I could never state anything as well as he has.
Thursday, November 24, 2011
HOW TO DESTROY THE OCCUPY MOVEMENT AND HOW TO PREVENT IT FROM FAILING
HOW TO DESTROY THE OCCUPY MOVEMENT AND HOW TO PREVENT IT FROM FAILING
Monday, November 7, 2011
An open letter stating concerns with the current path of progress the Government is taking in pursuing high-speed rail.
Dear USHSR,
I am curious why we would need to rebuild our existing train tracks to replace them with high-speed trains like Acela. I see that is runs on the same grade as the rest of Amtrak, and as a temporary push why couldn't the United States government pay an initial cost to replace the existing trains with new trains as a temporary fix and then use the generated revenue to build new tracks that would connect America's major cities that currently do not have access? From a political angle this might make sense for two reasons, 1. We would show Americans outside the already liberal Northeast how fast they really are, and 2. It would give undebatable proof that when given access Americans will use the train to go around the country when it is competitive, which Amtrak really isn't today.
When I look at how AMTRAK is currently set up, it was designed to fail. Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, and Kentucky all have no access to their capital cities to AMTRAK. Las Vegas, Nashville, Green Bay, has no connection. No wonder Americans don't use AMTRAK as a primary way to travel on rail, it doesn't go where they want to go, and it doesn't get them to where it does go in a timely manner. The second problem is easy to fix, we have Acela approved by DOT (amazingly) and we need copies of that train to be used on the existing track. The increased revenue will give enough money to build more tracks to the cities I just mentioned which will bring in more revenue, and create more routes that will give people a way that is cost-competitive and, more importantly, time-competitive to get around America.
I completely agree we need more tracks, but I don't understand why we are building them where we already have the tracks we need, like between Bakersfield and Fresno. It seems like a ploy from some lobbyists to slow down the process.
Sincerely,
Matthew Stidham
www.ushsr.com
Sunday, November 6, 2011
How to Make Electric/Fuel Cell hybrid cars the Cheapest Vehicle In a Very Short Time
There is a lot of discussion in America about electric and fuel cell cars, and the reason why they are not doing well always comes down to only three valid arguments, 1. There are not enough stations, 2. Electricity is too expensive
The other arguments are about fuel cells which question their efficiency and safety, but they are already the dominant choice for people in Iceland who invested in the infrastructure 10 years ago and are now energy independent which nullifies all of these injected concerns from the powerful oil lobby who own a large stake the majority of our media. (source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/car-of-the-future.html with Click and Clack the Tappitt Brothers from Car Talk)
There is no reason on earth why fuel cell cars cannot be made hybrids with an electric function, just like hybrid cars that use gasoline. They will increase the distance you can go on a single fill-up which will save the consumer money and stops to charge.
There is also no reason why these fuel cell hybrid cars cannot be plug-in cars from the beginning, if you can just plug it into the grid when you are at home then except for a few cases you might never need to fill up on hydrogen if you are a short commuter if you plug in at work and at home, that will save money and more importantly, TIME.
Now I get to the two major issues with implementation which are the only reasons we do not already have these already. We do not have hydrogen fuel stations across America. This would be really easy to fix. If we gave a 50% tax break to every owner and worker of an individual gas station who implement this technology for one year only we can have the infrastructure across the country in every major city quickly, save money that goes to OPEC, and have more money to spend on things that make a positive difference in the national economy. People LOVE TAX BREAKS. We could speed it up by making it so that if a corporation that has gas stations (Chevron, Shell, Costco, etc.) installs these in every single station of theirs across the country the people who work for and own the company will all receive 50% tax breaks. This will make tax revenue go down slightly, but the amount of money overall that people will be spending on other things besides gasoline will be massive.
The only other issue, electricity is too expensive is because of what we get our electricity from. In the Pacific Northwest we get our energy from hydroelectric and we have the cheapest electricity in the world. In the Midwest they get their electricity from coal, oil, and other fossil fuels, and their electricity is a lot more expensive. This is not a correlation, this is a causation. Every part of the world has a way to get cheap renewable electricity, solar panels, wind turbines, hydroelectric, geothermal, these are all useful and completely inexpensive tools to get cheap, reliable electricity. The current technology which is being developed has a ways to go so far, but it is close to being competitive with oil, and once this happens we need to have the market so that we can quickly use this great technology.
Monday, October 17, 2011
On how Subsidizing education fully is the least expensive option (with some simple economical analysis), another chat with a friend
I was chatting with a friend in response to a facebook listing today which i lost my temper and went all spock on them. We are both college students, he is a freshman and I am a sophomore on opposite ends of the country.
If people are choosing degrees that don't convert to jobs than that is there fault. For those of us (including myself) that desire jobs that are high in technology in the sciences, or the future programmers, lawyers, and other jobs that give massive payback to society and are looking forward to having to pay back the equal amount in taxes instead of buying things that would stimulate the economy (good economy = money flowing, bad economy = no money flowing) it is a burden and keeps us from giving back to society that we want to. Look overseas and we can see many different solutions to the problem of education debt and compare this number to GDP growth and you will see a positive corrolation (China, Japan, Taiwan, Sweden, among others vs. the USA) of increased government college spending and GDP growth rate. This will take about 15 minutes of your time, are you willing to do that for your country to make a more educated vote?
bam! right to the nose!
Sounds good, but you can make a much simpler economic argument:
1. Education increases income.
2. Income is spent and spurs economic growth.
Conclusion: Education spurs economic growth.
yeah. simple. Some people are so d**n stupid!
Yes. Yes they are.
and lazy
the lazy is the really important part
And horribly ignorant of basic economics.*
yeah.. which you will not learn unless you have the guts to learn them yourself... now that is the real shame
someone else argued on how government spending increases college tuition!
bullshit
because state schools are massively less expensive than private schools
that is out of state cost
Also, private schools are a competitive market. Even among different "grades," like Ivies, mid-range liberal arts colleges, etc., there's enough competition that anyone charging too much won't get any students. The market price tells you what a college degree is worth to the student.
exactly
Now, the economic arguments break down when you say government should pay *entirely* for *everyone's* college.
and the education at state schools is still really, really good in my experience
That's fair.
would those be the economic arguments against a system with full funding
?
(just to clarify)
No, the arguments in favor of subsidizing higher education. Consider this: there is a higher demand for legal services than there is a supply of lawyers. Therefore, lawyers are ridiculously expensive. If more lawyers are trained, society as a whole benefits because people save a ton of money on legal services.
yup
supply v demand, lesson #2
However, the principle of diminishing returns dictates that the benefit of having 1.5 million lawyers instead of 1.4 million is much greater than the benefit of having 40 million instead of 39.9 million.
In fact, the benefit of each additional lawyer will at that point be less than the cost of educating them. Therefore, paying for it is silly.
However, this is just a rephrasing of the argument from "education is a basic right" to "society benefits when the government subsidizes education in certain industries."
so we would run into a situation where only a certain number of people could sign up to study to be lawyers in any given year which fixes the problem you are talking about of oversupply, by cutting supply
So yay util?
xD
pretty much. It really works
I use it for all my arguments
Oh, you don't need to limit supply. If the wages get too low, people will simply stop going to law school and supply will self-regulate.
Of course, that's not a perfect example because the Bar Association actually does limit supply, and with the very specific purpose of keeping pay high.
exactly, which means it would solve itself and would balance out in, oh, lets say a couple decades
so lawyers is a terrible example
In the status quo, but it illustrates the main point since it is undersupplied.
If people are choosing degrees that don't convert to jobs than that is there fault. For those of us (including myself) that desire jobs that are high in technology in the sciences, or the future programmers, lawyers, and other jobs that give massive payback to society and are looking forward to having to pay back the equal amount in taxes instead of buying things that would stimulate the economy (good economy = money flowing, bad economy = no money flowing) it is a burden and keeps us from giving back to society that we want to. Look overseas and we can see many different solutions to the problem of education debt and compare this number to GDP growth and you will see a positive corrolation (China, Japan, Taiwan, Sweden, among others vs. the USA) of increased government college spending and GDP growth rate. This will take about 15 minutes of your time, are you willing to do that for your country to make a more educated vote?
bam! right to the nose!
Sounds good, but you can make a much simpler economic argument:
1. Education increases income.
2. Income is spent and spurs economic growth.
Conclusion: Education spurs economic growth.
yeah. simple. Some people are so d**n stupid!
Yes. Yes they are.
and lazy
the lazy is the really important part
And horribly ignorant of basic economics.*
yeah.. which you will not learn unless you have the guts to learn them yourself... now that is the real shame
someone else argued on how government spending increases college tuition!
bullshit
because state schools are massively less expensive than private schools
that is out of state cost
Also, private schools are a competitive market. Even among different "grades," like Ivies, mid-range liberal arts colleges, etc., there's enough competition that anyone charging too much won't get any students. The market price tells you what a college degree is worth to the student.
exactly
Now, the economic arguments break down when you say government should pay *entirely* for *everyone's* college.
and the education at state schools is still really, really good in my experience
That's fair.
would those be the economic arguments against a system with full funding
?
(just to clarify)
No, the arguments in favor of subsidizing higher education. Consider this: there is a higher demand for legal services than there is a supply of lawyers. Therefore, lawyers are ridiculously expensive. If more lawyers are trained, society as a whole benefits because people save a ton of money on legal services.
yup
supply v demand, lesson #2
However, the principle of diminishing returns dictates that the benefit of having 1.5 million lawyers instead of 1.4 million is much greater than the benefit of having 40 million instead of 39.9 million.
In fact, the benefit of each additional lawyer will at that point be less than the cost of educating them. Therefore, paying for it is silly.
However, this is just a rephrasing of the argument from "education is a basic right" to "society benefits when the government subsidizes education in certain industries."
so we would run into a situation where only a certain number of people could sign up to study to be lawyers in any given year which fixes the problem you are talking about of oversupply, by cutting supply
So yay util?
xD
pretty much. It really works
I use it for all my arguments
Oh, you don't need to limit supply. If the wages get too low, people will simply stop going to law school and supply will self-regulate.
Of course, that's not a perfect example because the Bar Association actually does limit supply, and with the very specific purpose of keeping pay high.
exactly, which means it would solve itself and would balance out in, oh, lets say a couple decades
so lawyers is a terrible example
In the status quo, but it illustrates the main point since it is undersupplied.
Sunday, August 28, 2011
The Ultimate Christian Argument for Love for All. Following A Tradition of Standing on the Side of Love
At the core of every religious tradition is love of humanity and love of creator -- not hatred for your neighbors.
Please stop exporting hate in the name of religion.
Follow your book. You are blaspheming against your professed religion and breaking what Jesus said to be the greatest law when challenged by his servants:
Matthew 22:34
34 But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together.
35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
You are not loving your neighbor, which is part of the highest law of the religion you profess to follow. Stop hating or stop calling yourselves Christian. You can not do both in good faith.
Another story that is commonly used to say that gays should not love is Sodom and Gomorrah. This is a misuse and misapplication of the story. They had been homosexual for years and God had let them live. They were only smitten when they had gangraped their visitors, breaking the ancient value of respecting your guests. This is a misapplication and hence should be discarded.
The final place in the Bible that is used against Gay Rights is in Leviticus saying how men will not have sex with men. This is in the chapter preceding the rules for offerings, which is not followed, not mixing seeds in a garden, not followed, rules of fruit of trees, not followed, respect for strangers in your land, not currently followed in America by the far right, and in 23:8 you are supposed to give fire offerings. They have picked and chosen for political convenience. This is immoral and blasphemous.
