs bragging about how much money he has; a man who VH1 estimates could put 100 people on an expensive cruise and deck them out in Versace with bottles of Crystal (I think that's how it's spelled), is now complaining about fuel prices.
In this morning's edition of the Austin American Statesman, Combs is quoted as saying, "I'm actually flying commercial," as opposed to constantly flying on a private jet.
Well, Mr Combs, and I'm talking to you not as some 50-something white guy who's never heard one of your songs and just assumes you rhyme words and say things like "Yo yo yo homeboy," but rather as a 25 (almost 26-year old) who is very familiar with your work going all the way back to B.I.G. and Craig Mack, I just have to say to you (1) stop complaining, cuz you're probably flying business class which is better than I've ever flown, (2) do something about it, (3) I thought you had, as you stated in the 2002 hit with Fabolous and Jagged Edge "Trade it all" that you had "The kind of money that don't matter if a few crumbs are blown," so what then is a few more crumbs on fuel costs as we transition our transportation economy from a petroleum based to a bio-fuel/hydrogen/electric based transportation system. You do have so much money, after all.
And you are NEVER going to work for the State Department in any capacity since you don't even know how to refer to a people. Saudi Arabia brothers and sisters?? C'mon now.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Why I'm a Libertarian (at least at the federal level)
So once again, we're talking energy here. And as I spoke of last time, the federal government is a stumbling block in the pathway of (1) energy independence and (2) people freeing themselves from the costly burden of fuel.
Last time, I discussed how our federal government and particularly the democratic party don't want us to be able to put more petro on the markets even though drilling today is far safer and environmentally friendly than 20 years ago, thus lower income and middle class people are hurting, as well as business profits.
Now, it's the federal government and the idiots beholden to the environmentalist lobby who don't want us to be able to create more ethanol. Read the following:
Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., chairman of the Senate agriculture committee’s energy subcommittee, held a public hearing in Rapid City, S.D. on Aug. 18 to discuss the potential woody biomass located in the Black Hills National Forest in South Dakota and why it’s not currently allowed to be used as feedstock for cellulosic ethanol projects.
The hearing was attended by Senate Energy Committee member Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., representatives from the Black Hills National Forest and the Black Hills Forest Resource Association as well as private forest land owner and KL Process Design Group LLC President Randy Kramer. National forest waste is not currently included in the definition of “woody biomass” as written in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Thune told hearing attendees that the final definition failed to include material removed or harvested from federal lands and national forests because the U.S. House of Representatives changed the wording “behind closed doors” in the final days of debate before the bill’s passage. He has since introduced bill S.2558 that would amend that definition. Thune’s Senior Advisor Jon Lauck said the definition was changed due to environmental concerns on behalf of some representatives. The testimony given Aug. 18 proved otherwise, he said. “They (witnesses) said it’s actually worse for the forests to leave the waste there,” Lauck said, adding that the current removal method of burning slash piles adds carbon dioxide to the environment, worsening the environmental situation
Witnesses testified at the hearing that there is approximately 200,000 tons of woody biomass available annually in the Black Hills National Forest. It was noted that between 50 and 105 gallons of ethanol can be produced from every ton of biomass.
Did you read that?? There it is. 200,000 tons of woody bio-mass available ANNUALLY in the Black Hills National Forest, and 50 to 105 gallons of ethanol per ton. No irrigation required. No pesticides, no diverting crops that ordinarily are used as food. But we can't use it because the environmental lunatics always have to worry about the littlest stupidest stuff.
Last time, I discussed how our federal government and particularly the democratic party don't want us to be able to put more petro on the markets even though drilling today is far safer and environmentally friendly than 20 years ago, thus lower income and middle class people are hurting, as well as business profits.
Now, it's the federal government and the idiots beholden to the environmentalist lobby who don't want us to be able to create more ethanol. Read the following:
Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., chairman of the Senate agriculture committee’s energy subcommittee, held a public hearing in Rapid City, S.D. on Aug. 18 to discuss the potential woody biomass located in the Black Hills National Forest in South Dakota and why it’s not currently allowed to be used as feedstock for cellulosic ethanol projects.
The hearing was attended by Senate Energy Committee member Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., representatives from the Black Hills National Forest and the Black Hills Forest Resource Association as well as private forest land owner and KL Process Design Group LLC President Randy Kramer. National forest waste is not currently included in the definition of “woody biomass” as written in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Thune told hearing attendees that the final definition failed to include material removed or harvested from federal lands and national forests because the U.S. House of Representatives changed the wording “behind closed doors” in the final days of debate before the bill’s passage. He has since introduced bill S.2558 that would amend that definition. Thune’s Senior Advisor Jon Lauck said the definition was changed due to environmental concerns on behalf of some representatives. The testimony given Aug. 18 proved otherwise, he said. “They (witnesses) said it’s actually worse for the forests to leave the waste there,” Lauck said, adding that the current removal method of burning slash piles adds carbon dioxide to the environment, worsening the environmental situation
Witnesses testified at the hearing that there is approximately 200,000 tons of woody biomass available annually in the Black Hills National Forest. It was noted that between 50 and 105 gallons of ethanol can be produced from every ton of biomass.
Did you read that?? There it is. 200,000 tons of woody bio-mass available ANNUALLY in the Black Hills National Forest, and 50 to 105 gallons of ethanol per ton. No irrigation required. No pesticides, no diverting crops that ordinarily are used as food. But we can't use it because the environmental lunatics always have to worry about the littlest stupidest stuff.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Nancy Pelosi knows nothing about the markets
So Nancy Pelosi won't allow a vote in the House on new drilling in previously forbidden areas.
Why? Because she knows it'll pass. And that's what she's afraid of. She's so beholden to the environmental lobby that she can't let it happen.
So she goes on George Stephanopolous and says that the oil won't be available for years to come and it won't lower the price today. Obama says the same thing on the campaign trail. Bullshit. Not true at all.
If they knew ANYTHING about the markets they'd know that 20% to 30% of the price of a barrel of oil is speculation. But they love blaming the speculators for the price of oil being so high.
Well guess what? Econ lesson 101: The speculators will bet the other way and make the price go DOWN if they see a chance at an increase in supply in the future. So if they see new drilling being allowed where it wasn't allowed before, they'll bet on oil being cheaper, and then our pain at the pump will go down TODAY. Even if it takes years for the oil to actually be made available to us.
It's worth mentioning, by the way that underground in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming there are an estimated 800 BILLION barrels of oil. That's a lot more than what Mexico has, who by the way is our second largest foreign supplier of oil.
Why? Because she knows it'll pass. And that's what she's afraid of. She's so beholden to the environmental lobby that she can't let it happen.
So she goes on George Stephanopolous and says that the oil won't be available for years to come and it won't lower the price today. Obama says the same thing on the campaign trail. Bullshit. Not true at all.
If they knew ANYTHING about the markets they'd know that 20% to 30% of the price of a barrel of oil is speculation. But they love blaming the speculators for the price of oil being so high.
Well guess what? Econ lesson 101: The speculators will bet the other way and make the price go DOWN if they see a chance at an increase in supply in the future. So if they see new drilling being allowed where it wasn't allowed before, they'll bet on oil being cheaper, and then our pain at the pump will go down TODAY. Even if it takes years for the oil to actually be made available to us.
It's worth mentioning, by the way that underground in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming there are an estimated 800 BILLION barrels of oil. That's a lot more than what Mexico has, who by the way is our second largest foreign supplier of oil.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Obama at almost 2000 delegates
And since the number of delegates needed for the nomination is 2025, this better be over after June 3rd.
Why do I care? I'm voting for the Libertarian nominee Wayne Root.
But still, just objective political commentary.
Why do I care? I'm voting for the Libertarian nominee Wayne Root.
But still, just objective political commentary.
Israel and Syria hold peace talks via Turkey
I am happy to see that Israel and Syria are discussing a peace agreement. I hope that it will be successful and justice for the Golan Heights Druze will be done.
I hope a fair settlement will be reached.
Let's not forget though that as we speak, Israel is starving over a million Gazans. So they're not off the hook yet.
I hope a fair settlement will be reached.
Let's not forget though that as we speak, Israel is starving over a million Gazans. So they're not off the hook yet.
Be Careful When referring to someone as Hitler
When you watch FOX News you can't help but notice over the years how all these right-wingers (chicken-hawks many of them) like O'Reilly and Hannity and Gibson and those Neocons who host the morning show love to refer to every dictator who doesn't like us as "the Hitler of our time."
I remember a couple weeks before the disaster in Iraq began, Bill O'Reilly debated a guest who was anti-war and referred to Saddam Hussein as "The Hitler of our time." Michael Savage on AM Radio refers to Ahmedinejad as "The Hitler of our time." Sean Hannity on Hannity and Colmes, in concert with whomever is the rightwing guest on that "Fair and Balanced network" always talk about how we need to stop Iran the way we should have stopped Hitler in 1937 instead of 1945.
Well, let's establish a few facts here, which Mr. Hannity, Mr. O'Reilly, and Mr. Savage, and everyone else in the right-wing media (by right wing media I am referring to Talk radio, Weekly Standard, and Fox News) need to be reminded of:
-- Hitler was actually powerful. That's #1. I cannot stress that enough. Hitler had the most advanced sophisticated (and largest, or second largest after the Soviet Union's conscripting of young men) in the world. The kind of jets and tanks and missiles they had were second to none.
And Hitler presided over a prosperous Germany. Can anyone really make the case that Saddam Hussein had formidable weaponry?? Our weaponry was far superior in the first Gulf War, and that was when he still had some of the later Soviet and Czechoslovakian weaponry. Does anyone really think Iran has a formidable military?? They have a large Army, but that's about it. They make their own crappy tanks, but that's about it. Their army is pathetic.
-- Nazi Germany (and get this neo-cons, cuz this might surprise you) had actually invaded other countries. Not one country. SEVERAL countries. Name one country Saddam Hussein Al-Tikriti (I'm one of the few people in the media other than Thomas Friedman who knows that's Saddam's real last name) invaded AFTER 1991. You can't. Cuz he didn't invade any countries after 1991. Why?? He couldn't. And the two countries that he ever did invade were not without reason. Iran had stepped into his territory. And Jimmy Carter told Saddam it was okay to go to war with Iran. And that's not me saying Jimmy Carter did that. That's Christopher Hitchens words. And as for Kuwait, Saddam Hussein asked the state department if they'd oppose him invading Kuwait. April Glasbie in the state department said, "We have no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts, like yours with Kuwait." And he didn't invade Kuwait for the fun of it. He did it because he owed them money from the Iran-Iraq war and the Kuwaitis started drilling into his oil fields to extract repayment.
