In the last couple weeks, Herman Cain has risen more than 10 points in national polls asking potential GOP voters who they would nominate in 2012.
Almost as many points as he has won, Rick Perry has lost. This has put Cain in a tie or even a slight lead over the Texas governor.
But what does all this mean?
I said Perry would not last in the race, having arrived with the fanfare he did. This is for a few simple reasons.
1. He has a history with the Democratic Party.
This is a huge point. Americans are sick of "politicians" in the sense of elected officials who change their views as quickly as the wind changes direction.
2. He has never run for election outside of his state.
The campaign for presidency is much more difficult than a state election. There are much larger issues to consider with wider audiences, which mean you have to watch what you say. Perry has admitted multiple times in debates that he hasn't formulated plans on issues such as fixing the tax code or health care reform.
Added into this is Perry's history of leading with a heavy hand and intimidation. There have been a lot of reports from former employees that say he wasn't the most cooperative executive in Texas.
3. People expected too much from him.
If there is one thing I have learned about the GOP electorate from this election cycle and the one in 2008 is that candidates should fear fanfare upon entering the race. Fred Thompson was greeted with huge enthusiasm and his campaign imploded in a few months. The same is happening with Perry. The GOP is in searching so hard to find "the next Reagan" that the favored candidate is expected to be at that level. The strange thing is, no one in the race is a Reagan - they are either more moderate or more conservative. Thus Republicans are left grasping at smoke as they cannot find their prophet.
But enough about Perry, this article is about Herman Cain.
I think Cain is going to experience similar problems as Perry - what I will dub the "Reagan Effect." Let's look at why people are starting to like him.
1. Cain has answers.
Cain's "9-9-9" plan has been the scrutiny of recent debates, interviews, and news articles. There hasn't even been serious deep consideration for the plan, Cain has just explained time and again what the plan is; and people are eating it up. They care less about what the plan is and more that there is a plan.
2. Cain eliminates the race issue.
This has been an issue for Republicans since the 60s. When looking at how African Americans vote, the numbers are overwhelming in favor of the Democratic party to the tune of 95%. This week Cain said he could get 33% of the black vote and he's likely right.
African Americans have strong socially conservative values and perhaps more importantly, they have shown disfavor towards Obama. In a recent poll, only 55% of blacks approved of Obama's job as president.
On a head to head debate, Obama's advantage being a minority is lost.
3. Cain is a businessman.
A common thread in our political atmosphere today is a dissatisfaction of the establishment. Herman Cain offers a perspective almost exclusively from the private sector. The public has perceived Cain is above the taint of Washington, which puts him in a favorable light.
So what will cause Cain's campaign to implode?
1. He isn't an experienced politician.
While being a businessman is a positive for him, it will ultimately be his undoing. His lack of experience in the political realm will only become more obvious as we go along. This is particularly true because the presidential race is the most difficult campaign in American politics.
2. He is a policy lightweight.
I find it surprising how many people have forgotten how little knowledge Cain has on foreign policy issues. Let me give you three examples. In May, he didn't know what the Palestinian Right of Return was, in July he thought the U.S. recognized Taiwan as a legitimate and independent government, and two days ago he bashed the idea of knowing the president of a made up country that sounds awfully familiar to Uzbekistan.
This would be less of an issue if we didn't have multiple foreign conflicts going on and tense relations with half the world - but we do.
3. Money could be an issue.
We know Cain raised just under $2.5 million dollars in the second quarter this year. For people who need a reference to that, Mitt Romney raised $18.25 million, Ron Paul raised $4.5 million, and Tim Pawlenty raised $4.2 million.
Cain has yet to release his third quarter totals, and we can expect them to be higher since he has risen in the polls, but I doubt he will have enough to compete with Romney.
All I ask is this: let's stop the Cain train before it can start gaining momentum. The man is not fit for the job and even in the unlikely event that he does beat out Obama, he will not change our policies in any noticeable way.
If you are sick of the status quo - as I know many of you are - check our Ron Paul. Agree or disagree with him, at least he's different.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Steve Jobs: A Legacy
The passing of Steve Jobs yesterday is a loss for the world. His innovation, vision, and love for what he did helped bring us into the modern digital age. Without a doubt, our culture's radical technological advances have been direct results of the work by Jobs and others, such as Steve Wozniak, Bill Gates, and Larry Page.