It seems like in order to follow Jesus and read the entire Bible there is now nothing that goes against gay rights... however, there is one commandment, the second-highest commandment, that instructs all true Christians to love their neighbors. You are blaspheming and must stop your assault on love. Jesus would disagree with your actions. Stop Hate.
Sunday, May 29, 2011
How to Eliminate Them
Are you a country with a new majority that recently immigrated to find work? Are there people there that are pesky with their strange languages, religions, and cultures you don't want to understand? There is a 3000 year old Indo-Aryan patented 100% satisfaction guaranteed method to eliminate those pesky Thems from society so you may live in luxury.
Step 1 Isolation
Hopefully you have some land you don't want so that you can place Them on it to keep them different from your society. We can't have our children learning about their culture for that would mean integration, the devil's work. This will make sure that you can improve your lifestyle without having to share power with Them.
Step 2 Seperation
You need to be the good leader, and you care about them, their land (infertile as it is) is their land now (they only just moved onto it.) so they should be able to govern themselves. They may not have citizenship because that will give them a voice in your democratic government. They cannot be allowed to travel and under no circumstances may they vote in your elections. This will ensure satisfaction and only a small pesky minority will be discontented and will be easily silenced as you choose without press coverage. There may be no visiting their conditions because they are going to live in poverty for not being part of your master race.
Step 3 Crack down
Why do they need so much land? Their population is rapidly diminishing. It would be acceptable to take some of it off their hands to mine and get resources.
For extra security no one is allowed to visit the homelands because that would only bother the masses. They must be allowed to live in peace.
Does this sound familiar? It should. The United States used this method in the 1800s and South Africa before 1994. It worked beautifully for a while. Any nation that looks similar should be analysed thoroughly to determine that it isn't committing this crime against humanity. Look past whatever the history of the ruling ethnic group is because any group is capable of committing this grave crime.
This is satire. I believe this system is the most cruel and despotic of all systems, but wanted to make it clear in a way on what the values are, separating it from any current biases we all have towards or against any one ethnic group.
Step 1 Isolation
Hopefully you have some land you don't want so that you can place Them on it to keep them different from your society. We can't have our children learning about their culture for that would mean integration, the devil's work. This will make sure that you can improve your lifestyle without having to share power with Them.
Step 2 Seperation
You need to be the good leader, and you care about them, their land (infertile as it is) is their land now (they only just moved onto it.) so they should be able to govern themselves. They may not have citizenship because that will give them a voice in your democratic government. They cannot be allowed to travel and under no circumstances may they vote in your elections. This will ensure satisfaction and only a small pesky minority will be discontented and will be easily silenced as you choose without press coverage. There may be no visiting their conditions because they are going to live in poverty for not being part of your master race.
Step 3 Crack down
Why do they need so much land? Their population is rapidly diminishing. It would be acceptable to take some of it off their hands to mine and get resources.
For extra security no one is allowed to visit the homelands because that would only bother the masses. They must be allowed to live in peace.
Does this sound familiar? It should. The United States used this method in the 1800s and South Africa before 1994. It worked beautifully for a while. Any nation that looks similar should be analysed thoroughly to determine that it isn't committing this crime against humanity. Look past whatever the history of the ruling ethnic group is because any group is capable of committing this grave crime.
This is satire. I believe this system is the most cruel and despotic of all systems, but wanted to make it clear in a way on what the values are, separating it from any current biases we all have towards or against any one ethnic group.
Friday, April 29, 2011
A Big Thank you to Governor Chris Gregoire
Today Governor Chris Gregoire signed into law a bill shutting down the only coal plant in Washington. For the past few years it has been importing its fuel from Southern Montana to power the plant at increased cost to customers. It has been the second largest risk to our air quality in the state behind internal-combustion engines for a while. Now we can move towards a direction to catch up to Germany in terms of solar power (Munich is the furthest south city at the same latitude as Vancouver, BC) to decrease costs, decrease pollution, and make our energy sustainable. We can also power through geothermal. We have faultlines across the State, at Nisqually, which anyone who was in Western Washington in 2001 will remember, that can be harnessed to produce reliable power from a source that we can count on being consistent for only a few BILLION years.
Friday, April 22, 2011
How to win an argument
Discussion on Wikipedia
How to win an argument
stidmatt: wikipedia just stopped workingi think they need more servers
Friend: good! wikipedia sucks
stidmatt: no it doesn't why do you way that?
Friend: grr i just don't like it
stidmatt:it is true that msny old-fashioned publishers ahve created this sort of tribal distrust of peer-review, but wikipedia works the same way science has worked for hte past 500 years
Friend: if they took the edit button away i would be much for comfortable using it
stidmatt: i did a paper on it
Friend: me too
stidmatt: yeah, the edit button is the reason that it so successful. If you vandalize wikipedia the edit will show up on the recent changes which are patrolled by people who check for malicious edits. They are promptly removed practically all the time. Plus pages that are at risk of vandalism have a silver lock that only allows people with accounts to edit them.
this is why vandalizing wikipedia is a waste of time
Friend: see, I didn't know that
stidmatt: and the edit button is its strength because when something is wrong it can be quickly corrected and sourced which makes it superior to Encyclopedia Britannica which has been shrunk ten fold in the past few decades.
Friend: ok
stidmatt: which has made it the largest depository of knowledge in the history of mankind with more languages than anything else in history
that is why i trust wikipedia
Friend: ok
stidmatt: so yeah
Friend: ok you win
Tactics
See what I did? I gave my friend all the information I had on it and tied it all together with a strong conclusion at the end. My friend had not heard the full story and was probably writing her paper to get an A, I however didn't and got a lower grade, but my paper was accurate. Our elected officials, especially Obama, should use this tactic of providing all the information in a blitz to show all of the information on any topic to win the argument. Only then can the one who is correct win by having a fully formed argument.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
A Plan to Balance The Budget
1. Abolish the IRS and Repeal All laws under Chapter 26 of the United States Tax Code. Replace it with the Following.
Subtitle A: Income Tax
All people earning money within the United States from a registered company or the government will be charged an income tax in the following brackets:
1. $0-$1000 0%
2. $1000.01-$5000 2%
3. $5000.01-$7500 5%
4. $7500.01-$10,000 7%
5. $10,000.01-$15,000 10%
8. $15,000.01-$30,000 12%
9. $30,000.01-$50,000 15%
10. $50,000.01-$60,000 17%
11. $60,000.01-$75,000 20%
12. $75,000.01-$100,000 25%
13. $100,000.01-$150,000 30%
14. $150,000.01-$250,000 35%
15. $250,000.01-$300,000 40%
16. $300,000.01-$750,000 45%
17. $750,000+ 50%
Subtitle B: Estate Tax
People earning money from wills etc. will be taxed the following amounts:
1. $0-$5000 0%
2. $5000.01-$75,000 5%
3. $75,000.01-$100,000 10%
4. $100,000.01-$125,000 20%
5. $125,000.01-$150,000 30%
6. $150,000.01-$500,000 40%
7. $500,000+ 50%
Subtitle C: Excise Tax
All Sales by companies in the United States and citizens within the United States will be charged a 4% tax. On-line purchases are not exempt. People in the United States buying from American companies will only be taxed once.
Subtitle D: Special Excise Taxes
1. Alcohol will have 11% added to the tax.
2. Tobacco and cigarettes will have 16% added to the tax.
3. Firearms will have 16% added to the tax.
4. Textbooks will not be taxed.
5. Purchases from a university will not be taxed.
Subtitle E: Financing of Presidential and Congressional elections
All candidates to an office of the President or a Congressional seat will not be allowed to have donations. This money will be raised by donations from people who want to fund campaigns. One quarter of the money will be divided equally among Presidential Candidates and three quarters of the money will be divided equally among all Congressional Candidates. It is a felony for someone to donate directly to a candidate and it is a felony for the candidate to accept the money. Those felonies are punishable by a fine of three times their allocated campaign funds, a five year prison sentence, disenfranchisement, and prohibition from public office for life.
Subtitle F: Current Subtitle I.
Subtitle G: Current Subtitle J.
Subtitle H: Current Subtitle K.
Subtitle I: Collection of funds
The collection of funds will be managed by the Internal Revenue Service which will collect taxes. They will be distributed to each branch of government as needed.
Subtitle J: Tax Breaks
Tax Breaks may not be made. Tax breaks are defined as a decrease in taxes for an act or use of money.
Subtitle A: Income Tax
All people earning money within the United States from a registered company or the government will be charged an income tax in the following brackets:
1. $0-$1000 0%
2. $1000.01-$5000 2%
3. $5000.01-$7500 5%
4. $7500.01-$10,000 7%
5. $10,000.01-$15,000 10%
8. $15,000.01-$30,000 12%
9. $30,000.01-$50,000 15%
10. $50,000.01-$60,000 17%
11. $60,000.01-$75,000 20%
12. $75,000.01-$100,000 25%
13. $100,000.01-$150,000 30%
14. $150,000.01-$250,000 35%
15. $250,000.01-$300,000 40%
16. $300,000.01-$750,000 45%
17. $750,000+ 50%
Subtitle B: Estate Tax
People earning money from wills etc. will be taxed the following amounts:
1. $0-$5000 0%
2. $5000.01-$75,000 5%
3. $75,000.01-$100,000 10%
4. $100,000.01-$125,000 20%
5. $125,000.01-$150,000 30%
6. $150,000.01-$500,000 40%
7. $500,000+ 50%
Subtitle C: Excise Tax
All Sales by companies in the United States and citizens within the United States will be charged a 4% tax. On-line purchases are not exempt. People in the United States buying from American companies will only be taxed once.
Subtitle D: Special Excise Taxes
1. Alcohol will have 11% added to the tax.
2. Tobacco and cigarettes will have 16% added to the tax.
3. Firearms will have 16% added to the tax.
4. Textbooks will not be taxed.
5. Purchases from a university will not be taxed.
Subtitle E: Financing of Presidential and Congressional elections
All candidates to an office of the President or a Congressional seat will not be allowed to have donations. This money will be raised by donations from people who want to fund campaigns. One quarter of the money will be divided equally among Presidential Candidates and three quarters of the money will be divided equally among all Congressional Candidates. It is a felony for someone to donate directly to a candidate and it is a felony for the candidate to accept the money. Those felonies are punishable by a fine of three times their allocated campaign funds, a five year prison sentence, disenfranchisement, and prohibition from public office for life.
Subtitle F: Current Subtitle I.
Subtitle G: Current Subtitle J.
Subtitle H: Current Subtitle K.
Subtitle I: Collection of funds
The collection of funds will be managed by the Internal Revenue Service which will collect taxes. They will be distributed to each branch of government as needed.
Subtitle J: Tax Breaks
Tax Breaks may not be made. Tax breaks are defined as a decrease in taxes for an act or use of money.
A Politically Inconvenient History of Immigration
I am currently taking American History II which spans from 1850-1914 at the local Community College. My book is highly uncensored, talking about all the major aspects of American History, the good, the bad, the ugly, and the politically inconvenient. I have read about my ancestors over the past few weeks, the Irish and German immigrants who settled in the Midwest and East Coast. They also hated the Chinese and Japanese immigrants in the West. According to The Irish Americans: A History 5 million German and 4.5 million Irish immigrants immigrated to America, with concentrations in the Midwest and New England. This was fiercely opposed to by the American "Know-Nothing" party. They used the arguments "steal our jobs," "take over our government" sending us all to the lower class. They wanted a ban on Irish and German immigrants to prevent us from destroying American culture. They didn't work in 19th century business jobs, they worked on farms, and if they were in a city they worked in factories or other low paying hard labor jobs. Their descendants now include most of the powerful people in America who are also descended from people who have been here for hundreds of years.