NOW: Name a country IRAN has invaded. You can't. Not 1 country has Iran invaded since the border skirmishes in the 1970s with Iraq. And Iran is not any kind of economic power in the world. If they didn't have oil they'd have nothing. The country is loaded with the 4th largest oil reserve in the world, and they don't have one, not one refinery in the whole country. They have all their oil refined in Bahrain and the UAE.
-- I have been to Munich. I have been to Dachau concentration camp. I have seen the camps and taken the tour and learned what went on there. Ahmedinejad, Saddam Hussein, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, and Bashar Assad are dictators, no question, but they don't have extermination camps in their country for the purposes of wiping out significant groups in the population. In those countries, you just keep a picture of the president in your home, don't talk politics, and you'll be ok. Show me millions of people, or even hundreds of thousands being imprisoned in extermination or concentration camps, and I might lend you some credence on your Hitler argument.
If Iran was so powerful they would have already landed their troops, jets, and tanks into Israel to "wipe them off the map." But they haven't because they CAN'T. They're weak. They don't spend 1% of what we spend on our military. The fact is that the United States military spends more on our "defense" budget than the next 20 countries. And that far exceeds what the "Axis of Evil" countries spend.
Yesterday I listened to the Laura Ingraham show on my way to work and I heard some caller talk about how he thought the war in Iraq was a blunder, and then she asked him, "Would you rather have Saddam Hussein back?" My answer is Yes. Absolutely. 110%. Why?? Because he was secular. Women walked the streets without veils. Women were an educated class in the country. People could walk the streets without fear of a car bomb or an RPG going off. And people say that he was an evil dictator who killed a lot of people. Yes. You're right. But as bad as he was, if you just kept a picture of the man in your house at all times, and went to his birthday celebrations, and refrained from talking about politics, you'd be ok.
Saddam Hussein hated Al-Qaeda just as much as we did. He was threatened by them like we are. Al-Qaeda doesn't like secular dictators. But you wouldn't know that. You wouldn't know that cuz to you, Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden are just two Arab Muslim bad guys. And so two Arab Muslim bad guys of course have to be friends, right?
I remember a couple weeks before the disaster in Iraq began, Bill O'Reilly debated a guest who was anti-war and referred to Saddam Hussein as "The Hitler of our time." Michael Savage on AM Radio refers to Ahmedinejad as "The Hitler of our time." Sean Hannity on Hannity and Colmes, in concert with whomever is the rightwing guest on that "Fair and Balanced network" always talk about how we need to stop Iran the way we should have stopped Hitler in 1937 instead of 1945.
Well, let's establish a few facts here, which Mr. Hannity, Mr. O'Reilly, and Mr. Savage, and everyone else in the right-wing media (by right wing media I am referring to Talk radio, Weekly Standard, and Fox News) need to be reminded of:
-- Hitler was actually powerful. That's #1. I cannot stress that enough. Hitler had the most advanced sophisticated (and largest, or second largest after the Soviet Union's conscripting of young men) in the world. The kind of jets and tanks and missiles they had were second to none.
And Hitler presided over a prosperous Germany. Can anyone really make the case that Saddam Hussein had formidable weaponry?? Our weaponry was far superior in the first Gulf War, and that was when he still had some of the later Soviet and Czechoslovakian weaponry. Does anyone really think Iran has a formidable military?? They have a large Army, but that's about it. They make their own crappy tanks, but that's about it. Their army is pathetic.
-- Nazi Germany (and get this neo-cons, cuz this might surprise you) had actually invaded other countries. Not one country. SEVERAL countries. Name one country Saddam Hussein Al-Tikriti (I'm one of the few people in the media other than Thomas Friedman who knows that's Saddam's real last name) invaded AFTER 1991. You can't. Cuz he didn't invade any countries after 1991. Why?? He couldn't. And the two countries that he ever did invade were not without reason. Iran had stepped into his territory. And Jimmy Carter told Saddam it was okay to go to war with Iran. And that's not me saying Jimmy Carter did that. That's Christopher Hitchens words. And as for Kuwait, Saddam Hussein asked the state department if they'd oppose him invading Kuwait. April Glasbie in the state department said, "We have no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts, like yours with Kuwait." And he didn't invade Kuwait for the fun of it. He did it because he owed them money from the Iran-Iraq war and the Kuwaitis started drilling into his oil fields to extract repayment.
NOW: Name a country IRAN has invaded. You can't. Not 1 country has Iran invaded since the border skirmishes in the 1970s with Iraq. And Iran is not any kind of economic power in the world. If they didn't have oil they'd have nothing. The country is loaded with the 4th largest oil reserve in the world, and they don't have one, not one refinery in the whole country. They have all their oil refined in Bahrain and the UAE.
-- I have been to Munich. I have been to Dachau concentration camp. I have seen the camps and taken the tour and learned what went on there. Ahmedinejad, Saddam Hussein, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, and Bashar Assad are dictators, no question, but they don't have extermination camps in their country for the purposes of wiping out significant groups in the population. In those countries, you just keep a picture of the president in your home, don't talk politics, and you'll be ok. Show me millions of people, or even hundreds of thousands being imprisoned in extermination or concentration camps, and I might lend you some credence on your Hitler argument.
If Iran was so powerful they would have already landed their troops, jets, and tanks into Israel to "wipe them off the map." But they haven't because they CAN'T. They're weak. They don't spend 1% of what we spend on our military. The fact is that the United States military spends more on our "defense" budget than the next 20 countries. And that far exceeds what the "Axis of Evil" countries spend.
Yesterday I listened to the Laura Ingraham show on my way to work and I heard some caller talk about how he thought the war in Iraq was a blunder, and then she asked him, "Would you rather have Saddam Hussein back?" My answer is Yes. Absolutely. 110%. Why?? Because he was secular. Women walked the streets without veils. Women were an educated class in the country. People could walk the streets without fear of a car bomb or an RPG going off. And people say that he was an evil dictator who killed a lot of people. Yes. You're right. But as bad as he was, if you just kept a picture of the man in your house at all times, and went to his birthday celebrations, and refrained from talking about politics, you'd be ok.
Saddam Hussein hated Al-Qaeda just as much as we did. He was threatened by them like we are. Al-Qaeda doesn't like secular dictators. But you wouldn't know that. You wouldn't know that cuz to you, Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden are just two Arab Muslim bad guys. And so two Arab Muslim bad guys of course have to be friends, right?
Sunday, April 13, 2008
John Stossel replies to me.......
I want to begin by thanking the member of Mr. Stossel's staff for replying to me. I know they have a lot to do and are busy, and no, I'm not being facetious. Here it is:
Hi Chris,
If those alternatives to corn ethanol work, then shouldn't they be profitable? In that case, hopefully we will be seeing them soon. Thanks for writing in,
Maxim Lott
Stossel Unit
So I replied:
They are profitable now, and that's under the current set of circumstances. Imagine how much more profitable when they renovate our pipeline infrastructure, so that they can carry ethanol without corroding. In fact, on January 14th, ScienceDaily.com posted an article showing that a University of Nebraska-Lincoln study on ethanol from switchgrass showed that switchgrass not only has a much higher ethanol yield than corn does, but also it produces "540% more energy than needed to grow."
Further, ethanolproducer.com recently posted an article on their website about a solid waste plant in Gary, Indiana that will convert garbage into gasoline and will save taxpayers $12 million a year in landfill fees. It willl also create 120 jobs.
Lastly, why does Mr. Stossel (whom I've always had great respect for, I loved his "Sick in America") not mention that the domestic oil industry is subsidized? Is oil, therefore, worthless and no good? Thank you for replying to me.
Hi Chris,
If those alternatives to corn ethanol work, then shouldn't they be profitable? In that case, hopefully we will be seeing them soon. Thanks for writing in,
Maxim Lott
Stossel Unit
So I replied:
They are profitable now, and that's under the current set of circumstances. Imagine how much more profitable when they renovate our pipeline infrastructure, so that they can carry ethanol without corroding. In fact, on January 14th, ScienceDaily.com posted an article showing that a University of Nebraska-Lincoln study on ethanol from switchgrass showed that switchgrass not only has a much higher ethanol yield than corn does, but also it produces "540% more energy than needed to grow."
Further, ethanolproducer.com recently posted an article on their website about a solid waste plant in Gary, Indiana that will convert garbage into gasoline and will save taxpayers $12 million a year in landfill fees. It willl also create 120 jobs.
Lastly, why does Mr. Stossel (whom I've always had great respect for, I loved his "Sick in America") not mention that the domestic oil industry is subsidized? Is oil, therefore, worthless and no good? Thank you for replying to me.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Debt
So I'm here at work, talking to a friend of mine, and he tells me his brother was going to go to a trade school and they would provide him with financing for the 2 year program. Assuming 100% financing, his debt when he graduates would be $44,000.
He refused it, preferring not to have any debt on his name. He does not even like or have a credit card.
Now, I am not a total 100% Dave Ramsey-ite. But I do find merit in the guiding principle.
We as a society have become swamped in debt for everything, from our house, our cars, our tvs, appliances, shoes, etc, etc.
That is why we are in the credit crunch. Because people get themselves into more debt than they can afford, and then they have to go talking to one of those "credit counseling services" that they hear ads for on the radio.
In the midst of all these constantly traded-in-for new cars, 40 inch plasma tv's, and all the latest IPOD and IPOD-like toys, but life insurance outside their job? Forget it. Savings?? Retirement funds?? College savings plans for their kids?? No way.
Again, I am not a Dave Ramsey-ite, not all the way anyway, but when you buy something (other than a house) you need to be able to put down at least 10%, minimum, 10%.
And I'll leave you with the words of Mr. Ramsey, "You know you're a loser if -- you live at home with your parents at age 30 because your Hummer that you couldn't really afford is parked in their driveway."
He refused it, preferring not to have any debt on his name. He does not even like or have a credit card.
Now, I am not a total 100% Dave Ramsey-ite. But I do find merit in the guiding principle.
We as a society have become swamped in debt for everything, from our house, our cars, our tvs, appliances, shoes, etc, etc.
That is why we are in the credit crunch. Because people get themselves into more debt than they can afford, and then they have to go talking to one of those "credit counseling services" that they hear ads for on the radio.
In the midst of all these constantly traded-in-for new cars, 40 inch plasma tv's, and all the latest IPOD and IPOD-like toys, but life insurance outside their job? Forget it. Savings?? Retirement funds?? College savings plans for their kids?? No way.
Again, I am not a Dave Ramsey-ite, not all the way anyway, but when you buy something (other than a house) you need to be able to put down at least 10%, minimum, 10%.
And I'll leave you with the words of Mr. Ramsey, "You know you're a loser if -- you live at home with your parents at age 30 because your Hummer that you couldn't really afford is parked in their driveway."
Thursday, April 3, 2008
As Tax Day approaches
Many Americans who have until now been procrastinating will scramble to either sit down and do their own taxes, or fork out the cash for H&R Block.