Fast forward 150 years. There are many immigrants from Mexico and Central America. Many come to work on farms where native-born Americans do not work anymore. They do not work in high-paying jobs and live in poorer areas of America. People opposing these immigrants use the arguments "steal our jobs," "take over our government" sending us all to the lower class. They want a ban on immigrants if not a strict quota to prevent them from destroying American culture.
This is not a new issue. People have been immigrating to America for years to escape poverty and famine or political turmoil in their homeland. Because of this, I am firmly opposed to laws that prevent hard-working people from moving to America. These are recycled arguments, and they are not running out as they should. Somebody in power needs to make this connection in a gigantic speech and destroy the racism that is prevalent in our nation.
There is one difference though between current immigration and historical immigration and it has to do with American foreign policy and economics. In the 1970s America started to cut down on the supply of drugs in America, but people who made the drugs in Central America kept making them. Because the demand didn't drop the cost of the drugs went sky high. In order to fulfill the demand for the drugs drug cartels are transporting drugs at high prices to fulfill the demand. They are the perfect capitalistic businesses, doing anything to fulfill the demand and make a profit. Not to say that drugs are not dangerous, because they are, but the economies of Mexico and Central America are not diverse or strong enough to stand up to the great demand for their dangerous resources. The governments of these countries do not have enough resources to cut down on the cartels and they run rampant.
This would be bad enough, but because we have strict immigration quotas that prevent good workers from migrating on a visa to work here that then as perfect capitalists fulfill the unfilled demand for work here in America they have to come over at places where they will not get their visa. Racist people in the media who oppose any immigration then make a false connection between the drug dealers and the farm workers which causes people to believe that their false connection is the truth. This makes political clout that prevents any reform to fix the problem. That is just what that side of the issue is, racist hence unamerican.
Another issue of this is that the workers on the farms who do not have visas then are not paid the same as their native born competitors which as businesses many farms will want the cheapest worker to expand their personal income. They do not get any benefits and if any abuse happens they cannot go to any authority to report it because they will be returned to Mexico jobless and impoverished, back to square one.
How do we solve this problem? I think what we need to do is rewrite our immigration policy to allow workers to get visas to do farm work. Another bonus for everyone would be that the workers on visas would pay into social security and income tax, eliminating the argument that they do not pay for their government services. This would allow workers to report abuse on the farms and end their need to come across at unguarded and dangerous spots on the border. The only people who would come across at those spots would be drug dealers. If we write the law so that people coming across who are suspected to be drug dealers have to get their car sensed for drug fumes and then arrested than the problem with the drug trade would diminish. This would make the dangerous parts of Mexico and central American safer because the cartels would not have the money and power that they currently have. Everybody wins, except for the drug cartels.
America, the fate of the hemisphere is in your hands.
Fast forward 150 years. There are many immigrants from Mexico and Central America. Many come to work on farms where native-born Americans do not work anymore. They do not work in high-paying jobs and live in poorer areas of America. People opposing these immigrants use the arguments "steal our jobs," "take over our government" sending us all to the lower class. They want a ban on immigrants if not a strict quota to prevent them from destroying American culture.
This is not a new issue. People have been immigrating to America for years to escape poverty and famine or political turmoil in their homeland. Because of this, I am firmly opposed to laws that prevent hard-working people from moving to America. These are recycled arguments, and they are not running out as they should. Somebody in power needs to make this connection in a gigantic speech and destroy the racism that is prevalent in our nation.
There is one difference though between current immigration and historical immigration and it has to do with American foreign policy and economics. In the 1970s America started to cut down on the supply of drugs in America, but people who made the drugs in Central America kept making them. Because the demand didn't drop the cost of the drugs went sky high. In order to fulfill the demand for the drugs drug cartels are transporting drugs at high prices to fulfill the demand. They are the perfect capitalistic businesses, doing anything to fulfill the demand and make a profit. Not to say that drugs are not dangerous, because they are, but the economies of Mexico and Central America are not diverse or strong enough to stand up to the great demand for their dangerous resources. The governments of these countries do not have enough resources to cut down on the cartels and they run rampant.
This would be bad enough, but because we have strict immigration quotas that prevent good workers from migrating on a visa to work here that then as perfect capitalists fulfill the unfilled demand for work here in America they have to come over at places where they will not get their visa. Racist people in the media who oppose any immigration then make a false connection between the drug dealers and the farm workers which causes people to believe that their false connection is the truth. This makes political clout that prevents any reform to fix the problem. That is just what that side of the issue is, racist hence unamerican.
Another issue of this is that the workers on the farms who do not have visas then are not paid the same as their native born competitors which as businesses many farms will want the cheapest worker to expand their personal income. They do not get any benefits and if any abuse happens they cannot go to any authority to report it because they will be returned to Mexico jobless and impoverished, back to square one.
How do we solve this problem? I think what we need to do is rewrite our immigration policy to allow workers to get visas to do farm work. Another bonus for everyone would be that the workers on visas would pay into social security and income tax, eliminating the argument that they do not pay for their government services. This would allow workers to report abuse on the farms and end their need to come across at unguarded and dangerous spots on the border. The only people who would come across at those spots would be drug dealers. If we write the law so that people coming across who are suspected to be drug dealers have to get their car sensed for drug fumes and then arrested than the problem with the drug trade would diminish. This would make the dangerous parts of Mexico and central American safer because the cartels would not have the money and power that they currently have. Everybody wins, except for the drug cartels.
America, the fate of the hemisphere is in your hands.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Israel
Israel is a great country. There are people of many ethnicities with Israeli citizenship. There is freedom of religion. There is freedom of speech and many different freedoms for all of her citizens.
However, the Gaza Strip and many parts of the West Bank do not have the same rights as Israel. They are led by terrorist organizations that do not have the good of the people in mind. By having citizenship for Muslims difficult, possible, but difficult to achieve most good citizens of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank cannot fulfill the requirements to become citizens of Israel. If there is to be peace, I think that everyone who has lived in Israel and Palestine since they were born or the creation of Israel should be offered citizenship without any other qualifications. This would take away a major recruitment tool from the terrorists Hamas and Hezbollah which would diffuse the situation. Israel will not fall if they do this because Jews are now the majority of the land. They would become like South Africa or the United States where there are many different ethnic groups coexisting with equal rights for all.
I believe Israel to be a good country. I believe that all peoples should have equal rights. I also believe the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a good Document to determine the most important rights. Peace is possible.
However, the Gaza Strip and many parts of the West Bank do not have the same rights as Israel. They are led by terrorist organizations that do not have the good of the people in mind. By having citizenship for Muslims difficult, possible, but difficult to achieve most good citizens of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank cannot fulfill the requirements to become citizens of Israel. If there is to be peace, I think that everyone who has lived in Israel and Palestine since they were born or the creation of Israel should be offered citizenship without any other qualifications. This would take away a major recruitment tool from the terrorists Hamas and Hezbollah which would diffuse the situation. Israel will not fall if they do this because Jews are now the majority of the land. They would become like South Africa or the United States where there are many different ethnic groups coexisting with equal rights for all.
I believe Israel to be a good country. I believe that all peoples should have equal rights. I also believe the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a good Document to determine the most important rights. Peace is possible.
Freedom in the Middle East.
To the good peoples of Egypt, Tunisia, Iraq, Morocco, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Lebanon, and Iran.
I watch the news here in the United States and continuously hope that freedom will become the norm for the Middle East. I know for a fact that even though a lot of far-right Western media portrays Islam as a bad religion they are wrong. They have never learned what Islam stands for. The Americans who have researched your noble beliefs know this too. You are a powerful people, with vast resources and potential to continue to be economically powerful past peak oil. You also deserve to have governments that you can trust. You deserve to have your governments stick our for the people. You deserve democracy if you want it.
You do not deserve to have your noble faces be hidden by the face of terrorism. When you win the revolution you can end the minority of Arabs who practice terrorism's movements forever. You can reach out to the entire world and be equal with all the other nations of the world in terms of freedom. You can reach out to Israel and open relations. This would diffuse the potential conflict revolving in your region ending the biggest threat to world peace. Also, invest in renewable energies. With those you can have your poor have a lifestyle similar to that of Europe where everyone has enough to eat. Poverty can be ended and everyone in the world will benefit. Expand education and literacy across the region so that every good Muslim can go to the Koran and read it and understand their place in the world, and everyone can be active members of the global economy. You are great peoples and the People of the West stand behind your quest for freedom.
I watch the news here in the United States and continuously hope that freedom will become the norm for the Middle East. I know for a fact that even though a lot of far-right Western media portrays Islam as a bad religion they are wrong. They have never learned what Islam stands for. The Americans who have researched your noble beliefs know this too. You are a powerful people, with vast resources and potential to continue to be economically powerful past peak oil. You also deserve to have governments that you can trust. You deserve to have your governments stick our for the people. You deserve democracy if you want it.
You do not deserve to have your noble faces be hidden by the face of terrorism. When you win the revolution you can end the minority of Arabs who practice terrorism's movements forever. You can reach out to the entire world and be equal with all the other nations of the world in terms of freedom. You can reach out to Israel and open relations. This would diffuse the potential conflict revolving in your region ending the biggest threat to world peace. Also, invest in renewable energies. With those you can have your poor have a lifestyle similar to that of Europe where everyone has enough to eat. Poverty can be ended and everyone in the world will benefit. Expand education and literacy across the region so that every good Muslim can go to the Koran and read it and understand their place in the world, and everyone can be active members of the global economy. You are great peoples and the People of the West stand behind your quest for freedom.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Death and Dying
Reading the last chapter in my psychology textbook it becomes apparent that I should blog about laws respecting death. Basically, they must always be designed to respect the person's wishes and keep them and their families as pain-free as possible.
Euthanasia
Euthanasia is a powerful tool to bring someone out of pain if it is done correctly. It is cruel to the individual and their loved ones to have them go through pain. If the laws are written correctly than you do not need to worry about it being abused. Specifically, by making sure that the person is conscientious and not under dementia than it cannot be abused. This has been seen in Oregon. It should be allowed if it is in the person's advance directive
Advance Directives
Advance Directives should be allowed in all political divisions across the world. They are the most important tool for elderly people who are at risk of dementia to prevent being taken advantage of. They should have legal status and should be recognized wherever the person is. This is respecting the person's wishes which is essential. They must be well-defined so there is no chance of them being misinterpreted.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Why Civil Unions are not and never will be enough.
At first glance, civil unions seem excellent, you keep the religious conservatives happy by keeping marriage between a person in a male body and a person in a female body and you make those pushy activists content with a form of union between gays and lesbians. To many of us in the movement for equality between straights and gays civil unions seems like a reasonable compromise for equality.
However, it is not and never will be enough. It is second class, and any society that has classes is an unjust society. According to theNational Center for Lesbian Rights there are some gigantic disadvantages to civil unions currently. They do not get any of the 1,138 benefits of marriage from the federal government. Most states will not recognize civil unions. They also do not have the clarity of marriage, not having the same benefits state to state as marriage does.
But this is not nearly as egregious as the most dangerous status of civil unions. If the entire United States gave marriages to heterosexual couples and civil unions to gay couples they are in two distinct classes. Because the lists are separate it takes only a swipe of a pen to eliminate all the rights for gays by eliminating civil unions. The Radical Christians would have no problem doing this.
This is still not as dangerous as it truly is. If the Radical Christians become any more radicalized they could instead hunt gays like in Uganda. They would have all the information there and it would be easy to find them. Replace the benefits with punishments. It may seem a long ways off but it is still a possibility that would be easy to do.
Also, in Washington State anyone can view people with Civil Unions on the Secretary of State's website. This puts them at terrible risk for hate crimes and losing business and not getting jobs (by giving another reason).
This must end now. This is why we must not bow to hate. We must demand that all people get the same recognition under the same name, Marriage. It must be on a nationwide level so that people who currently don't know people who are gay will be able to turn off the hateful rhetoric that comes from so many radicals throughout the country. Until then equality will not be possible.
However, it is not and never will be enough. It is second class, and any society that has classes is an unjust society. According to theNational Center for Lesbian Rights there are some gigantic disadvantages to civil unions currently. They do not get any of the 1,138 benefits of marriage from the federal government. Most states will not recognize civil unions. They also do not have the clarity of marriage, not having the same benefits state to state as marriage does.
But this is not nearly as egregious as the most dangerous status of civil unions. If the entire United States gave marriages to heterosexual couples and civil unions to gay couples they are in two distinct classes. Because the lists are separate it takes only a swipe of a pen to eliminate all the rights for gays by eliminating civil unions. The Radical Christians would have no problem doing this.
This is still not as dangerous as it truly is. If the Radical Christians become any more radicalized they could instead hunt gays like in Uganda. They would have all the information there and it would be easy to find them. Replace the benefits with punishments. It may seem a long ways off but it is still a possibility that would be easy to do.
Also, in Washington State anyone can view people with Civil Unions on the Secretary of State's website. This puts them at terrible risk for hate crimes and losing business and not getting jobs (by giving another reason).
This must end now. This is why we must not bow to hate. We must demand that all people get the same recognition under the same name, Marriage. It must be on a nationwide level so that people who currently don't know people who are gay will be able to turn off the hateful rhetoric that comes from so many radicals throughout the country. Until then equality will not be possible.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
The most dangerous threat to America's prosperity and Freedom. Ourselves.
A big problem in America lies not inherently with the current government but decades of corrupt government and corrupt media spreading fearful lies for political gain. The American people have forgotten how our government works and where the power lies. Any government, according to the Declaration of Independence, derives "their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed." This was said during a time where speaking out against government was illegal so we left the United Kingdom. This philosophy has been followed across Eastern Europe over the past twenty years and since their independence the people's participation has been a check on government corruption, no matter how infringed they are in some countries. Voter participation is the reason why Australia's political situation is more stable than America's even though their media is a monopoly. In other words, we should not fear the government because if information is sent from the elected officials to the people, then we wouldn't have to be pessimistic. This already happens, but people do not care. By not participating, the corrupt members of our government do not have a check to their power and they can do whatever they want and most of us will never know. Both sides use their massive spin machines to hide the parts they do not want to be shared through pundits that hide all the faults from their side. We the people are literally sending a message of “Whatever you do we do, we do not care what happens to us. We were told our vote doesn't count so we aren't going to take responsibility. The benign members will be overcrowded by lobbyists.” We will hear pundits say what another place is like in terms of a major issue and never check it with that country's people. We do not have a culture of social responsibility, and that has put us in danger which has allowed corruption on Capital Hill to go rampant and many of us do not see the numbers for who the donations are really made to and who they come from. Our pessimism and lack of knowledge is a larger threat than Illegal Immigration, Communism, Large Government, and Gun Control Combined. By not confronting the corruption and saying we don't care we are supporting the corrupt politicians who have massive spin machines and lie to us about controlling our lives while tapping our phones. The more egregious the crime the better they will hide it from us. The small stuff is amplified and made up for political gain that puts us in danger.
This is easily fixed by standing up, dusting ourselves off and walking away from this dangerous political situation. We start by checking the facts when things are said about other countries and looking at the raw numbers. We insist that our children get the education they need to know how they can be successful citizens, so they can not be taken advantage of, and get the information they need to have to be responsible citizens to be a huge check and balance to our government as our forefathers envisioned voters to be. We teach them how the world works from every perspective and the undisputed concepts of the social sciences that currently are not taught that will disable corrupt self-serving politicians and media pundits from misleading large parts of the population of what works and what doesn't so that the truth is known through the undisputed facts of how the world works. By teaching our successors the warning signs, corruption will whither and die and our entire society will improve. If we do not hold politicians accountable with our vote like we have not done for forty years, we cause corruption to go unchecked. We then complain about it even though we don't vote. This prevents us from fixing the problem. Blinding yourself and not doing anything when your house is burning down will only make the house burn down faster. We all need to take our nation's future into our own hands and vote. We need to know what is happening in order to keep our status as the richest nation and regain our former status as the freest nation on Earth which we have been surpassed as by us not fighting for equal rights and allowing pundits to use propaganda to take advantage of our lack of knowledge.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Them
"They did it again those no-good, ungodly, sinning Thems. Can you believe as a good Christian American what They did? They want to take Our jobs, leaving Us out on the street. They are going to marry and then rape Our women, They are going to take over Our government, and to top it off They are going to become the leading class leaving Us to the dogs. They are going to be elected President. They are already in Congress. If you ask me, I think we should deport Them all. Send Them back to where They came from I say, and if We want Their land We will take it and They will have less because They are not God-fearing. Not only that but They have already taken over entire cities, entire states that We used to control. They don't even speak the same language as Us with all of Their culture's nonsense words that We don't use. For the sake of Humanity, They must be destroyed."
~ Leader of the West Secure Klan Inc.
Sound familiar? Good, you read your history. Sound familiar? Good, you have been watching the news.
~ Leader of the West Secure Klan Inc.
Sound familiar? Good, you read your history. Sound familiar? Good, you have been watching the news.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Lies in the media and on the hill about Recycling
Today on ABC News: http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/capitol-hill-cafeteria-battleground-congress-republicans-democrats-politics-13061385
When he said how much it cost to do recycling this was complete spin. All those recyclables that would be recycled would be sent to the garbage instead. The Republicans and ABC focus on the amount the recycling spent but left off the amount on trash spent before and after Capital Hill became green. Also, the claim that "my spoon melted after being left in my soup" is ridiculous because that wouldn't happen if you would let it cool. Also, to the Democrats: why didn't you just get metal silverware for in-house eating? That is a million times more cost effective and environmentally friendly than buying any one-time only set of silverware.
On health, if you find me one reputable health scientist who denies that organic food is more healthy I will be shocked because they do not exist. Also, if you want to improve the American economy you would have our leaders eat American food from small farms as opposed to food made in other countries.
Please far-right, stop ignoring the facts that scientists who spend hours of time per week analyzing and listening to your pundit's made-up numbers. I talked to the person in Olympia who analyzes the amount it costs my school (which has about 2000 people staff and students) to compost and recycle as opposed to throwing everything away and he told me that when we finally start compost in the future we will save about $55 per week. Capital Hill is no different.
ABC has been added to FOX and Al Jazeera on the boycott list for lies.
When he said how much it cost to do recycling this was complete spin. All those recyclables that would be recycled would be sent to the garbage instead. The Republicans and ABC focus on the amount the recycling spent but left off the amount on trash spent before and after Capital Hill became green. Also, the claim that "my spoon melted after being left in my soup" is ridiculous because that wouldn't happen if you would let it cool. Also, to the Democrats: why didn't you just get metal silverware for in-house eating? That is a million times more cost effective and environmentally friendly than buying any one-time only set of silverware.
On health, if you find me one reputable health scientist who denies that organic food is more healthy I will be shocked because they do not exist. Also, if you want to improve the American economy you would have our leaders eat American food from small farms as opposed to food made in other countries.
Please far-right, stop ignoring the facts that scientists who spend hours of time per week analyzing and listening to your pundit's made-up numbers. I talked to the person in Olympia who analyzes the amount it costs my school (which has about 2000 people staff and students) to compost and recycle as opposed to throwing everything away and he told me that when we finally start compost in the future we will save about $55 per week. Capital Hill is no different.
ABC has been added to FOX and Al Jazeera on the boycott list for lies.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Tearing us apart from the inside
Anarchists, might sometimes sound amusing at what they say, but the system of government is the scariest of all the systems. Of 195 countries in the world 1 has what could be considered an anarchistic form, and that would be Somalia. Every other nation has the government involved in many things, infrastructure, education, public utilities, public goods, and other things that directly help the People. They currently have been eliminating funding for programs that go directly to the people, education is getting the axed with the saying of "budget" all the while people's incomes are being sucked up by health care more than anywhere else in the world (World Health Organization) and places where actual waste happen are not being targeted. We spend more money on military than any other nation except Israel (which is understandably spending a lot being in a region in complete turmoil and instability) while we are in the safest part of the world. This goes back to my previous previous post "Of, By, and For the Rich" where the rich can buy these "fiscally conservative" tea party members to get billions of tax payer dollars sent to the politically powerful.
But what actually disturbs me about this is that they do not focus a lot of energy into making government more efficient. Every American should look at the US Immigration system which is I hope the most convolved part of the law. Also, why does the tax code have to be 16000 pages long? That seems bloated and if it were simplified by removing the lobbyists' sections the government would not have a deficit and everyone's taxes could go down, stimulating the economy, and decreasing the amount of bookkeeping necessary to keep the government running. If they really were proponents of small government they would have this on their platform. They don't which tells me that this isn't what they are concerned about. They then must be the lobbyists' best friend.
One idea I have is that Social Security should not be mandatory. Many people do not want the paychecks. If they do not want the help they should not be forced to have it. It should be a voluntary basis though because some seniors live on social security paychecks and they keep them from being a burden on their families. Those seniors' families benefit greatly by the paychecks for their years of work and the seniors live better lives.
Also, on welfare, there is a lot of waste in the system. Many people get their welfare checks and spend it on things that should not be covered, such as big luxuries, cigarettes, drugs, and other things that should not be covered. Welfare should be designed to give people enough money to live when they are down on their luck so that they can recuperate from an injury, or some other condition. Welfare should be designed so they can buy things that they need and other things that give them the information they need to stay on top of the news. Things like food, newspapers, internet, cable, books, toiletries, pet supplies, fuel, basic insurance, and inexpensive electronics so that they can stay on top of current events and developments, but do not buy luxuries that they wouldn't afford otherwise. It should be seen as an intermediate step and they should spend their welfare dollars on a debit card. They should be allowed only $100 of cash from the debit card and an upper limit of the current cost of living so that they cannot overspend or purchase things that are not necessary. This would eliminate the waste that happens saving billions of dollars that are wasted.
Education should not be cut. Education is the one part of government services where I do not see any real waste because, excluding teacher's salaries, every penny goes directly to maintenance and education. It should be the last to be cut because it is where students should learn the skills necessary to succeed in the modern world. Education should be looked at as the greatest investment of them all because through it our economy becomes stable through our future leaders and professionals, no matter what their career, get the jobs they need to keep our country running. It should train students to be active members in society and know how society works, which it has not been designed to do with the emphasis on testing and the removal of High School Civics several decades ago. The reforms have made the curriculum less preparing for what we are going to need as adults with many concepts, like economics, psychology, and political science being removed to dumb down the curriculum. An attitude change is needed here. Children are brought up by our culture to think that school is a chore and not supposed to be fun. It should be more focused on preparing children for being world citizens than passing tests and going to college. The culture of high school sends students to college who then go on to do careers that do not require college education for their entire lives, which forces up the demand curve for college, making those of us whose careers require advanced degrees have to spend more than we should. Many of the "college-bound students" should go to trade schools. Most programmers for instance should go to trade schools because they are prepared for their careers. Once high school prepares people for the responsibilities of citizenship and adulthood, career training would be all that is required for productivity and full societal participation. This would save society billions of dollars for society and save years of time and tens of thousands of dollars each for many young adults in unnecessary college tuition.