An ordinary working person should be able to just sit down and figure out his/her taxes in less than 5 minutes, but alas, this is not the case.
We have in this country, between personal and corporate taxes, a tax code 4 times longer than War and Peace. It's 2.8 million words according to Professor Michael Graetz, in a November 2004 editorial in the New York Times.
The easiest thing in the world for taxes would be to have a Flat Tax a la Steve Forbes' proposal. Let's allow every inidividual to earn $30,000 per year, and his/her deductions are the $30 k allowance, retirement account contributions, health insurance premiums/health savings account contributions, and a deduction of $2500 per child/dependent. After all of these deductions, a rate of 15% would be paid on remaining income, if any.
Both the $30,000 allowance AND the $2500 child/dependent deductions MUST be indexed for inflation, so that we don't find ourselves in the same debacle as we currently do with the Alternative Minimum Tax.
Having this standard 15% rate in place would prevent people like John Kerry and Teresa Heinz-Kerry from doing what they did in 2003, which was to earn $6.8 million and only pay $700,000.
Warren Buffett recently complained the tax code is unfair, stating he pays a lower rate than his secretary. Well don't worry, Warren, that problem would go away under my system.
And uh, hey Warren, by the way, you don't need to write the government a check, but if you wouldn't mind, could you write me a check for say, $26 grand so I can finally stop having to pay my student loans. Appreciate it, buddy.
Personal taxes aside, let's also remember that the Good Ole' U.S. of A has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. That needs to change. That needs to be lowered.
An ordinary working person should be able to just sit down and figure out his/her taxes in less than 5 minutes, but alas, this is not the case.
We have in this country, between personal and corporate taxes, a tax code 4 times longer than War and Peace. It's 2.8 million words according to Professor Michael Graetz, in a November 2004 editorial in the New York Times.
The easiest thing in the world for taxes would be to have a Flat Tax a la Steve Forbes' proposal. Let's allow every inidividual to earn $30,000 per year, and his/her deductions are the $30 k allowance, retirement account contributions, health insurance premiums/health savings account contributions, and a deduction of $2500 per child/dependent. After all of these deductions, a rate of 15% would be paid on remaining income, if any.
Both the $30,000 allowance AND the $2500 child/dependent deductions MUST be indexed for inflation, so that we don't find ourselves in the same debacle as we currently do with the Alternative Minimum Tax.
Having this standard 15% rate in place would prevent people like John Kerry and Teresa Heinz-Kerry from doing what they did in 2003, which was to earn $6.8 million and only pay $700,000.
Warren Buffett recently complained the tax code is unfair, stating he pays a lower rate than his secretary. Well don't worry, Warren, that problem would go away under my system.
And uh, hey Warren, by the way, you don't need to write the government a check, but if you wouldn't mind, could you write me a check for say, $26 grand so I can finally stop having to pay my student loans. Appreciate it, buddy.
Personal taxes aside, let's also remember that the Good Ole' U.S. of A has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. That needs to change. That needs to be lowered.
Apartheid state of Israel segregates American citizens
Thanks to James Zogby, head of the Arab American Institute, of which I am a card-carrying member. Israel, in its apartheid ways, is denying Palestinian Americans (even if they were born in America) the right to travel there under a US Passport, telling them if they travel that they are to use a Palestinian passport, and we all know how many rights that will give them. Here's what Mr. Zogby wrote:
For thirty years now, I have been demanding that my government, in Washington, protect and defend the rights of its citizens of Arab descent when they travel to Israel and the Palestinian lands occupied since 1967.
I never felt that this was an unreasonable request to make, nor did I feel that it should have been difficult to fulfill. It was not a sensitive or complicated policy matter, like the "thorny" issues of settlements, land confiscations, collective punishments or other violations of international law. Even these the U.S. has, at times, criticized, though been loathe to act more decisively to stop.
What I have asked of the last five administrations was, quite simply, to do what any government is required to do; and that is, to protect and defend its own citizens and, in this case, require Israel to live up to its treaty obligations.
The U.S. passport, the prized possession of any U.S. traveler, says quite clearly on the opening page: "The Secretary of State of the United States of America hereby requests all whom it may concern to permit the citizen/national of the United States named herein to pass without delay or hindrance and in case of need to give all lawful aid and protection."
There is also the 1951 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation, signed by the U.S. and Israel, in which Israel agrees that U.S. citizens traveling there be permitted "to travel therein freely, to reside at places of their choice; to enjoy liberty of conscience...and to bury their dead according to their customs." The Treaty also prohibits "unlawful molestations of every kind," and guarantees U.S. citizens "the most constant protection and security."
As many Arab Americans and most especially those of Palestinian descent will testify, this treaty has been "honored more in the breach than in the observance." Over the many years that I have worked on this issue, we have recorded countless cases where Arab Americans (even those with U.S. diplomatic passports) were detained at entry and exit, treated harshly and in a humiliating manner, and in some cases held for hours and subjected to long and often humiliating interrogation. Palestinian Americans, even those born in the U.S., have been forced to surrender their U.S. passports. Israel requires Palestinian Americans, even those born in the U.S., to secure a Palestinian travel document upon entry and exit. Others have been denied entry when attempting to visit their families; while still others have been denied the opportunity to remain with their families, bury their dead in ancestral plots, or conduct normal business on family-owned properties.
At times, past administrations have intervened in individual cases, some burials were allowed, some visas were given or extended. Former National Security Sandy Berger, and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and, more recently, Secretary of State Rice, have raised this issue directly with the Israeli government, but the problem remains because the Israeli behavior persists.
It appears that Israel has its own view of U.S. citizenship, seeing three classes: American Jews whom they see as having "birthright advantages," other U.S. citizens who are respected and protected, and then, finally, Arab Americans whose rights as U.S. citizens Israel does not fully recognize.
In somewhat tacit acknowledgement of this shameful attitude, the U.S. State Department has issued a travel advisory for U.S. citizens going to the West Bank and Gaza in which they state the following: "American citizens whom Israeli authorities judge (based on their name or other indicators) may be of Palestinian origin are likely to face additional, and often time-consuming, questioning by immigration and border authorities. ...persons judged by the Israeli authorities to have claim to a Palestinian Authority ID are subject to Israeli law and regulations that apply to residents of the West Bank and Gaza, regardless of the fact that they hold U.S. citizenship. ...In addition, American citizens considered to have or to be eligible for a Palestinian ID who entered Israel via Ben Gurion Airport might be required to depart via the Allenby Bridge to Jordan." (emphasis added)
In response to what can only be described as Apartheid treatment, the U.S. government rather lamely adds in its advisory that, "the U.S. government seeks equal treatment for all American citizens regardless of national origin or ethnicity. American citizens who encounter difficulties are encouraged to contact the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv or the U.S. Consulate General in Jerusalem...."
After my organization in Washington wrote to the Secretary of State (in a letter signed by 29 other Arab American organizations) protesting this state of affairs, the department spokesperson, at a press briefing, responded more forcefully saying that, "Our view,...is that an American citizen is an American citizen is an American citizen. There are no second classes. ...You have a blue American passport, you should be treated like an American citizen. ...We expect all American citizens to be accorded the rights that any other American citizen would be accorded." To that, I can only add, "Amen."
The question arises, however, what the U.S. government would do when its expectations are not met. I have been waiting for an answer to that question for more than thirty years.
For thirty years now, I have been demanding that my government, in Washington, protect and defend the rights of its citizens of Arab descent when they travel to Israel and the Palestinian lands occupied since 1967.
I never felt that this was an unreasonable request to make, nor did I feel that it should have been difficult to fulfill. It was not a sensitive or complicated policy matter, like the "thorny" issues of settlements, land confiscations, collective punishments or other violations of international law. Even these the U.S. has, at times, criticized, though been loathe to act more decisively to stop.
What I have asked of the last five administrations was, quite simply, to do what any government is required to do; and that is, to protect and defend its own citizens and, in this case, require Israel to live up to its treaty obligations.
The U.S. passport, the prized possession of any U.S. traveler, says quite clearly on the opening page: "The Secretary of State of the United States of America hereby requests all whom it may concern to permit the citizen/national of the United States named herein to pass without delay or hindrance and in case of need to give all lawful aid and protection."
There is also the 1951 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation, signed by the U.S. and Israel, in which Israel agrees that U.S. citizens traveling there be permitted "to travel therein freely, to reside at places of their choice; to enjoy liberty of conscience...and to bury their dead according to their customs." The Treaty also prohibits "unlawful molestations of every kind," and guarantees U.S. citizens "the most constant protection and security."
As many Arab Americans and most especially those of Palestinian descent will testify, this treaty has been "honored more in the breach than in the observance." Over the many years that I have worked on this issue, we have recorded countless cases where Arab Americans (even those with U.S. diplomatic passports) were detained at entry and exit, treated harshly and in a humiliating manner, and in some cases held for hours and subjected to long and often humiliating interrogation. Palestinian Americans, even those born in the U.S., have been forced to surrender their U.S. passports. Israel requires Palestinian Americans, even those born in the U.S., to secure a Palestinian travel document upon entry and exit. Others have been denied entry when attempting to visit their families; while still others have been denied the opportunity to remain with their families, bury their dead in ancestral plots, or conduct normal business on family-owned properties.
At times, past administrations have intervened in individual cases, some burials were allowed, some visas were given or extended. Former National Security Sandy Berger, and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and, more recently, Secretary of State Rice, have raised this issue directly with the Israeli government, but the problem remains because the Israeli behavior persists.
It appears that Israel has its own view of U.S. citizenship, seeing three classes: American Jews whom they see as having "birthright advantages," other U.S. citizens who are respected and protected, and then, finally, Arab Americans whose rights as U.S. citizens Israel does not fully recognize.
In somewhat tacit acknowledgement of this shameful attitude, the U.S. State Department has issued a travel advisory for U.S. citizens going to the West Bank and Gaza in which they state the following: "American citizens whom Israeli authorities judge (based on their name or other indicators) may be of Palestinian origin are likely to face additional, and often time-consuming, questioning by immigration and border authorities. ...persons judged by the Israeli authorities to have claim to a Palestinian Authority ID are subject to Israeli law and regulations that apply to residents of the West Bank and Gaza, regardless of the fact that they hold U.S. citizenship. ...In addition, American citizens considered to have or to be eligible for a Palestinian ID who entered Israel via Ben Gurion Airport might be required to depart via the Allenby Bridge to Jordan." (emphasis added)
In response to what can only be described as Apartheid treatment, the U.S. government rather lamely adds in its advisory that, "the U.S. government seeks equal treatment for all American citizens regardless of national origin or ethnicity. American citizens who encounter difficulties are encouraged to contact the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv or the U.S. Consulate General in Jerusalem...."