Also, school districts across the country should get the amount of money that they need to have state of the art equipment, up to date textbooks, up to date school buildings, and an environment that tells students that America cares about their futures. Rural school districts have to scrounge for money to replace out of date equipment all the time while rich school districts get their computers replaced all the time. Every school district should have the same high standard of education that is appropriate for the richest nation in the world. China is still a long ways behind us in GDP.
What they are doing is eliminating the very programs that allow the people who are not rich to not go bankrupt, the same programs that raised the United States from an agrarian nation to a first-world industrialized superpower are being put first for cutting. These things are so ingrained in society that many do not realize the impact these have on our society today. This makes the number of lobbyists fighting for them small, while the corporate interests in the military-industrial complex are very interested at more arms sales, because they get richer.
This would look like corruption but it also shows a purposeful lack of care for what happens in the future and a hatred for government. Some civilizations fall from invaders and some fall from revolution. Others fall from internal vandalism to society's structure. They are destroying American's acts of citizenship through a massive propaganda machine spreading fear through lies, i.e. the so-called death panels. By destroying all of the things that our country is built on they are effectively destroying our country by bringing our society from the level we share with Western Europe to the only country on the face of the planet that does not provide any services for its citizens, Somalia. This is treason and must be stopped.
But what actually disturbs me about this is that they do not focus a lot of energy into making government more efficient. Every American should look at the US Immigration system which is I hope the most convolved part of the law. Also, why does the tax code have to be 16000 pages long? That seems bloated and if it were simplified by removing the lobbyists' sections the government would not have a deficit and everyone's taxes could go down, stimulating the economy, and decreasing the amount of bookkeeping necessary to keep the government running. If they really were proponents of small government they would have this on their platform. They don't which tells me that this isn't what they are concerned about. They then must be the lobbyists' best friend.
One idea I have is that Social Security should not be mandatory. Many people do not want the paychecks. If they do not want the help they should not be forced to have it. It should be a voluntary basis though because some seniors live on social security paychecks and they keep them from being a burden on their families. Those seniors' families benefit greatly by the paychecks for their years of work and the seniors live better lives.
Also, on welfare, there is a lot of waste in the system. Many people get their welfare checks and spend it on things that should not be covered, such as big luxuries, cigarettes, drugs, and other things that should not be covered. Welfare should be designed to give people enough money to live when they are down on their luck so that they can recuperate from an injury, or some other condition. Welfare should be designed so they can buy things that they need and other things that give them the information they need to stay on top of the news. Things like food, newspapers, internet, cable, books, toiletries, pet supplies, fuel, basic insurance, and inexpensive electronics so that they can stay on top of current events and developments, but do not buy luxuries that they wouldn't afford otherwise. It should be seen as an intermediate step and they should spend their welfare dollars on a debit card. They should be allowed only $100 of cash from the debit card and an upper limit of the current cost of living so that they cannot overspend or purchase things that are not necessary. This would eliminate the waste that happens saving billions of dollars that are wasted.
Education should not be cut. Education is the one part of government services where I do not see any real waste because, excluding teacher's salaries, every penny goes directly to maintenance and education. It should be the last to be cut because it is where students should learn the skills necessary to succeed in the modern world. Education should be looked at as the greatest investment of them all because through it our economy becomes stable through our future leaders and professionals, no matter what their career, get the jobs they need to keep our country running. It should train students to be active members in society and know how society works, which it has not been designed to do with the emphasis on testing and the removal of High School Civics several decades ago. The reforms have made the curriculum less preparing for what we are going to need as adults with many concepts, like economics, psychology, and political science being removed to dumb down the curriculum. An attitude change is needed here. Children are brought up by our culture to think that school is a chore and not supposed to be fun. It should be more focused on preparing children for being world citizens than passing tests and going to college. The culture of high school sends students to college who then go on to do careers that do not require college education for their entire lives, which forces up the demand curve for college, making those of us whose careers require advanced degrees have to spend more than we should. Many of the "college-bound students" should go to trade schools. Most programmers for instance should go to trade schools because they are prepared for their careers. Once high school prepares people for the responsibilities of citizenship and adulthood, career training would be all that is required for productivity and full societal participation. This would save society billions of dollars for society and save years of time and tens of thousands of dollars each for many young adults in unnecessary college tuition.
Also, school districts across the country should get the amount of money that they need to have state of the art equipment, up to date textbooks, up to date school buildings, and an environment that tells students that America cares about their futures. Rural school districts have to scrounge for money to replace out of date equipment all the time while rich school districts get their computers replaced all the time. Every school district should have the same high standard of education that is appropriate for the richest nation in the world. China is still a long ways behind us in GDP.
What they are doing is eliminating the very programs that allow the people who are not rich to not go bankrupt, the same programs that raised the United States from an agrarian nation to a first-world industrialized superpower are being put first for cutting. These things are so ingrained in society that many do not realize the impact these have on our society today. This makes the number of lobbyists fighting for them small, while the corporate interests in the military-industrial complex are very interested at more arms sales, because they get richer.
This would look like corruption but it also shows a purposeful lack of care for what happens in the future and a hatred for government. Some civilizations fall from invaders and some fall from revolution. Others fall from internal vandalism to society's structure. They are destroying American's acts of citizenship through a massive propaganda machine spreading fear through lies, i.e. the so-called death panels. By destroying all of the things that our country is built on they are effectively destroying our country by bringing our society from the level we share with Western Europe to the only country on the face of the planet that does not provide any services for its citizens, Somalia. This is treason and must be stopped.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Of, By, and For the Rich
I've finally had enough. I woke up this morning to hearing a five minute clip of John Boehner explaining why the government shouldn't outlaw internet censorship through making some websites have higher priority than others. It all reflected around the one central belief of the Tea Party movement: Government is Bad.
This is a lie. This is such a big lie that I was literally swearing up and down for about 5 minutes it was so incorrect. If you go onto any watchdog website that gives donations from corporations: I recommend opencongress.gov and you look at the amount of money being sent to all members of Congress (especially the Republicans) to increase military spending and deregulate media putting control of content into corporate hands, the number is in the millions. Corporations give them altogether billions of dollars on all the things they want: mostly more weapons to be purchased, less regulation, and pet projects that then cost most of the national budget. In response the conservative members of Congress can keep their 5 mansions each. They become filthy rich and tax payer dollars go into huge wastes and it is covered up by the right extremist media who never mention it.
This enough to make one balk, but it is worse than that. The Democrats do not ever speak up and give the reasons why the Republicans are hurting everyone by selling where they send our money. They let them put in the huge pork of guns, pass the bills into law and Lockheed Martin becomes filthy rich. We become the country with the largest mostly unused arsenal in the world that is added to every single year.
That is revolting , but it is even worse than that. Public programs that benefit all Americans are then canceled and are made difficult to get to decrease the debt. The money that actually goes to the people is cut and the money goes to the filthy rich leaving the poor and lower middle class with very little compared to the other two income groups. The income gap is widening America, and most people are seeing their average real incomes fall. Nobody wins, except for the Lobbyists with Seats in Congress who can do whatever they want because the "news" that their constituents get leaves out all the real pork, and they get filthy rich with all of their billionaire sponsors.
This could be stopped in a heartbeat. The President, who as invisioned by our forefathers to represent the entire country should use his State of the Union to call out the corruption of corporations and bring people to check the facts. There will literally be nothing that the Republicans could do in response. Once this is done and the corruption of the modern tea party is shown for what it really stands for, America will loosen up and we will be in less danger of revolution.
This is a lie. This is such a big lie that I was literally swearing up and down for about 5 minutes it was so incorrect. If you go onto any watchdog website that gives donations from corporations: I recommend opencongress.gov and you look at the amount of money being sent to all members of Congress (especially the Republicans) to increase military spending and deregulate media putting control of content into corporate hands, the number is in the millions. Corporations give them altogether billions of dollars on all the things they want: mostly more weapons to be purchased, less regulation, and pet projects that then cost most of the national budget. In response the conservative members of Congress can keep their 5 mansions each. They become filthy rich and tax payer dollars go into huge wastes and it is covered up by the right extremist media who never mention it.
This enough to make one balk, but it is worse than that. The Democrats do not ever speak up and give the reasons why the Republicans are hurting everyone by selling where they send our money. They let them put in the huge pork of guns, pass the bills into law and Lockheed Martin becomes filthy rich. We become the country with the largest mostly unused arsenal in the world that is added to every single year.
That is revolting , but it is even worse than that. Public programs that benefit all Americans are then canceled and are made difficult to get to decrease the debt. The money that actually goes to the people is cut and the money goes to the filthy rich leaving the poor and lower middle class with very little compared to the other two income groups. The income gap is widening America, and most people are seeing their average real incomes fall. Nobody wins, except for the Lobbyists with Seats in Congress who can do whatever they want because the "news" that their constituents get leaves out all the real pork, and they get filthy rich with all of their billionaire sponsors.
This could be stopped in a heartbeat. The President, who as invisioned by our forefathers to represent the entire country should use his State of the Union to call out the corruption of corporations and bring people to check the facts. There will literally be nothing that the Republicans could do in response. Once this is done and the corruption of the modern tea party is shown for what it really stands for, America will loosen up and we will be in less danger of revolution.
"It is not fit that you should sit here any longer! You have been sat too long here for any good you have been doing lately. You shall now give place to better men! You call yourselves a Parliament. You are no Parliament. I say you are no Parliament! Some of you are drunkards, some of you are living in open contempt of God's Commandments, following your own greedy appetites and the Devil's commandments. Corrupt unjust persons, scandalous to the profession of the Gosepl; how can you be a Parliament for God's people? Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, GO!"
~ Oliver Cromwell Address to the Rump Parliament 20 April 1653 London, ENGLAND
Monday, February 28, 2011
Why building schools in Afghanistan makes good military sense. (Response to today's Colbert Report)
I watch the Colbert Report, and today the second interview was with Reagan's undersecertary of Defense who made some good points and some really bad ideas regarding Afghanistan.
Good points:
We need a time-line to leaving Afghanistan. We cannot be there indefinitely. I completely agree. By giving the government a due date they will quickly put their act together like Iraq did after Obama told them we were leaving. The terrorists act are nothing like they were four years ago and their government is a lot better. (sidenote: We would already be out of Afghanistan, if we didn't invade Iraq, but that's a different story an obviously up for debate.)
We need to hunt down the terrorists and end their lives. He is right, they are radical and will not let up. They must be destroyed.
Bad points:
We shouldn't be building schools, "the military is not a peace corps." This is misguided. Afghanistan's literacy rate is 36%, making the majority of people unable to read the Koran. I am currently working through it and the terrorists do not follow it. Currently, a terrorist can walk into a remote village, tell them what the Koran "says" and lie about all of it. The people in the remote village will have no way to check meaning that whatever they say is true to them. They will follow whatever the terrorists say no matter what. However, if we continue to build schools and the people can read their holy books then they will be able to have debates with the terrorists in their now obvious lying and then the terrorists will lose recruits. I don't even know how many of the recruiters even know what their book says to be honest. By leaving the people uneducated and vulnerable to their propaganda the terrorists will continue to have power indefinitely over the country and region. We cannot win if the people can be so easily persuaded to their fight. However, by building schools and growing Afghanistan's economy the reasons to join the terrorists fight are eliminated once the people lead productive lives and the terrorists will eventually lose power.
Good points:
We need a time-line to leaving Afghanistan. We cannot be there indefinitely. I completely agree. By giving the government a due date they will quickly put their act together like Iraq did after Obama told them we were leaving. The terrorists act are nothing like they were four years ago and their government is a lot better. (sidenote: We would already be out of Afghanistan, if we didn't invade Iraq, but that's a different story an obviously up for debate.)
We need to hunt down the terrorists and end their lives. He is right, they are radical and will not let up. They must be destroyed.
Bad points:
We shouldn't be building schools, "the military is not a peace corps." This is misguided. Afghanistan's literacy rate is 36%, making the majority of people unable to read the Koran. I am currently working through it and the terrorists do not follow it. Currently, a terrorist can walk into a remote village, tell them what the Koran "says" and lie about all of it. The people in the remote village will have no way to check meaning that whatever they say is true to them. They will follow whatever the terrorists say no matter what. However, if we continue to build schools and the people can read their holy books then they will be able to have debates with the terrorists in their now obvious lying and then the terrorists will lose recruits. I don't even know how many of the recruiters even know what their book says to be honest. By leaving the people uneducated and vulnerable to their propaganda the terrorists will continue to have power indefinitely over the country and region. We cannot win if the people can be so easily persuaded to their fight. However, by building schools and growing Afghanistan's economy the reasons to join the terrorists fight are eliminated once the people lead productive lives and the terrorists will eventually lose power.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Simple Argument for why Unions for public workers are necessary
When you have a group of 5000 or more people trying to negotiate with 200 or fewer employers, like in the government sector, it will be impossible for 5000 people to negotiate with 200 without a representative from the masses. Also, my Dad works in the public sector and where one of my uncles who does the same type of job (programming) can afford to go on family trips to California every few years while one trip for one of us is an extremely expensive undertaking. Without unions, thousands of workers with the same status all under one employer would never be able to negotiate. Unions are much more effective for the employer too in fact. Instead of having to deal with each employer at once they just talk to the union's elected president, elected for their speaking skills, leadership, and negotiating skills, which improves the time of the employer and the standard of living for the workers. This is why unions are necessary in the public sector, without them there would be no dialogue between the workers and employers which is an extremely unstable model because the negotiation is then replaced with strikes.
Recipe for World Peace
Throughout the world we can see many things, revolutions, tyrants, freedom, and other things throughout the world. The United States has 300 million people and according to the Department of Commerce 2007 US Resident Travel Abroad, collected presumably by customs forms, we travel mostly to European countries and places in North America and least to poor nations and most Middle Eastern nations, with an obvious exception to Egypt. A total of 64,052 Americans traveled abroad in 2007. This makes 240,000 Americans who did not.
Most Americans have never traveled outside the United States. Their experience with the world is severely limited and any experience they have with the outside world is limited to what they get through the media. This is a problem because we are the most powerful nation in the world and our citizens should all have some experience with other cultures whether they are as similar as Canada, or as different as Japan, both nations which made the list.
I think that Americans age 11 and up should be offered to travel somwhere outside the country as part of a delegation no matter how wealthy their parents are. As it is currently, the students that are able to travel are children of people with lots of money. This makes the vast majority of Americans unable to travel outside, giving them a very limited viewpoint. This is not good because then when the media consistently talks about one nation or another distorting the facts, most Americans have no one to confirm these facts with or to use their own experience to prove or disprove the media's story. Beyond this, this makes many people outside of the world that are not exposed to Americans to have a very unfavorable view of us because they have never met a single American. I think of countries in and near the Middle East and other places with extremely unfavorable view of us who have not met any truly normal American, only rich businesspeople.
Another problem with this is that people in most other countries cannot come to America easily, they need to apply for a Visa which is an expensive and time-consuming process that turns most away from visiting America. I think of people from despotic governments that do not know what another lifestyle is like, having lived their entire lives in their own country. They have nothing to compare their place to and do not know how people in free nations live. This is why I am opposed to Visas. Visas do not stop terrorists, as we saw in 2001, and most of the countries that require visas do not have any terrorism anyways. All of the people in the Western Hemisphere, Southern Africa, East Asia, and Europe should be able to visit America Visa-free. By doing this when someone has an unfavorable view of us in those places someone will be able to tell them what we are really like and fight the messages of how terrible we are coming from some foreign media outlets. More than this, they will be able to see how we live and take home the ideas of our types of freedom, improving their lives at home. This happens in America with many Americans who have traveled to Canada seeing their health care system imagining how its post-2003 reform efficiency could be implemented here.
The economical benefits to making tourism easier are immense. By exposing local businesses to currently inaccessible income from tourists people make less money than they would otherwise, which hurts our economy. Our cities would become wealthier and the people who make the city would have more money to do things they want.
Some tourists will choose to visit small towns throughout the country. This will expose many people in rural America to tourists from many parts of the world that would fight xenophobia, and expose currently isolated Americans to other viewpoints and cultures. Also, these small towns would get income they otherwise wouldn't have. It would make rural traditionalists wary when pundits speak against a minority. This will improve our attitude and face in the world. We have nothing to lose.
This would be an excellent way to improve our relations with the rest of the world. I think it could be done by either by private, non-profit, or public institutions. However, it is easy to see that the current system for non-profits does not get as much done as could be, so it should be improved.
If you are interested in this, look at People to People, a non-profit organization that was founded by President Eisenhower to promote world peace through understanding: www.ptpi.org
Most Americans have never traveled outside the United States. Their experience with the world is severely limited and any experience they have with the outside world is limited to what they get through the media. This is a problem because we are the most powerful nation in the world and our citizens should all have some experience with other cultures whether they are as similar as Canada, or as different as Japan, both nations which made the list.
I think that Americans age 11 and up should be offered to travel somwhere outside the country as part of a delegation no matter how wealthy their parents are. As it is currently, the students that are able to travel are children of people with lots of money. This makes the vast majority of Americans unable to travel outside, giving them a very limited viewpoint. This is not good because then when the media consistently talks about one nation or another distorting the facts, most Americans have no one to confirm these facts with or to use their own experience to prove or disprove the media's story. Beyond this, this makes many people outside of the world that are not exposed to Americans to have a very unfavorable view of us because they have never met a single American. I think of countries in and near the Middle East and other places with extremely unfavorable view of us who have not met any truly normal American, only rich businesspeople.
Another problem with this is that people in most other countries cannot come to America easily, they need to apply for a Visa which is an expensive and time-consuming process that turns most away from visiting America. I think of people from despotic governments that do not know what another lifestyle is like, having lived their entire lives in their own country. They have nothing to compare their place to and do not know how people in free nations live. This is why I am opposed to Visas. Visas do not stop terrorists, as we saw in 2001, and most of the countries that require visas do not have any terrorism anyways. All of the people in the Western Hemisphere, Southern Africa, East Asia, and Europe should be able to visit America Visa-free. By doing this when someone has an unfavorable view of us in those places someone will be able to tell them what we are really like and fight the messages of how terrible we are coming from some foreign media outlets. More than this, they will be able to see how we live and take home the ideas of our types of freedom, improving their lives at home. This happens in America with many Americans who have traveled to Canada seeing their health care system imagining how its post-2003 reform efficiency could be implemented here.
The economical benefits to making tourism easier are immense. By exposing local businesses to currently inaccessible income from tourists people make less money than they would otherwise, which hurts our economy. Our cities would become wealthier and the people who make the city would have more money to do things they want.
Some tourists will choose to visit small towns throughout the country. This will expose many people in rural America to tourists from many parts of the world that would fight xenophobia, and expose currently isolated Americans to other viewpoints and cultures. Also, these small towns would get income they otherwise wouldn't have. It would make rural traditionalists wary when pundits speak against a minority. This will improve our attitude and face in the world. We have nothing to lose.
This would be an excellent way to improve our relations with the rest of the world. I think it could be done by either by private, non-profit, or public institutions. However, it is easy to see that the current system for non-profits does not get as much done as could be, so it should be improved.
If you are interested in this, look at People to People, a non-profit organization that was founded by President Eisenhower to promote world peace through understanding: www.ptpi.org
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Charity - Ideas on how it should be done
I am looking at Central Africa's political situation right now. I have known they were poor for my entire life, but when I look at the capitals of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the Republic of the Congo I truly realized how poor they are. Their capital cities, also their largest cities, with all the powerful people in the country are opposite each other on a river. There is no bridge between them. I don't think a single road in either country has ever been paved. Along with this no one has electricity or clean water to drink most of the time, even in their capital cities let alone their other parts of the country. They have no economy to speak of and have epidimics, like AIDS and malaria that further cripple their life expectancy, economies, and standards of living. If this wasn't enough, the war in Eastern DRC has claimed more lives than any conflict after WW2 sending refugees to different parts of the country, notably Mbuji-Mayi.
The United States has been helping them by teaching them modern farming techniques so they can develop their country's agricultural sector. This is only a start. What could be done is to give charities grants to go into these central African countries with the tools and money needed to hire local people to build infrastructure in their countries. One reason that charities should do this is that they are more frugal than the military. They stretch their dollars more and means that they have more impact. The way I think would be the most effective long-term to go about work building these nations is:
The United States has been helping them by teaching them modern farming techniques so they can develop their country's agricultural sector. This is only a start. What could be done is to give charities grants to go into these central African countries with the tools and money needed to hire local people to build infrastructure in their countries. One reason that charities should do this is that they are more frugal than the military. They stretch their dollars more and means that they have more impact. The way I think would be the most effective long-term to go about work building these nations is:
- The people in these countries have work and money flow directly into the hands of the currently impoverished citizens.
- They learn how to build roads, be electricians, build the infrastructure needed for a world economy. When the aid leaves we leave behind workers who can keep their economy running after the aid leaves.
- They get the infrastructure they need to build more schools, trade schools, and universities so that they can have professionals of every profession.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Those overspending corrupt Dems did it again. They balanced the budget
For the past seventy years we have had a national debt. For the past seventy years it has only been balanced once. That was done in 2000 from the by President Clinton. In 2001-2008 the amount added to the debt per year grew substantially on a monthly basis. Taxes were cut, military was over funded, and nothing was done to necessary programs in health care whose costs grew out of control. For 6 years the executive and legislative branches were controlled by believers in laissez-faire economics, an idea condoned by all economists, even the ones calling themselves "Republican."
Yet all we here is how the democrats overspend and it always goes out of control when they are in power? This doesn't follow the facts. Wake up America, look at the numbers and you will see that this is a total lie done by masters of propaganda. These are the same millionaires who support huge tax breaks for the rich that after the deductions makes them spend almost nothing. AND THEN THEY COMPLAIN ABOUT THE DEFICIT THEIR PUPPETS CREATED!!!!! I hope that the Republicans block this like everything else the President proposes and find some small complaint that has been spun to fatten their supporters pockets and the spin machines with tax breaks. Who's corrupt now?
Yet all we here is how the democrats overspend and it always goes out of control when they are in power? This doesn't follow the facts. Wake up America, look at the numbers and you will see that this is a total lie done by masters of propaganda. These are the same millionaires who support huge tax breaks for the rich that after the deductions makes them spend almost nothing. AND THEN THEY COMPLAIN ABOUT THE DEFICIT THEIR PUPPETS CREATED!!!!! I hope that the Republicans block this like everything else the President proposes and find some small complaint that has been spun to fatten their supporters pockets and the spin machines with tax breaks. Who's corrupt now?
Friday, February 11, 2011
Sympathy for Egypt
In wake of Egypt's military coup, I give my sympathies to the people. I hope that they will elect a government that will put their interests at heart and not as some other middle eastern nations have done and succumb to terrorist groups. If they remain strong with a benign government they could become a beacon of hope to non-conservative Muslims throughout the Middle East that Terrorists can be defeated. This will be a major blow the Wahabbi movement.
Remain strong Egypt. Your future is in your hands.
Remain strong Egypt. Your future is in your hands.
Sunday, February 6, 2011
How to get the Infrastructure for Fuel Cells in Less than 3 Years.