After my organization in Washington wrote to the Secretary of State (in a letter signed by 29 other Arab American organizations) protesting this state of affairs, the department spokesperson, at a press briefing, responded more forcefully saying that, "Our view,...is that an American citizen is an American citizen is an American citizen. There are no second classes. ...You have a blue American passport, you should be treated like an American citizen. ...We expect all American citizens to be accorded the rights that any other American citizen would be accorded." To that, I can only add, "Amen."
The question arises, however, what the U.S. government would do when its expectations are not met. I have been waiting for an answer to that question for more than thirty years.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Social Security and Medicare
So I'm watching the news yesterday, and the story is that the government will have to pay back the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds in 2017. Medicare is expected to be completely insolvent by 2019. Social Security will be in the red in 2019 and completely insolvent by 2041.
If those dates sound "too far off to care" or "I might not be alive by then" let me provide some perspective. If you're 25 right now, then in 2019 you'll be 36. So that means that all the medicare money that was taken from your paychecks all these years will not amount to anything.
And as for social security, if you're 25 now that means you'll be 56 when social security becomes completely insolvent, so you'll have just missed getting any benefits at all by 6 years.
So what do we do? I'll have to say for once in my life I agree with President Bush. I supported him in 2005 when he proposed the social security private accounts, for which he was slimed by the left. For those of you who are on the left and oppose the private accounts option (because it was optional and not mandatory), what is your solution? How do you fix a system that was designed to have a lot of workers on the bottom supporting a few workers at the top? Sure, it may have worked in the 30s when we were still a largely agrarian society and recent arrivals of Jewish and Catholic immigrants would have 6 or 7 kids, but since then social security has gone from having 13 workers to every retiree to 3 workers for every retiree. The only way to fix it is for people to have more kids, and how exactly is government going to force people to have more kids. THEY AREN'T!!! They can't!!!
It's so sad that the one thing that would have saved us from this looming crisis was put down by the left for 2 stupid reasons: (1) AARP pulls the strings of the Democrat marionets, (2) they wanted to get a cheap political victory after years of losing to the Republicans and after having just lost the 2004 presidential election.
So in 2041 when Social Security goes down the toilet and our debt mushrooms even larger than the outrageous amount we currently owe, remember who to thank: Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein. Oh yeah, and also every Republican and Democrat administration that borrowed and borrowed and borrowed from the social security trust fund.
If those dates sound "too far off to care" or "I might not be alive by then" let me provide some perspective. If you're 25 right now, then in 2019 you'll be 36. So that means that all the medicare money that was taken from your paychecks all these years will not amount to anything.
And as for social security, if you're 25 now that means you'll be 56 when social security becomes completely insolvent, so you'll have just missed getting any benefits at all by 6 years.
So what do we do? I'll have to say for once in my life I agree with President Bush. I supported him in 2005 when he proposed the social security private accounts, for which he was slimed by the left. For those of you who are on the left and oppose the private accounts option (because it was optional and not mandatory), what is your solution? How do you fix a system that was designed to have a lot of workers on the bottom supporting a few workers at the top? Sure, it may have worked in the 30s when we were still a largely agrarian society and recent arrivals of Jewish and Catholic immigrants would have 6 or 7 kids, but since then social security has gone from having 13 workers to every retiree to 3 workers for every retiree. The only way to fix it is for people to have more kids, and how exactly is government going to force people to have more kids. THEY AREN'T!!! They can't!!!
It's so sad that the one thing that would have saved us from this looming crisis was put down by the left for 2 stupid reasons: (1) AARP pulls the strings of the Democrat marionets, (2) they wanted to get a cheap political victory after years of losing to the Republicans and after having just lost the 2004 presidential election.
So in 2041 when Social Security goes down the toilet and our debt mushrooms even larger than the outrageous amount we currently owe, remember who to thank: Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein. Oh yeah, and also every Republican and Democrat administration that borrowed and borrowed and borrowed from the social security trust fund.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
My e-mail to John Stossel of 20/20
Let me preface this before showing the e-mail: I have tremendous respect for John Stossel. I love his journalim and I agree with him far more often than not. He's done excellent exposees on the homeless, the education system in America, and health care, but I disagreed with him on energy, making points that I would expect him to know. Here it is:
John,
while I agree with you 90% of the time, I must disagree with you on ethanol. I am not a midwest farmer or a ADM lobbyist. I am a 25-year old city-slicker from San Antonio, TX. I disagree with you for 3 reasons: (1) Corn is not the only source of ethanol in this country. We have plenty of switchgrass that can be used for ethanol. We also have sugar cane in Florida and Louisianna, and sugar beets in Minnesota. Outside of this country there is Brazilian and Caribbean sugar cane. (2) You say ethanol has to be transported in trucks because it is corrosive to pipelines. Currently that is true, but how do you know that one day our pipelines won't be revamped in such a way that they will be able to carry ethanol. After all, if it couldn't be done, how do Flexfuel cars have fuel lines that can carry ethanol without corroding? (3) You say nothing of biodiesel. It is a non-corrosive compound that any diesel vehicle can run on. It can be made simply from USED restaurant cooking oil. The fats that lie in the grease tray for my George Forman Grill when I cook chicken breasts or burgers can be used for bio-diesel. So ethanol AND bio-diesel will one day help us become energy independent.
Thank you.
John,
while I agree with you 90% of the time, I must disagree with you on ethanol. I am not a midwest farmer or a ADM lobbyist. I am a 25-year old city-slicker from San Antonio, TX. I disagree with you for 3 reasons: (1) Corn is not the only source of ethanol in this country. We have plenty of switchgrass that can be used for ethanol. We also have sugar cane in Florida and Louisianna, and sugar beets in Minnesota. Outside of this country there is Brazilian and Caribbean sugar cane. (2) You say ethanol has to be transported in trucks because it is corrosive to pipelines. Currently that is true, but how do you know that one day our pipelines won't be revamped in such a way that they will be able to carry ethanol. After all, if it couldn't be done, how do Flexfuel cars have fuel lines that can carry ethanol without corroding? (3) You say nothing of biodiesel. It is a non-corrosive compound that any diesel vehicle can run on. It can be made simply from USED restaurant cooking oil. The fats that lie in the grease tray for my George Forman Grill when I cook chicken breasts or burgers can be used for bio-diesel. So ethanol AND bio-diesel will one day help us become energy independent.
Thank you.
Monday, March 24, 2008
XM-Sirius merger should not pass go, not collect $200
In the news today I saw that the Justice Department has green-lighted the merger of the only 2 (or at least the only 2 that I'm aware of ) satellite radio carriers in the U.S. -- XM and Sirius. The only thing holding it back right now is review by the FCC (Federal Communications Commission). Well I hope that my boy Jonathan Adelstein stands up for the American consumer and leads a strong effort to block this.
Folks, being a libertarian means you support and believe in the free market to provide better goods and services to the consumer, but that's only true given COMPETITION, and there is no competition when the only two companies in an industry merge.
Competition drives down costs and creates the best product. Without it, we might as well live in East Germany in the 1980s.
Good example of this is wrestling. When there was strong competition between WWF and WCW every monday night from 1996 to 1999, the product was hot. Millions in PPV sales, ticket sales, wrestler merchandise, and you felt like you had to watch it every Monday night or you'd miss something big. But in early 2001 when ECW went bankrupt and WCW got bought by Vince McMahon, the product gradually declined from thence.
Let's oppose this merger in whatever way we can. If it means disconnecting my service if it gets approved, so be it.
Let's also go on a hunt for other satellite radio companies and support them.
Folks, being a libertarian means you support and believe in the free market to provide better goods and services to the consumer, but that's only true given COMPETITION, and there is no competition when the only two companies in an industry merge.
Competition drives down costs and creates the best product. Without it, we might as well live in East Germany in the 1980s.
Good example of this is wrestling. When there was strong competition between WWF and WCW every monday night from 1996 to 1999, the product was hot. Millions in PPV sales, ticket sales, wrestler merchandise, and you felt like you had to watch it every Monday night or you'd miss something big. But in early 2001 when ECW went bankrupt and WCW got bought by Vince McMahon, the product gradually declined from thence.
Let's oppose this merger in whatever way we can. If it means disconnecting my service if it gets approved, so be it.
Let's also go on a hunt for other satellite radio companies and support them.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Wright is Right on a couple things.....
In all the hubbub about Reverend Jeremiah Wright and his relationship vis-a-vis Barak Obama, all the coverage has portrayed the Reverend in a strictly negative light. Whether it's Anderson Cooper 360, Hannity & Colmes, etc. etc., they have to show Reverend Wright talking about our foreign policy and incenuating he's "evil" for his views, and Obama is by default, evil as well. Before I proceed, I am not going to vote for Obama. He's a socialist. But a couple points about his pastor:
(1) He says we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki after fire-bombing them, and we "never batted an eye," yet we're so outraged about 9/11.
Hate to break it to ya, but that's true. A lot more people died after the nuking of those two cities in Japan during World War II, and nobody cared. President Truman even said he "slept like a baby" that night. But yet Truman is a saint to some in the Democratic party.
There was no reason to nuke Japan. The U.S. military had already driven Japanese forces out of all the island posessions they'd taken prior to Pearl Harbor, and those two cities had already been fire-bombed before the dropping of the atom bombs. But because America had to have it's way to the hilt, we had to punish them more than necessary. Also, Truman and the Pentagon felt it necessary to "send a message" to Stalin and Mao not to try to take any more territory.
(2) He says Israel is one of the reasons we were attacked on 9/11 and that Israel is an apartheid state not unlike pre-Mandela South Africa. That's also true. You can read Peter Bergen's interview with Osama bin Laden from 1997, or any other Osama Bin Laden speech and you'll note our support for Israel is one of the reasons so many Arabs and Muslims hate America. And as for the apartheid allegation, I don't know what other comparison could be used for a country that treats one group of people one way, and the other group a lesser way. I don't know what else you could describe a situation in which 500 Jews in Hebron live on and control 20% of the city, and 100,000 Arabs live on the other 80%. I don't know what else you could call a state that lets illegal West Bank settlers (who by the way are living there in violation of the Geneva conventions) have swimming pools in their back yard but has Arabs live on 60 liters of water a day. I don't know what else you would call a state that has "sanitized/Jewish-only roads."
(3) Liberation theology, contrary to what that black guy on Glen Beck who used to be a UN diplomat said last night, is not some concoction of Communist/Marxist countries who felt like they could not destroy the Church so they set out to redefine it. Liberation theology is simply put, a group of people anywhere in the world, who use their theology and the scriptural verses to emphasize the freeing from slavery or oppression. So in America in the 1800s, liberation theology existed among slaves. In pre-1888 Brazil, Catholic clergy who supported the rights of the indigenous and african slaves used adhered to Liberation theology. Same thing with Dr. Martin Luther King Sr. and Dr King Jr. Same thing with Fr. Atallah Hannah, a Jerusalem Orthodox Priest who uses his Christianity to emphasize freedom from Israeli oppression.