Pretty big goal, go from being near the bottom of the heap of industrialized nations in terms of renewables to the top considering our massive size. Many people are going to say this cannot be done, but I know it can through economic tax incentives.
Every year, we send billions of dollars to the Middle East, funding terrorism, and causing environmental problems (go to LA and smell the sweet air) by burning more fossil fuels than any other nation, except maybe China. Fossil Fuels are dirty, there is a limited amount in the world and are only in certain regions despite being demanded by every country. The high demand and decreasing supply will inevitably lead to us running out in 50-100 years (estimation). So, we need to use another fuel source that will last for hundreds of years. Fortunately, this already exists and the principle behind this technology was discovered by Schönbein in 1838. This is of course the fuel cell. I know how we can have fuel cells be able to run across America by 2015 and stop giving billions of dollars to big oil every month.
What we do is give tax breaks to owners of gas stations that install hydrogen pumps. If they can save money by installing the pumps and tanks than they will do it. Once the pumps are in, they will be able to attract business from people with fuel cells from all over the country and we will have energy independence and terrorists will stop getting our oil money. The major part to this is that the hydrogen could be produced on-site. In an October 2006 publication by the Department of Energy, Hydrogen Production, it ends by saying that developing technology to create the fuel for electric cars was going to be available in the near-future.
The only question is how do we produce the fuel cells? The answer is in two steps: on-site hydrogen production and on-site electricity production to offset the shock to the grid.
We are Americans. Our country is the greatest nation on Earth. The first nation to have the radical ideals of freedom of religion, speech, press, and other radical ideals. We are a leader of the world and if we make a radical change across a continent the rest of the world will follow. It is in our power to become greater. Let's do it now. Let's end our addiction to foreign oil with a fuel source that will not run out until the Earth is absorbed into the Sun.
Every year, we send billions of dollars to the Middle East, funding terrorism, and causing environmental problems (go to LA and smell the sweet air) by burning more fossil fuels than any other nation, except maybe China. Fossil Fuels are dirty, there is a limited amount in the world and are only in certain regions despite being demanded by every country. The high demand and decreasing supply will inevitably lead to us running out in 50-100 years (estimation). So, we need to use another fuel source that will last for hundreds of years. Fortunately, this already exists and the principle behind this technology was discovered by Schönbein in 1838. This is of course the fuel cell. I know how we can have fuel cells be able to run across America by 2015 and stop giving billions of dollars to big oil every month.
What we do is give tax breaks to owners of gas stations that install hydrogen pumps. If they can save money by installing the pumps and tanks than they will do it. Once the pumps are in, they will be able to attract business from people with fuel cells from all over the country and we will have energy independence and terrorists will stop getting our oil money. The major part to this is that the hydrogen could be produced on-site. In an October 2006 publication by the Department of Energy, Hydrogen Production, it ends by saying that developing technology to create the fuel for electric cars was going to be available in the near-future.
The only question is how do we produce the fuel cells? The answer is in two steps: on-site hydrogen production and on-site electricity production to offset the shock to the grid.
- It is possible and almost feasible to get the hydrogen by splitting water molecules with electricity which gives you the hydrogen you need to fuel cars. On-site tanks could store the hydrogen like they currently store fossil fuels which is as easily and quickly dispensed as gasoline.
- The amount of energy to split a water molecule is large. It would be a large shock to the grid to be developing that much hydrogen on our current aging grid. On top of roofs nothing is produced. The elements are kept out of the house and then nothing else is done. If there were tax credits for everyone who puts solar panels on their roofs than there would be enough surplus power to power the splitting of water atoms at fuel stations. Then once people have the solar panels on their roofs saving them money on electricity, that would also stimulate the economy.
We are Americans. Our country is the greatest nation on Earth. The first nation to have the radical ideals of freedom of religion, speech, press, and other radical ideals. We are a leader of the world and if we make a radical change across a continent the rest of the world will follow. It is in our power to become greater. Let's do it now. Let's end our addiction to foreign oil with a fuel source that will not run out until the Earth is absorbed into the Sun.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
My analysis into the illegal immigration issue.
Immigration is a contentious issue for Americans. Arguments made for having stricter borders include:
1. They come in and use services without paying back.
2. They don't have to pay income tax.
3. We have to pay for it when they get sick.
These are the economical issues and can all be fixed by changing both the tax system and the immigration process. If it was easier for people to become American citizens they would come and pay their taxes like everyone else. Since strict citizenship requirements are doing more harm than good because of illegal immigrant's realistic fear of taken advantage of, the current citizenship requirements that are not necessary should be relaxed because all they are doing is causing this major contentious issue. The major change that should be done to solve this issue is to end the immigrtion lottery. The immigration lottery limits the number of immigrants from each part of the world. This makes farm laborers have to come illegally to fill jobs that otherwise would not be filled. takeourjobs.com shows that Americans don't want to be farm laborers. Also, a lot of people who are sometimes put into this category are drug dealers. They should not be counted in the statistics because they go across the border a lot bringing drugs in and money out. So they are another issue.
Other issues include:
- Undocumented farm workers can't go to anyone to report abuse for fear of being deported. They are a third class.
- Crime. Some people classified as illegal immigrants create crimes when they are here, mainly members of drug cartels. This can be be stopped by fighting the drug trade in schools through harsher punishments towards those who distribute drugs illegally and legalizing the consumption and licensed selling of less dangerous drugs that give them fast cash to increase production and distribution. They shouldn't be fought as if they are criminals, which they are, they should be fought as if they were businessmen too. This will do the following effects:
- The amount of demand for drugs would go down and it would be less profitable to sell drugs in High Schools which will cripple the Cartels from the power they currently had. There is no expensive military intervention required.
- More dangerous crossing points. If it was easier to come across legally than the drug cartels would be the only ones coming across the border illegally.
- Racism is a major topic since Arizona's bill has been passed. You can't tell an immigrant from someone who hasn't moved since before that area was given to us in 1848. It is ineffective and racist.
- Limits on immigrants to America. This only makes the problem bigger because people come despite that law. It causes more harm than good, so it should be removed.
- Habeas Corpus is REQUIRED to be respected by the Constitution.
- Green cards should be easier for Illegal Immigrants to acquire because they are here anyways and they don't want to go back to Drug-ridden areas for good reason.
- Some requirements for green cards should be removed: polygamy, and failing to make payments should be given an extension of one year or six months because of the decreased fear and increased income permanent residency creates.
- As it is now, people can get as much of the dangerous drugs as they want. They will pay high prices for them and the money will go to the cultivators and drug lords. By legalizing dangerous drugs temporarily, they will be easier to get, but the amount of money that is made on them will be far less. Some money will also go to the government which means that when the people use the drug they will be paying for rehabilitation and it will no longer be lucrative for the cartels. It is evil, but the lesser of two evils.
Google Street View
Debates over technology can be very interesting and this issue is very good and hot!
I must side with Google on taking pictures of every street in the world for the following reasons:
I must side with Google on taking pictures of every street in the world for the following reasons:
- Tourism will boom when we can see everything. Planning trips becomes easier because you know exactly what the place you are going to looks like.
- We have had satellite imagery for the entire world for decades. Street view cameras blur names, faces (which is so effective it even blurs signs of faces), and numbers, protecting privacy, and when there is offensive imagery the image is either not put on or promptly removed.
Wikipedia: Why It's altruism has built it up to become a diverse and accurate source for academia
Introduction/Thesis
Wikipedia is an excellent source that can and should be used by students. It has risen to the same level of the most respected academic references that are written by scholars by the efforts of millions of people across the world doing research for a single cause in every language.
Detail Offered Compared to Other Major Sources
By allowing people to add information as they learn it, wikipedia has become the largest and most up to date depository of knowledge ever. (Crovitz)
Ease of Use
Wikipedia has several ways to delve into a subject. The most obvious is the search bar at the top-right corner of the page. Type in the name of the article and you will most of the time be automatically be sent to that page. This is the easiest way to do research and works for almost everything.Beyond that, there are other ways to retrieve specific information that can be useful when doing specific research. Portals give the most important links for popular topics. Categories are given at the bottom of every article with links to all articles dealing with a subject, from a year to a small field of science. Lists are given on every subject to existing articles and articles that still need to be created. Timelines are given on the most important events of all history. Another way to research bringing a total of six ways to search is the alphabetical list of all entries on each wikipedia.
The most original way to use Wikipedia is via portal. Portals give the links to the most important articles on the subject making an excellent jumping off point to new research. Wikipedia allows people to get to articles specific to a small field quickly. These pages can then be used by students to quickly understand what their professors are saying through their concise language (Research by using Wikipedia).
Thew most popular source that schools use, Proquest, has some major disadvantages to Wikipedia. Proquest gives the original texts on some but not all documents. Most of the time it does not include the sources that the author from “scholarly journals” used. Wikipedia always gives links to the original sources and the best site for that document. It may include that documents sources in its own links on popular articles. Wikipedia’s final advantage is that it’s free. Proquest is extremely expensive for academia and designed by “experts” (Comparing experience of proquest and wikipedia while writing this paper).
Accuracy via Linus’ Law AKA Open Source vs. Closed Source Websites
Wikipedia is closely related to the Linux philosophy known as Linus’ Law. Linus’ Law states: “Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.” This is the same way that Science papers are produced. (Russel Kay) A scientist starts an experiment and other scientists look for errors to help their friend and science which fixes all issues with the experiments. It has worked for over a hundred years and is how the Linux operating systems function, which has bade them as powerful as the expensive Apple and Microsoft operating systems. Wikipedia is no different. (Kutter)Perhaps the accuracy of Wikipedia is proven when academics occasionally test Wikipedia’s self-correcting mechanism of Linus’ Law. According to Diane Skiba, A.J. Jacobs uploaded an article to Wikipedia with 15 deliberate errors. In 3 days volunteers had fixed all but one minor error.
People watch Wikipedia’s pages to cancel bad edits and vandalism. Anyone can look at recent changes on the left hand side of the main page and see all the recent edits in reverse chronological order. Because the most popular languages have millions of users with somebody always combing the wiki, this makes vandalizing pages pointless. Another thing, scholarly sources on the internet will often have little information and have few links to check their sources. Wikipedia fixes these problems by having a lot of detail and all important pages have links so more information can be found quickly. (Experience while writing this paper)
When compared to Britannica on random articles; Wikipedia hs four mistakes per article as opposed to Brittanica’s three (Brittanica). Since Wikipedia is fully written by volunteers this is an impressive statistic. This makes it practically equal.
Impact on the Publishing Industry
The impact on publishing corporations is probably the biggest reason publishing houses are in a media war with Wikipedia. Having information on all important subjects makes basic research in printed sources wasteful of people’s time. This combined with the accuracy of Wikipedia decreases sales of books which is why Wikipedia’s competitiveness shrinks the sales of book companies. The only option they have is to go to a media war saying how Wikipedia is inaccurate by lying how it’s greatest strength is a weakness.Accessibility
Wikipedia has articles in 276 languages making it accessible to everyone who has a computer and can read. Wikipediai s free of use. It follows the freedom of information philosophy. (Wikipedia Statistics page)Encyclopedia Britannica is only in English. It is also expensive to purchase and unless you are a member of a library that has subscribed to it, you won’t be able to use it. (Experience while writing this paper.)
Usefulness as a Student
As a student, Wikipedia is a great source when learning a new subject. It’s articles are clear, concise, and well written. It presents every subject as if you have never been exposed to it, making it an excellent jumping off point on a new subject. (Interview with friends)Wikipedia gives students the best sites on every subject they will touch as an undergraduate student. This is superior to Google because Google doesn’t filter between accurate sources and inaccrate sources without some very specific searches. The websites presented on Wikipedia are often academic, giving reliable information. (See the page for “Bacteriophage” which includes links to four universities, a trend among science pages) This is also superior to sites you pay for because they are harder and take more time to navigate. (Crovitz; Original research)
Wikipedia is also being used as a teaching mechanism in the classroom. Instead of writing identical papers on a common subject, students create accounts and add to Wikipedia’s information in some classrooms (Goodman).
Works Cited
Baytiyeh, Hoyta, and Jay Pfaffman. “Volunteers in Wikipedia: Why the Community Matters.”Ebsco. Web. 15 Nov. 2010
Black, Erik W. “Wikipedia and academic peer review: wikipedia as a recognized medium for scholarly publication?”
Online Information Review. 32.1 (2008): 73. Platinum Periodicals, Proquest. Web. 17 Nov. 2010
Crovitz, D., and Smoot, W. “Wikipedia: Friend, Not Foe.” English Journal 98.3 (2009): 91-97/
Platinum Periodicals, Proquest. Web. 16 Nov. 2010.
Goodman, R.. “STUDENTS CONTRIBUTE TO A GLOBAL COMMUNITY THROUGH IMPROVEMENT OF WIKIPEDIA.”
The American Biology Teacher 70.3 (2008): 138-138. Research Library.
Russell Kay. “It’s the law!” Computerworld 12 Aug. 2002: Platinum Periodicals, Proquest. Web. 19 Nov. 2010.
Proquest. Web. 18 Nov. 2010
Skiba, Diane J. “Open Source: Will You Follow the Cathedral of the Bazaar Model?”
Ebsco. Web. 15 Nov. 2010
Spence, Des. “A Wicked Encyclopaedia.”
Proquest. 19 Sept. 2009. Web. 16 Nov. 2010
“Britannica attacks.” Nature 440. 7084 (2006): 582. Platinum Periodicals, ProQuest. Web. 17 Nov. 2010.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
The Non-Political, Biological, Constitutional, and Economical Argument for Universal Health Care
As a scientist with a grasp of basic economic principles, I am in favor of universal health care. There is a clear correlation between access to health care and overall health. In Northern Australia you are in the humid tropics and everyone is healthy for the most part. Go to the same latitude in Africa and you lose all the health care Australians have and people's livelihoods decrease greatly. This is both a cause and an effect that keeps people not working and lowers life expectancy. I am going to prove the following, 1. Why Health Care is a Public Good, 2. Why Health Care is a prerequisite to a all around high standard of living, 3. Why Health Care is a human right and every member of society needs to have access, and 4. Why Health Care can only be fully implemented with Governmental Intervention.
1. Why Health Care is a Public Good
To define public good, a public good is in this tense is "non-rival – one person consuming them does not stop another person consuming them;" It is non rival because people are only going to have the amount of health care that they require, there are enough resources to provide for, and over-treatment is not a major concern. Because who actually enjoys going to the doctor?
Furthermore, because of Germ theory, when someone is sick in the middle of a large crowd the bacteria and viruses that the person is infected with spread to other people. If we have one person in society carrying a virus that people are not immune to, and other people get the virus, we are risking an outbreak. In the United States of America, to allow someone to put other people at risk of contagious diseases, especially susceptible people's health violates a core American value, the right to life without which all other rights are pointless. (Declaration of Independence Paragraph II) This is proof that our founding father's would agree that we need to protect all people from things outside of their control. It is more dangerous than drugs because life-threatening heroin doesn't spread like wildfire, viruses do. Another thing, many people continue to go to work after they get sick and don't stay home and take medicine allowing them to get better here in America. Because of this, no matter what the official rates are for illness, they are going to be too low because Americans are not taught Germ Theory. This makes American statistics for illness the minimum because the actual numbers are much higher. Also, economically, when you are sick if you go to work your efficiency is going to be cut significantly because it is harder to do tasks. /This means that true universal health care is economical stimulation.
This proves that someone's not getting health care harms everyone else's health care, no matter what their income level, race, sex, or social class is, making someone not have access to health care inherently immoral.
2. Why Health Care is a Prerequisite to a Standard of Living.
If you are sickly, your standard of living is going to drop. Economically, you are going to be less productive, even if you are going to work. You will not be able to get things done that have to be done and if your illness is contagious the standard of living of people around you is also going to drop. If you look at the standard of living on the Human Development Index, the lowest countries have sporadic health care services at best, and the countries at the very top of the list all have Universal Health Care. If someone is not sick, and not around people who are sick, than the illness will drop and people will lead better lives.
3. Why Health Care is a Human Right and Every Member of Society Needs to Have Access.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, drafted by Eleanor Roosevelt and others, lists fundamental human rights that are followed by all free nations. It is based on equality and includes parts of life that are not taken away from people in the United States of America, such as freedom of speech, religion, petition, and other rights. However, if you are dead, these rights are not worth anything. You need to be alive to enjoy these good concepts, and if a person doesn't have access to health care they are unable to enjoy every human right. This makes is a foundation for everything we do in life in our world and a prerequisite to everything in society.
4. Why Health Care Can Only be Fully Implemented with Governmental Intervention.
The first thing people learn about corporations in any economics class is what firms exist to do. They exist to make a profit. People go into business to make money and only a few major businessmen continue to care about what happens to others. The owner is in business to make money to live his/her own life. (Mankiw) This makes it so that if it is not profitable to give someone health care a corporation is not going to. This means that if ordinary people do not have health insurance or have their health care paid for by taxes (like Canada, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Japan and Taiwan to an extent) they will not receive health care, making it so that you have a large segment of the population that will not have access, giving a huge pool of people for disease to grow and mutate in, threatening an epidemic.
An option for people to have their health care, the current American method, is to have health insurance industries offer people insurance. If there are competing companies the prices are going to stay low and the people at the top will make money and everyone will be happy. This should work, but often doesn't. Companies often out compete each other forcing out the competition and then rise their prices giving their owners record profits leaving people who don't qualify for Medicare struggling to make ends meet (dropping standards of living for no moral reason) OR going without health care (which as I proved in point 3 doesn't just affect the people without coverage). Both are unacceptable and not the fault of the people who are now at risk. This is why if we are to do the American option, there will need to be a governmental self-sustaining public health insurance option for people to buy into if they choose to. This will prevent large corporations from taking advantage of innocent people and to not do so goes against the fundamental American principle our Founding Fathers believed in, that all people are created equal and we all have a right to life. This would work.
Another option is universal health care from the government. People pay sales taxes, and then everyone has paid for their use of the public good. It prevents outbreaks in Northern Europe and Canada making their standard of living exceed ours by international standards, and follows the American principle of everyone being equal. Like anything, there is an equilibrium that must be achieved in order for it to work, which is why when I talked to a friend from British Columbia he told me about how there was reform to their system around 2006 that took the existing system and crossed out the problems of long waiting lines that had been an unexpected symptom during PM Trudeau's term. They fixed it and it is now far superior to America's system using cost-benefit analysis.
I am not a Capitalist. I am not a Communist. I am not a Socialist. I am a Utilitarian. I look at the options to find the system that will work the best for the largest amount of people and then support it after analysis.
1. Why Health Care is a Public Good
To define public good, a public good is in this tense is "non-rival – one person consuming them does not stop another person consuming them;" It is non rival because people are only going to have the amount of health care that they require, there are enough resources to provide for, and over-treatment is not a major concern. Because who actually enjoys going to the doctor?
Furthermore, because of Germ theory, when someone is sick in the middle of a large crowd the bacteria and viruses that the person is infected with spread to other people. If we have one person in society carrying a virus that people are not immune to, and other people get the virus, we are risking an outbreak. In the United States of America, to allow someone to put other people at risk of contagious diseases, especially susceptible people's health violates a core American value, the right to life without which all other rights are pointless. (Declaration of Independence Paragraph II) This is proof that our founding father's would agree that we need to protect all people from things outside of their control. It is more dangerous than drugs because life-threatening heroin doesn't spread like wildfire, viruses do. Another thing, many people continue to go to work after they get sick and don't stay home and take medicine allowing them to get better here in America. Because of this, no matter what the official rates are for illness, they are going to be too low because Americans are not taught Germ Theory. This makes American statistics for illness the minimum because the actual numbers are much higher. Also, economically, when you are sick if you go to work your efficiency is going to be cut significantly because it is harder to do tasks. /This means that true universal health care is economical stimulation.
This proves that someone's not getting health care harms everyone else's health care, no matter what their income level, race, sex, or social class is, making someone not have access to health care inherently immoral.
2. Why Health Care is a Prerequisite to a Standard of Living.
If you are sickly, your standard of living is going to drop. Economically, you are going to be less productive, even if you are going to work. You will not be able to get things done that have to be done and if your illness is contagious the standard of living of people around you is also going to drop. If you look at the standard of living on the Human Development Index, the lowest countries have sporadic health care services at best, and the countries at the very top of the list all have Universal Health Care. If someone is not sick, and not around people who are sick, than the illness will drop and people will lead better lives.
3. Why Health Care is a Human Right and Every Member of Society Needs to Have Access.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, drafted by Eleanor Roosevelt and others, lists fundamental human rights that are followed by all free nations. It is based on equality and includes parts of life that are not taken away from people in the United States of America, such as freedom of speech, religion, petition, and other rights. However, if you are dead, these rights are not worth anything. You need to be alive to enjoy these good concepts, and if a person doesn't have access to health care they are unable to enjoy every human right. This makes is a foundation for everything we do in life in our world and a prerequisite to everything in society.
4. Why Health Care Can Only be Fully Implemented with Governmental Intervention.
The first thing people learn about corporations in any economics class is what firms exist to do. They exist to make a profit. People go into business to make money and only a few major businessmen continue to care about what happens to others. The owner is in business to make money to live his/her own life. (Mankiw) This makes it so that if it is not profitable to give someone health care a corporation is not going to. This means that if ordinary people do not have health insurance or have their health care paid for by taxes (like Canada, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Japan and Taiwan to an extent) they will not receive health care, making it so that you have a large segment of the population that will not have access, giving a huge pool of people for disease to grow and mutate in, threatening an epidemic.
An option for people to have their health care, the current American method, is to have health insurance industries offer people insurance. If there are competing companies the prices are going to stay low and the people at the top will make money and everyone will be happy. This should work, but often doesn't. Companies often out compete each other forcing out the competition and then rise their prices giving their owners record profits leaving people who don't qualify for Medicare struggling to make ends meet (dropping standards of living for no moral reason) OR going without health care (which as I proved in point 3 doesn't just affect the people without coverage). Both are unacceptable and not the fault of the people who are now at risk. This is why if we are to do the American option, there will need to be a governmental self-sustaining public health insurance option for people to buy into if they choose to. This will prevent large corporations from taking advantage of innocent people and to not do so goes against the fundamental American principle our Founding Fathers believed in, that all people are created equal and we all have a right to life. This would work.
Another option is universal health care from the government. People pay sales taxes, and then everyone has paid for their use of the public good. It prevents outbreaks in Northern Europe and Canada making their standard of living exceed ours by international standards, and follows the American principle of everyone being equal. Like anything, there is an equilibrium that must be achieved in order for it to work, which is why when I talked to a friend from British Columbia he told me about how there was reform to their system around 2006 that took the existing system and crossed out the problems of long waiting lines that had been an unexpected symptom during PM Trudeau's term. They fixed it and it is now far superior to America's system using cost-benefit analysis.
I am not a Capitalist. I am not a Communist. I am not a Socialist. I am a Utilitarian. I look at the options to find the system that will work the best for the largest amount of people and then support it after analysis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)