(1) He says we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki after fire-bombing them, and we "never batted an eye," yet we're so outraged about 9/11.
Hate to break it to ya, but that's true. A lot more people died after the nuking of those two cities in Japan during World War II, and nobody cared. President Truman even said he "slept like a baby" that night. But yet Truman is a saint to some in the Democratic party.
There was no reason to nuke Japan. The U.S. military had already driven Japanese forces out of all the island posessions they'd taken prior to Pearl Harbor, and those two cities had already been fire-bombed before the dropping of the atom bombs. But because America had to have it's way to the hilt, we had to punish them more than necessary. Also, Truman and the Pentagon felt it necessary to "send a message" to Stalin and Mao not to try to take any more territory.
(2) He says Israel is one of the reasons we were attacked on 9/11 and that Israel is an apartheid state not unlike pre-Mandela South Africa. That's also true. You can read Peter Bergen's interview with Osama bin Laden from 1997, or any other Osama Bin Laden speech and you'll note our support for Israel is one of the reasons so many Arabs and Muslims hate America. And as for the apartheid allegation, I don't know what other comparison could be used for a country that treats one group of people one way, and the other group a lesser way. I don't know what else you could describe a situation in which 500 Jews in Hebron live on and control 20% of the city, and 100,000 Arabs live on the other 80%. I don't know what else you could call a state that lets illegal West Bank settlers (who by the way are living there in violation of the Geneva conventions) have swimming pools in their back yard but has Arabs live on 60 liters of water a day. I don't know what else you would call a state that has "sanitized/Jewish-only roads."
(3) Liberation theology, contrary to what that black guy on Glen Beck who used to be a UN diplomat said last night, is not some concoction of Communist/Marxist countries who felt like they could not destroy the Church so they set out to redefine it. Liberation theology is simply put, a group of people anywhere in the world, who use their theology and the scriptural verses to emphasize the freeing from slavery or oppression. So in America in the 1800s, liberation theology existed among slaves. In pre-1888 Brazil, Catholic clergy who supported the rights of the indigenous and african slaves used adhered to Liberation theology. Same thing with Dr. Martin Luther King Sr. and Dr King Jr. Same thing with Fr. Atallah Hannah, a Jerusalem Orthodox Priest who uses his Christianity to emphasize freedom from Israeli oppression.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Bigot Neal Boortz show his ignorance and stupidity
So last night I'm in my car after work running a couple errands, mailing a couple things out at the post office, and I'm listening to right-wing talk radio as I usually do, and I hear Neal Boortz reading a newspaper clipping toward the end of his second hour, quoting an article about an Israeli-Arab doing an honor killing to his sister, all the while saying "this is the wonderful world of Islam," and this is "the peaceful serene religion."
He then refers to Islam as a "trash gutter religion."
Now, I happen to remember Louis Farrakhan getting into a lot of heat for saying Judaism is a "gutter religion," and rightfully so, even though I am not a critic of Farrakhan.
But Neal Boortz gets a free pass?? I know that if an Arab-American or a Pakistani-American called Judaism a gutter religion or said offensive things or used the worst possible examples of Jews, he wouldn't have a show? Why does Neal Boortz get to slide by? I think his sponsors should do to him the same thing that happened to Michael Graham after he called Islam "a terrorist organization." Give Boortz the boot.
He then refers to Islam as a "trash gutter religion."
Now, I happen to remember Louis Farrakhan getting into a lot of heat for saying Judaism is a "gutter religion," and rightfully so, even though I am not a critic of Farrakhan.
But Neal Boortz gets a free pass?? I know that if an Arab-American or a Pakistani-American called Judaism a gutter religion or said offensive things or used the worst possible examples of Jews, he wouldn't have a show? Why does Neal Boortz get to slide by? I think his sponsors should do to him the same thing that happened to Michael Graham after he called Islam "a terrorist organization." Give Boortz the boot.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Healthcare Solutions Part II
As I write this I am thankful to have the opportunity to be watching the Jon Stossel documentary on Health care in America. LOVE IT!!!
It's exactly what I've been saying for 2 years now.
Everyone in America's caught this "Government healthcare like in Canada/Europe" fever. Everyone in America now thinks it's the government's job and our right to free health care.
Well, free is a misnomer folks. People in Europe and Canada pay taxes up the rear end. You think our taxes are high now? Just you wait.
And if we do get that system, the "Medicare for all" as Ralph Nader and Ted Kennedy call it, then you'll have the opportunity to see just how much longer Europeans wait in line for a routine doctors visit or how many more weeks or months they have to wait for a procedure/surgery.
Watch C-Span on Wednesday night. You'll see British Prime Minister Gordon Brown get hammered by the other parties over wait times for doctors and lack of hospital beds. That's what government health systems bring you. Long wait times and poor quality of care.
Our quality of healthcare is the highest in the world. No doubt in my mind.
And let's stop having health insurance through our jobs. Does it really make sense? If you lose your job, you lose your coverage.
Again, the solution is this: Individual health insurance, which will drive down the costs because the companies will have to compete for your business. And only have insurance for serious health issues. Anything other than surgery should be paid for by funds in a health savings account which would roll over from year to year.
Don't let Michael Moore and Hillary Clinton turn us into Europe.
It's exactly what I've been saying for 2 years now.
Everyone in America's caught this "Government healthcare like in Canada/Europe" fever. Everyone in America now thinks it's the government's job and our right to free health care.
Well, free is a misnomer folks. People in Europe and Canada pay taxes up the rear end. You think our taxes are high now? Just you wait.
And if we do get that system, the "Medicare for all" as Ralph Nader and Ted Kennedy call it, then you'll have the opportunity to see just how much longer Europeans wait in line for a routine doctors visit or how many more weeks or months they have to wait for a procedure/surgery.
Watch C-Span on Wednesday night. You'll see British Prime Minister Gordon Brown get hammered by the other parties over wait times for doctors and lack of hospital beds. That's what government health systems bring you. Long wait times and poor quality of care.
Our quality of healthcare is the highest in the world. No doubt in my mind.
And let's stop having health insurance through our jobs. Does it really make sense? If you lose your job, you lose your coverage.
Again, the solution is this: Individual health insurance, which will drive down the costs because the companies will have to compete for your business. And only have insurance for serious health issues. Anything other than surgery should be paid for by funds in a health savings account which would roll over from year to year.
Don't let Michael Moore and Hillary Clinton turn us into Europe.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Energy Crisis Solutions Part II
I would like to add to my most recent posting that I say what I say about alternative energy solutions because I hear it day after day, people who are either democrats or independents complaining about either how Bush won't do anything to lower gas prices or how the oil companies are gouging unnecessarily and making "record profits."
On the other side, Republicans whine about how we should drill in ANWAR and Florida and the California coast. And that we need to build more refineries. And that Canada better pick us over the Chinese for the oil shale deal.
First, the oil companies are not gouging, at least not anywhere near people think they are. I love reminding these people that government makes 3 time the tax revenue than the profits EXXON makes. And yes, I concede, the $400 million severance package for that former CEO was excessive.
See, in the 90's, we in America were in the middle of a perfect storm for low gas prices. Iraq's oil was allowed back onto the markets in 1996, Russia started selling their heavy crude, and the Asian tigers crashed which lowered global demand relative to supply. So with all that extra supply from Iraq and Russia, and the reduction in demand in the Asian market, we in America enjoyed low gas prices.
Well guess what folks? Them days ain't comin' back. The ONLY way we could possibly go back to those days is (1) ever-increasing subsidization of gasoline/oil which would be a complete farces because we'd just be making up the difference in taxes, or (2) build 10 new refineries in America next year and drill in ANWAR and the Rockies, and Florida coast at the same time. What are the odds that that is gonna really happen? I have a better chance of boning J-Lo.
And fossil fuels like crude oil keep ruining the ozone layer, anyway.
So let's look to the future. Crude oil is in the past. The future is cellulosic ethanol (and yes, corn and sugar ethanol), used restaurant grease for bio-diesel, and eventually hydrogen cars that produce nothing but water.
You want gas prices to go down? Quit crying and do something about it on your own.
On the other side, Republicans whine about how we should drill in ANWAR and Florida and the California coast. And that we need to build more refineries. And that Canada better pick us over the Chinese for the oil shale deal.
First, the oil companies are not gouging, at least not anywhere near people think they are. I love reminding these people that government makes 3 time the tax revenue than the profits EXXON makes. And yes, I concede, the $400 million severance package for that former CEO was excessive.
See, in the 90's, we in America were in the middle of a perfect storm for low gas prices. Iraq's oil was allowed back onto the markets in 1996, Russia started selling their heavy crude, and the Asian tigers crashed which lowered global demand relative to supply. So with all that extra supply from Iraq and Russia, and the reduction in demand in the Asian market, we in America enjoyed low gas prices.
Well guess what folks? Them days ain't comin' back. The ONLY way we could possibly go back to those days is (1) ever-increasing subsidization of gasoline/oil which would be a complete farces because we'd just be making up the difference in taxes, or (2) build 10 new refineries in America next year and drill in ANWAR and the Rockies, and Florida coast at the same time. What are the odds that that is gonna really happen? I have a better chance of boning J-Lo.
And fossil fuels like crude oil keep ruining the ozone layer, anyway.
So let's look to the future. Crude oil is in the past. The future is cellulosic ethanol (and yes, corn and sugar ethanol), used restaurant grease for bio-diesel, and eventually hydrogen cars that produce nothing but water.
You want gas prices to go down? Quit crying and do something about it on your own.
Energy Crisis Solutions
Time now to read my thoughts on the gas prices situation in this great nation of ours.
As you all know, gasoline prices have been high for well over a month. The reason for this is because gasoline prices always spike up at the end of March and last until mid to late May, and the reason for that is because in March the petroleum and other such producers shift from heating oil to regular oil. This slows down the production process somewhat, thus shortening supply, and we all know the rules of supply and demand.
But the solution to our energy crisis is as simple as the restaurants we eat at and the grass in our prairies. Confused? Allow me to explain: Individuals in the state of Oregon have already begun to collect used (that's right, used) frying oil from restaurants, take it home, put it through a machine they bought for $2000, mix it with regular diesel, and voila, you have biodiesel. This is not a new concept. The inventor of the diesel engine, Rudolf Diesel, designed the first ever diesel engine to run on pure PEANUT OIL. In fact, actress Darryl Hannah has a car that runs on pure recycled restaurant grease. Henry Ford designed the Model T to run on ethanol. And that was a century ago almost. Many people have started talking up the hype regarding ethanol made from corn cobs, but the fact is researchers and scientists have discovered how to derive ethanol from the stock and the stover of the corn. Researchers have also found that a certain type of grass called switch grass has a natural ethanol component in it, and more efficiently yields ethanol than corn cobs. In Sweden they already use a form of ethanol derived from wood chips. A major university in Virginia last year built green houses to grow genetically modified switch grass which has a higher ethanol yield than even naturally occurring switch grass. Brazil has been mixing ethanol and gasoline together for the past 30 years. Every gallon of gasoline at the pump in Brazil is 20% ethanol, derived from sugar cane.
Not every part of the United States is behind the curve. In Minnesota the state government as well as the governor have had in place E10 laws, meaning that all gasoline sold in the state must be 10% ethanol, no more, no less.
There's no reason that my Governor Rick Perry cannot do the same thing in the Texas legislature.
So there you have it -- two cheap inexpensive fuels that would provide protection to our economy from rising crude oil prices, and would create jobs because of the increase in refineries built. Why can't we do it?
As you all know, gasoline prices have been high for well over a month. The reason for this is because gasoline prices always spike up at the end of March and last until mid to late May, and the reason for that is because in March the petroleum and other such producers shift from heating oil to regular oil. This slows down the production process somewhat, thus shortening supply, and we all know the rules of supply and demand.
But the solution to our energy crisis is as simple as the restaurants we eat at and the grass in our prairies. Confused? Allow me to explain: Individuals in the state of Oregon have already begun to collect used (that's right, used) frying oil from restaurants, take it home, put it through a machine they bought for $2000, mix it with regular diesel, and voila, you have biodiesel. This is not a new concept. The inventor of the diesel engine, Rudolf Diesel, designed the first ever diesel engine to run on pure PEANUT OIL. In fact, actress Darryl Hannah has a car that runs on pure recycled restaurant grease. Henry Ford designed the Model T to run on ethanol. And that was a century ago almost. Many people have started talking up the hype regarding ethanol made from corn cobs, but the fact is researchers and scientists have discovered how to derive ethanol from the stock and the stover of the corn. Researchers have also found that a certain type of grass called switch grass has a natural ethanol component in it, and more efficiently yields ethanol than corn cobs. In Sweden they already use a form of ethanol derived from wood chips. A major university in Virginia last year built green houses to grow genetically modified switch grass which has a higher ethanol yield than even naturally occurring switch grass. Brazil has been mixing ethanol and gasoline together for the past 30 years. Every gallon of gasoline at the pump in Brazil is 20% ethanol, derived from sugar cane.
Not every part of the United States is behind the curve. In Minnesota the state government as well as the governor have had in place E10 laws, meaning that all gasoline sold in the state must be 10% ethanol, no more, no less.
There's no reason that my Governor Rick Perry cannot do the same thing in the Texas legislature.
So there you have it -- two cheap inexpensive fuels that would provide protection to our economy from rising crude oil prices, and would create jobs because of the increase in refineries built. Why can't we do it?
My views on Healthcare and government's role
Well folks, time to read my opinion on healthcare.
I am against a national healthcare program, or universal healthcare, as it is often referred to by its proponents.
Those who want to nationalize the healthcare industry in this great nation of ours often say, "America is the only nation in the industrialized world that does not provide healthcare to all of its citizens." Ok. And??
Health insurance is often what they are referring to when they say healthcare. And for some in the Democratic party, people having health insurance isn't good enough. They say premiums and deductibles are too high. The solution: Get everyone in a government program for it. Raise taxes through the ceiling to do it, too.
For one thing, health insurance is not a God-given right. The only right you have vis-a-vis health insurance is to work at a job so you can afford the monthly premiums. If it means an extra 4 or 5 hours a month to pay for it, you do what you gotta do.
Secondly, there are good reasons why healthcare costs are high: (1) People do not prioritize with their finances. I see it everyday in my line of work. They'd rather have a plasma tv or a new car with $400 a month payments than have life insurance, so if they die then their kids and spouse are screwed. So of course health insurance isn't much higher up on the priority list for such people. (2) We in America have become addicted through "Jobs with benefits." I have a full time job, and I do not utilize the health insurance they offer me. I have my own plan through Humana outside my work. It is a zero prescription deductible with a high everything-else deductible, so my premiums are low ($90 a month) and I save a little in a money market account that pays 5%, so when something comes up, I'll have enough for the $2500 deductible. Which brings me to my last point: (3) Nobody saves in this country for ANYTHING. In 2005 the national savings rate fell to - 0.5%. Nobody saves independently to pay for health expenses. So they use low-deductible health insurance plans for every possible thing that goes wrong. That's what's wrong with the health system in this country. People get cheap insurance through their work, they don't shop around and compare plans, and they don't save a dime for anything.
It's like Jon Stossel of 20/20 pointed out: Imagine if you had grocery insurance, and you used grocery insurance to buy your groceries every week. You'd be eating steak and lobster everyday. And of course costs keep going up because you just say, "well, my insurance will cover it." So what do you think the doctors do? Raise the costs and charge what they want. After all, it has no huge impact on your wallet, so you don't care. Isn't the point of insurance to protect you in case something adverse happens to you? Not to be a budget/treasury for routine things. But that's exactly what people use health insurance for. It's not in case some infection or disease or cancer comes about. It's so they can pay only $20 for a routine doctor visit.
My solution: Take the employer OUT of the healthcare system. Americans need to start shopping around for insurance on their own. Then the companies would really have to compete on price to win your business. And you would make more conservative decisions on things. You'd actually ask yourself, "Do I really need to have this done?" You'd get on a higher deductible plan, which would save you on premiums per month, and you'd save in a separate savings account for the times when you need to pay that deductible. And you know what the greatest thing about having health insurance outside of your job would be?? If you changed jobs, you wouldn't have to wait to be eligible for health benefits. You'd always have insurance no matter what.
I am against a national healthcare program, or universal healthcare, as it is often referred to by its proponents.
Those who want to nationalize the healthcare industry in this great nation of ours often say, "America is the only nation in the industrialized world that does not provide healthcare to all of its citizens." Ok. And??
Health insurance is often what they are referring to when they say healthcare. And for some in the Democratic party, people having health insurance isn't good enough. They say premiums and deductibles are too high. The solution: Get everyone in a government program for it. Raise taxes through the ceiling to do it, too.
For one thing, health insurance is not a God-given right. The only right you have vis-a-vis health insurance is to work at a job so you can afford the monthly premiums. If it means an extra 4 or 5 hours a month to pay for it, you do what you gotta do.
Secondly, there are good reasons why healthcare costs are high: (1) People do not prioritize with their finances. I see it everyday in my line of work. They'd rather have a plasma tv or a new car with $400 a month payments than have life insurance, so if they die then their kids and spouse are screwed. So of course health insurance isn't much higher up on the priority list for such people. (2) We in America have become addicted through "Jobs with benefits." I have a full time job, and I do not utilize the health insurance they offer me. I have my own plan through Humana outside my work. It is a zero prescription deductible with a high everything-else deductible, so my premiums are low ($90 a month) and I save a little in a money market account that pays 5%, so when something comes up, I'll have enough for the $2500 deductible. Which brings me to my last point: (3) Nobody saves in this country for ANYTHING. In 2005 the national savings rate fell to - 0.5%. Nobody saves independently to pay for health expenses. So they use low-deductible health insurance plans for every possible thing that goes wrong. That's what's wrong with the health system in this country. People get cheap insurance through their work, they don't shop around and compare plans, and they don't save a dime for anything.
It's like Jon Stossel of 20/20 pointed out: Imagine if you had grocery insurance, and you used grocery insurance to buy your groceries every week. You'd be eating steak and lobster everyday. And of course costs keep going up because you just say, "well, my insurance will cover it." So what do you think the doctors do? Raise the costs and charge what they want. After all, it has no huge impact on your wallet, so you don't care. Isn't the point of insurance to protect you in case something adverse happens to you? Not to be a budget/treasury for routine things. But that's exactly what people use health insurance for. It's not in case some infection or disease or cancer comes about. It's so they can pay only $20 for a routine doctor visit.
My solution: Take the employer OUT of the healthcare system. Americans need to start shopping around for insurance on their own. Then the companies would really have to compete on price to win your business. And you would make more conservative decisions on things. You'd actually ask yourself, "Do I really need to have this done?" You'd get on a higher deductible plan, which would save you on premiums per month, and you'd save in a separate savings account for the times when you need to pay that deductible. And you know what the greatest thing about having health insurance outside of your job would be?? If you changed jobs, you wouldn't have to wait to be eligible for health benefits. You'd always have insurance no matter what.
If we hadn't gone to war in Iraq...
then we would have....
-- had more readily sent a couple thousand marines to Liberia during the political crisis in 2004 instead of taking forever to send them due to our military being spread so thin.
-- already been able to put peace keepers in Darfur to stop the genocide there.
-- no budget deficit and a lower national debt.
-- 4000 American soldiers as well as soldiers of Britain, Italy, Australia, Poland, and the UK still alive.
-- lower oil price per barrel of oil.
-- more stable Saudi Arabia not on the verge of an Islamist attack on an oil field.
-- thousands upon thousands of Iraqi civilians still alive.
-- still a viable Chaldean Catholic population in Baghdad, Basra, and Mosul.
-- women being able to walk the streets of Iraq without a veil.
-- more credibility and respect from the international community.
-- had more readily sent a couple thousand marines to Liberia during the political crisis in 2004 instead of taking forever to send them due to our military being spread so thin.
-- already been able to put peace keepers in Darfur to stop the genocide there.
-- no budget deficit and a lower national debt.
-- 4000 American soldiers as well as soldiers of Britain, Italy, Australia, Poland, and the UK still alive.
-- lower oil price per barrel of oil.
-- more stable Saudi Arabia not on the verge of an Islamist attack on an oil field.
-- thousands upon thousands of Iraqi civilians still alive.
-- still a viable Chaldean Catholic population in Baghdad, Basra, and Mosul.
-- women being able to walk the streets of Iraq without a veil.
-- more credibility and respect from the international community.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Lebanon
Last week two funerals/ceremonies were held: One, for assassinated terrorist Imad Mughniyeh, who is linked to the 1985 hi-jacking that killed a Navy Seal on board, as well as bombing of the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Most of the mourners at this funeral were supporters or members of the group Shi'i Militia group Hezbollah (Arabic for "Party of God"). Most people here were Shi'i Muslims but also a few Catholic/Eastern Orthodox who during the 90s supported anti-Syrian leader and new-found Hezbollah ally Michel Aoun, himself a Maronite Catholic (much like the author of this blog). They want Lebanon to be a free independent nation with the founding premise for a new constitution that Lebanon is an Arab country and an independent country that should be free from undue influence or aggression from Israel, Syria, the U.S., and France. They want new Parliamentary elections and the resignation of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.
The other, as a commemoration of the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, who was killed on Valentine's Day 2005. I remember it cuz I walked into a McDonalds after school and saw on the TV a 2002 interview Wolf Blitzer did with the man, with the bottom banner stating, "Former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri assassinated." At this funeral, the mourners were supporters of the political party Al-Naqbata (Arabic for "the Future"), and Shi'i were not more than a few. Most people there were Catholic, Sunni Muslim (the group Mr. Hariri came from), or Druze. And most people there want Lebanon to become a stable peaceful place and once again maybe, just maybe, become the "Paris of the East" as it was once known before 1975.
I have read three books on the Lebanese Civil War of the 70s and 80s, and I know people from Lebanon, and I have followed their press for at least five years, and what I find remarkable about this is how many positive changes have happened since the Taif Accords of 1990, and yet how much more hopeless it also seems since 1982.
Allow me to explain: On the one hand, the hatred and rivalry between Christians and the Druze is gone. In the late 1970s the two groups were at each others' throats in the south of Mount Lebanon (where my ancestors were from). The Israeli occupying forces couldn't keep them apart. The U.S. Marine corp couldn't keep them apart. They've been fighting since the 1820s. But now they are once again as unified as they were when the Druze first settled in Mount Lebanon after their flight from Egypt in the 11th century. At that time, the Catholics controlled northern Mt. Lebanon, and the Druze controlled southern Mt. Lebanon, and the two sides had a mutual defense pact between them to protect against Muslim militaries. The other remarkable thing is how unified Christians and Sunnis are. Those two groups fought horrendously in the 50s and the 70s and 80s. In the 1950s Christians abhorred the growing wave of secular Arab nationalism that Sunnis in the country were taking to, and feared Lebanon would be absorbed into the then-U.A.R. which comprised Egypt, Syria, and Yemen. Christians feared losing their "Christian Arab country," which was at that time and still is the only Arab country where Christians comprise more than 15% of the country. (Syria is about 10 to 12% Christian; Jordan 8%, and Egypt 8%).
But in the post-1990 environment, the one common thread Jim Zogby, President of the Arab American Institute has found, is that all Lebanese today, regardless of religious affiliation, identify themselves as Lebanese first and foremost. The days of Sunnis and secular Shi'i wanting to join the secular Nasserist movement of the U.A.R. are gone.
But today, there are two forces at opposite ends of the spectrum at work in Lebanon, and they are in large part the reason a census has not been taken in the country since1932. On the one hand you have the Shi'i who are the poorest group income-wise in the country, yet probably make up the largest of all four major groups. They feel that since they are numbers-wise the largest group that they should have a lot more power than they do in government, yet still today the highest position a Shi'ite Muslim can have is Speaker of Parliament. On the other extreme you have Christians who are generally speaking at the top of the income-wealth ladder in the country, not trying to expand their power from current levels, but rather, just trying to hold onto what they have, for fear of the demographic realities which would show them to be nowhere even close to the numbers they had even in the early 1980s. It gets messier when you consider intermittent Israeli bombings in the south and intermittent assassination attempts and bombings by Syria.
Hopefully Hezbollah will not attack Israel and face another July 2006 situation in the south. Hopefully Syria will stop their targeting of Parliamentarians. Hopefully, a president whom most people in the country can be elected within the next month or two.
But all anyone can ever say of Lebanon's fate is hopefully....
The other, as a commemoration of the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, who was killed on Valentine's Day 2005. I remember it cuz I walked into a McDonalds after school and saw on the TV a 2002 interview Wolf Blitzer did with the man, with the bottom banner stating, "Former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri assassinated." At this funeral, the mourners were supporters of the political party Al-Naqbata (Arabic for "the Future"), and Shi'i were not more than a few. Most people there were Catholic, Sunni Muslim (the group Mr. Hariri came from), or Druze. And most people there want Lebanon to become a stable peaceful place and once again maybe, just maybe, become the "Paris of the East" as it was once known before 1975.
I have read three books on the Lebanese Civil War of the 70s and 80s, and I know people from Lebanon, and I have followed their press for at least five years, and what I find remarkable about this is how many positive changes have happened since the Taif Accords of 1990, and yet how much more hopeless it also seems since 1982.
Allow me to explain: On the one hand, the hatred and rivalry between Christians and the Druze is gone. In the late 1970s the two groups were at each others' throats in the south of Mount Lebanon (where my ancestors were from). The Israeli occupying forces couldn't keep them apart. The U.S. Marine corp couldn't keep them apart. They've been fighting since the 1820s. But now they are once again as unified as they were when the Druze first settled in Mount Lebanon after their flight from Egypt in the 11th century. At that time, the Catholics controlled northern Mt. Lebanon, and the Druze controlled southern Mt. Lebanon, and the two sides had a mutual defense pact between them to protect against Muslim militaries. The other remarkable thing is how unified Christians and Sunnis are. Those two groups fought horrendously in the 50s and the 70s and 80s. In the 1950s Christians abhorred the growing wave of secular Arab nationalism that Sunnis in the country were taking to, and feared Lebanon would be absorbed into the then-U.A.R. which comprised Egypt, Syria, and Yemen. Christians feared losing their "Christian Arab country," which was at that time and still is the only Arab country where Christians comprise more than 15% of the country. (Syria is about 10 to 12% Christian; Jordan 8%, and Egypt 8%).
But in the post-1990 environment, the one common thread Jim Zogby, President of the Arab American Institute has found, is that all Lebanese today, regardless of religious affiliation, identify themselves as Lebanese first and foremost. The days of Sunnis and secular Shi'i wanting to join the secular Nasserist movement of the U.A.R. are gone.
But today, there are two forces at opposite ends of the spectrum at work in Lebanon, and they are in large part the reason a census has not been taken in the country since1932. On the one hand you have the Shi'i who are the poorest group income-wise in the country, yet probably make up the largest of all four major groups. They feel that since they are numbers-wise the largest group that they should have a lot more power than they do in government, yet still today the highest position a Shi'ite Muslim can have is Speaker of Parliament. On the other extreme you have Christians who are generally speaking at the top of the income-wealth ladder in the country, not trying to expand their power from current levels, but rather, just trying to hold onto what they have, for fear of the demographic realities which would show them to be nowhere even close to the numbers they had even in the early 1980s. It gets messier when you consider intermittent Israeli bombings in the south and intermittent assassination attempts and bombings by Syria.
Hopefully Hezbollah will not attack Israel and face another July 2006 situation in the south. Hopefully Syria will stop their targeting of Parliamentarians. Hopefully, a president whom most people in the country can be elected within the next month or two.
But all anyone can ever say of Lebanon's fate is hopefully....
Expecting the next president to make your life better
As we begin our march toward both the Republican and Democratic (and Libertarian, haha) National Conventions to lead to the presidential debates and eventually elect a new president for the next four years, let us remember that whatever our political belief systems are, the next president, whether it be Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, or in my dreams Wayne Root, your life is not going to dramatically be better or dramatically be worse because whoever it ends up being.
You, and only you, are responsible for making your life better. Don't sit around saying, "Well gees, you know, my income would be higher, gas prices would be lower, that girl/guy I like would finally be interested in me if [my preferred candidate] was president. Everything would just be great!" WRONG!! If you really want to, you can do things to make your life great now. Just get off your lazy butt and do it.
Want gas prices to go down? Get a hybrid, a flex fuel, or a diesel and use bio-diesel, and VOILA! The gas price pinch will diminish.
Want more money? Apply for a job that you're qualified for and that pays better than the one you're currently in. OR, start up your own business. Or go back to school for a degree. What a novel idea! Can't afford school you say? Well you know there is this thing called state-funded public colleges that are cheap, and then if you work a job that pays tuition benefits, you're in like Zen. Can't start up a business? Sure you can! What do you like? What are you passionate about? Start it small and gradually build it.
Just remember, presidents don't sit behind a desk pulling levers and pushing buttons all day to make the right things happen at the right times. The president's job is to set policy on taxes, spending, military, and other issues. Not making your life great.
You, and only you, are responsible for making your life better. Don't sit around saying, "Well gees, you know, my income would be higher, gas prices would be lower, that girl/guy I like would finally be interested in me if [my preferred candidate] was president. Everything would just be great!" WRONG!! If you really want to, you can do things to make your life great now. Just get off your lazy butt and do it.
Want gas prices to go down? Get a hybrid, a flex fuel, or a diesel and use bio-diesel, and VOILA! The gas price pinch will diminish.
Want more money? Apply for a job that you're qualified for and that pays better than the one you're currently in. OR, start up your own business. Or go back to school for a degree. What a novel idea! Can't afford school you say? Well you know there is this thing called state-funded public colleges that are cheap, and then if you work a job that pays tuition benefits, you're in like Zen. Can't start up a business? Sure you can! What do you like? What are you passionate about? Start it small and gradually build it.
Just remember, presidents don't sit behind a desk pulling levers and pushing buttons all day to make the right things happen at the right times. The president's job is to set policy on taxes, spending, military, and other issues. Not making your life great.
Kosovo Independence and Albanians
To begin this blog, I must say that I have a mild happiness and enthusiasm for the Albanians who live in Kosovo, now that their parliament has unilaterally declared independent statehood.
First let me address the ignorants and the Islamophobes and bigots out there like Michael Savage and Robert Spencer.
-- Albanians are secular Muslims. They are not radicals like in many other Muslim countries. They, like the Bosnians, the Lebanese, the Syrians, the Tunisians, and the Turks enjoy a secular brand of Islam. Women have more rights and more latitude in Albanian culture than in other Muslim cultures. They have a large young population who travel outside Albania and Kosovo to become educated with graduate degrees.
-- The War in Kosovo was not Muslim Albanians vs Christian Serbs. Nothing could be further from the truth. As Stephen Schwartz so eloquently pointed out in his response article in Front Page Magazine in March of 2005, Albanians are predominantly Muslim but they do have a significant Christian minority among them as well, who are no less fervent in their national pride than their Muslim compatriots. There were Catholic and Eastern Orthodox leaders of the K.L.A. (Kosovo Liberation Army) just like there were Muslim leaders of the militia. The group was not arranged among religious lines, nor were there Muslim radicals or Al-Qaeda types going to Kosovo to help their Albanian brethren.
-- Albania and the Albanian people protected the Albanian Jewish community during World War II and the Holocaust. They refused to hand over Jews to Nazis or pro-Nazi regimes during the 30s and 40s.
NOW, having said all that, I think that this can be a good thing or it can be a very bad thing. The rights, respect and dignity of the Serb minority NEEDS to be maintained. That means no more Serbs living in predominantly-Albanian areas having to live behind barbed-wire fences. And no more rocket and grenade attacks at Serb areas. Serbs must be allowed to be equal citizens under the law with rights equal to Albanians, and they MUST have representation in government.
Furthermore, if the remote north of Kosovo, which is predominantly Serb, wishes to secede from Kosovo, they should have the right to a plebescite that is internationally monitored and where they can peacefully join up with Serbia. I do not think, however, that that is in their best interest. I think an independent Kosovo is a good thing if it does not become "Albania Jr." By that I mean it becomes another Albanian state and eventually joins on to Albania. And lastly, Serb refugees from the '98-'99 war must be allowed right of return.
If this new republic abides by these guidelines, then I think an independent Kosovo can be a good thing, especially considering that it currently is a democratic, pro-American, predominantly-Muslim country with a secular tradition, and it can be a good example to other Muslim countries.
First let me address the ignorants and the Islamophobes and bigots out there like Michael Savage and Robert Spencer.
-- Albanians are secular Muslims. They are not radicals like in many other Muslim countries. They, like the Bosnians, the Lebanese, the Syrians, the Tunisians, and the Turks enjoy a secular brand of Islam. Women have more rights and more latitude in Albanian culture than in other Muslim cultures. They have a large young population who travel outside Albania and Kosovo to become educated with graduate degrees.
-- The War in Kosovo was not Muslim Albanians vs Christian Serbs. Nothing could be further from the truth. As Stephen Schwartz so eloquently pointed out in his response article in Front Page Magazine in March of 2005, Albanians are predominantly Muslim but they do have a significant Christian minority among them as well, who are no less fervent in their national pride than their Muslim compatriots. There were Catholic and Eastern Orthodox leaders of the K.L.A. (Kosovo Liberation Army) just like there were Muslim leaders of the militia. The group was not arranged among religious lines, nor were there Muslim radicals or Al-Qaeda types going to Kosovo to help their Albanian brethren.
-- Albania and the Albanian people protected the Albanian Jewish community during World War II and the Holocaust. They refused to hand over Jews to Nazis or pro-Nazi regimes during the 30s and 40s.
NOW, having said all that, I think that this can be a good thing or it can be a very bad thing. The rights, respect and dignity of the Serb minority NEEDS to be maintained. That means no more Serbs living in predominantly-Albanian areas having to live behind barbed-wire fences. And no more rocket and grenade attacks at Serb areas. Serbs must be allowed to be equal citizens under the law with rights equal to Albanians, and they MUST have representation in government.
Furthermore, if the remote north of Kosovo, which is predominantly Serb, wishes to secede from Kosovo, they should have the right to a plebescite that is internationally monitored and where they can peacefully join up with Serbia. I do not think, however, that that is in their best interest. I think an independent Kosovo is a good thing if it does not become "Albania Jr." By that I mean it becomes another Albanian state and eventually joins on to Albania. And lastly, Serb refugees from the '98-'99 war must be allowed right of return.
If this new republic abides by these guidelines, then I think an independent Kosovo can be a good thing, especially considering that it currently is a democratic, pro-American, predominantly-Muslim country with a secular tradition, and it can be a good example to other Muslim countries.
Sub-prime mortgage crisis
So this morning I'm watching CNBC, as I usually do in the A.M. just to see how the markets are doing before I switch it over to Maury to find out who the father is, and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson are taking questions from the Senate Committee on the "Hope Now" program.
For those that don't know, the "Hope Now" program consists of a national hotline 1-800-Hope-now, where people who bought houses at sub-prime loans where the interest rates are about to adjust can call and if they meet certain conditions, they can be saved from their house being eventually forclosed on.
Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) told the two men that the administration wasn't being aggressive enough to solve the problem. Well, Bobby, I would just tell you that the people in sub-prime mortgages are lucky that they even have a program that will help them out. They're the ones who signed the docs and bought the houses. They chose to buy houses they could not afford. They chose to agree to an A.R.M. that they knew damn well could adjust and make their financial lives unbearable. It's not the mortgage industries fault.
Hey consumer: Here's a tip. Don't borrow more than you can pay back.
When consumers borrow 110% of the value of the house, they have nobody to blame but themselves. When they buy a larger house than they know they can afford, the have nobody to blame but themselves.
Maybe I should have the government save me and bail me out of my student loans. Maybe people who buy a car on debt that they can't afford should have the government bail them out of their car payment.
NO! Let's start addressing the problem. The problem is people having to have everything NOW! I want it NOW! Like a bunch of children. So everyone's gotta have the latest 50 inch plasma tv hanging on their wall. Everyone's gotta buy a car with little down payment, then trade it in and get into even more debt. Everyone's gotta push their kids to the best school possible so they can graduate with a shit load of debt afterwards, rather than getting the basics out of the way at a junior college first. Stop getting into debt for everything you want or need. Here's an idea: pay cash. Save up overtime in an interest bearing account, then when you have at least a quarter or half the money, then maybe you can go shopping.
If someone needs help and needs to get out of their A.R.M., they can give me a call on my cell or at the office, and I'll refinance their house at a fixed rate with bi-weekly payment and get that house PAID OFF.
There is a real problem with people expecting government to solve their problems or make their lives better.
Newsflash: John McCain isn't going to make your life better. Barack Obama isn't going to make your life better or solve your problems. YOU will solve your problems. YOU will make your life better.
For those that don't know, the "Hope Now" program consists of a national hotline 1-800-Hope-now, where people who bought houses at sub-prime loans where the interest rates are about to adjust can call and if they meet certain conditions, they can be saved from their house being eventually forclosed on.
Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) told the two men that the administration wasn't being aggressive enough to solve the problem. Well, Bobby, I would just tell you that the people in sub-prime mortgages are lucky that they even have a program that will help them out. They're the ones who signed the docs and bought the houses. They chose to buy houses they could not afford. They chose to agree to an A.R.M. that they knew damn well could adjust and make their financial lives unbearable. It's not the mortgage industries fault.
Hey consumer: Here's a tip. Don't borrow more than you can pay back.
When consumers borrow 110% of the value of the house, they have nobody to blame but themselves. When they buy a larger house than they know they can afford, the have nobody to blame but themselves.
Maybe I should have the government save me and bail me out of my student loans. Maybe people who buy a car on debt that they can't afford should have the government bail them out of their car payment.
NO! Let's start addressing the problem. The problem is people having to have everything NOW! I want it NOW! Like a bunch of children. So everyone's gotta have the latest 50 inch plasma tv hanging on their wall. Everyone's gotta buy a car with little down payment, then trade it in and get into even more debt. Everyone's gotta push their kids to the best school possible so they can graduate with a shit load of debt afterwards, rather than getting the basics out of the way at a junior college first. Stop getting into debt for everything you want or need. Here's an idea: pay cash. Save up overtime in an interest bearing account, then when you have at least a quarter or half the money, then maybe you can go shopping.
If someone needs help and needs to get out of their A.R.M., they can give me a call on my cell or at the office, and I'll refinance their house at a fixed rate with bi-weekly payment and get that house PAID OFF.
There is a real problem with people expecting government to solve their problems or make their lives better.
Newsflash: John McCain isn't going to make your life better. Barack Obama isn't going to make your life better or solve your problems. YOU will solve your problems. YOU will make your life better.
Congress grandstanding photo-opping with Roger Clemens
Ok, so we're in a war in Iraq that we shouldn't have gotten into and don't know when we'll be out, we've got a ballooning national debt to the tune of $9 trillion (yes, that's TRILLION, with a 'T), and a social security system that will be insolvent in less than 4 decades, and the most important thing our congress can do is hold hearings on steroids in baseball, AGAIN.
It wasn't enough that they already wasted time on this crap in 2005, now they have to go at it again, and get their worthless mugs in front of the cameras so they can look like "heroes of the American people" by dressing down doctors and baseball players.
It is not the role of the federal government, or any government for that matter, to be regulating sports. I don't remember the Founding Fathers putting in the Constitution anything about making sure cheating doesn't occur in sports.
As far as I'm concerned, these congressman deserve to have their worthless asses voted out next time they're up for election.
It wasn't enough that they already wasted time on this crap in 2005, now they have to go at it again, and get their worthless mugs in front of the cameras so they can look like "heroes of the American people" by dressing down doctors and baseball players.
It is not the role of the federal government, or any government for that matter, to be regulating sports. I don't remember the Founding Fathers putting in the Constitution anything about making sure cheating doesn't occur in sports.
As far as I'm concerned, these congressman deserve to have their worthless asses voted out next time they're up for election.
For those who still think Arabs/Muslims are the problem...
.....I would just ask you a few questions:
(1) Did Arabs/Muslims shoot up Northern Illinois University today?
(2) Did Arabs/Muslims shoot up the mall in Nebraska last November?
(3) Did Arabs/Muslims shoot up Virginia Tech last year?
(4) Did Arabs/Muslims blow up the abortion clinics in the early 90's?
(5) Did Arabs/Muslims bomb the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta?
(6) Did Arabs/Muslims send bombs to people in the mail from a shack in Montana?
(7) Did Arabs/Muslims blow up the building in Oklahoma City in 1995?
(8) Did Arabs/Muslims try to blow up Congressman Darrell Isa's office in 2002?
(9) Did Arabs/Muslims shoot up Columbine High School in 1999 (or any of the other highschools
that got shot up in the 90's)?
(10) Was the BTK killer Dennis Rader an Arab or a Muslim?
(11) Was Jeffrey Dahmer an Arab or a Muslim?
(12) Did Arabs/Muslims drag James Byrd to death in Texas?
I rest my case.
In the words of one of my favorite comedians Chris Rock, "I ain't scared of Al-Qaeda. I'm scared of Al Cracker."
(1) Did Arabs/Muslims shoot up Northern Illinois University today?
(2) Did Arabs/Muslims shoot up the mall in Nebraska last November?
(3) Did Arabs/Muslims shoot up Virginia Tech last year?
(4) Did Arabs/Muslims blow up the abortion clinics in the early 90's?
(5) Did Arabs/Muslims bomb the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta?
(6) Did Arabs/Muslims send bombs to people in the mail from a shack in Montana?
(7) Did Arabs/Muslims blow up the building in Oklahoma City in 1995?
(8) Did Arabs/Muslims try to blow up Congressman Darrell Isa's office in 2002?
(9) Did Arabs/Muslims shoot up Columbine High School in 1999 (or any of the other highschools
that got shot up in the 90's)?
(10) Was the BTK killer Dennis Rader an Arab or a Muslim?
(11) Was Jeffrey Dahmer an Arab or a Muslim?
(12) Did Arabs/Muslims drag James Byrd to death in Texas?
I rest my case.
In the words of one of my favorite comedians Chris Rock, "I ain't scared of Al-Qaeda. I'm scared of Al Cracker."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