Though Jobs is no longer with us, by no means is his work finished. There is so much we as Americans can learn from Jobs' life. Here are some quotes and defining parts of Jobs' life.
"You can't just ask customers what they want and then try to give that to them. By the time you get it built, they'll want something new."
As far innovators in the technological realm go, few can better Jobs. He did not rely on focus groups or market research. He analyzed a product, searched for its flaws, and corrected them. This meant Jobs innovated products that had people amazed because they were radically different from what they were used to.
Jobs did not invent digital music, nor did he invent the tablet. But he designed the iPod to be so user-friendly that Apple now has dominance in the music player market, and the iPad brought tablet computers to the forefront of new computer hardware.
Inherent with Jobs business model is extreme risk. Because he didn't have the assurances of market research, he was not guaranteed success of his products. This speaks to the genius of Jobs. His ability to anticipate what people would demand made him a leader in technological advancements.
"Quality is better than quantity. One home-run is better than two doubles."
Jobs strive for excellence marks him as a great person. Success is often an uphill journey. As Jobs himself said "I'm convinced that about half of what separates successful entrepreneurs from the non-successful ones is pure perseverance."
What made Jobs such a huge success was not the Apple II - his breakout computer in the 1980s. It wasn't even his first job as Apple's CEO. He was fired from Apple in the mid-nineties. His success was finally earned when Apple rehired him as CEO. From that time he developed the aforementioned iPod and iPad as well as revive the stagnant company to become competitive with then super-giant of the computer market, Microsoft.
We need to take this lesson and apply it to ourselves. Our lives happen over many years marked with many accomplishments. If you quit after one mishap you will never find success.
"Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap that you have something to lose. You are already naked. There is no reason not to follow your heart."
Jobs was worth over $10,000,000 by the time he was 25 and he couldn't care less. For him the money didn't matter. He loved to innovate and problem solve. Later in his life he loved to push people to excellence - part of why he was a great CEO.
This may sound cliché, but doing what you love is going to make you the happiest. There are many ways to make money. You could become a lawyer or doctor, you could invent the next Snuggie, or you could write the next best-seller.
However the "what" in life is not important. It is the "why." If you do one of these things just to make money, you will find disappointment. If you love to draw but make no money, I can almost guarantee that you will be happy, because you are created to fulfill your individual purpose.
If there is one thing Jobs' life can show us, it is just this. Making computers was far from profitable when he started doing it. Even when he created his first piece of functioning hardware, no one would buy it. But he saw that people would take hold of what he could innovate and he persevered until he found success, not because he wanted the money, but because this is what he loved to do. So find what you love and work at it - if you love it, it won't really seem like work.
I leave you with this final quote.
"Here's to the crazy ones, the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers, the round pegs in the square holes...the ones who see things differently - they're not fond of rules. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them, but the only thing you can't do is ignore them because they change things...they push the human race forward, and while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius because the ones who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world, are the ones who do."
Though Jobs is no longer with us, by no means is his work finished. There is so much we as Americans can learn from Jobs' life. Here are some quotes and defining parts of Jobs' life.
"You can't just ask customers what they want and then try to give that to them. By the time you get it built, they'll want something new."
As far innovators in the technological realm go, few can better Jobs. He did not rely on focus groups or market research. He analyzed a product, searched for its flaws, and corrected them. This meant Jobs innovated products that had people amazed because they were radically different from what they were used to.
Jobs did not invent digital music, nor did he invent the tablet. But he designed the iPod to be so user-friendly that Apple now has dominance in the music player market, and the iPad brought tablet computers to the forefront of new computer hardware.
Inherent with Jobs business model is extreme risk. Because he didn't have the assurances of market research, he was not guaranteed success of his products. This speaks to the genius of Jobs. His ability to anticipate what people would demand made him a leader in technological advancements.
"Quality is better than quantity. One home-run is better than two doubles."
Jobs strive for excellence marks him as a great person. Success is often an uphill journey. As Jobs himself said "I'm convinced that about half of what separates successful entrepreneurs from the non-successful ones is pure perseverance."
What made Jobs such a huge success was not the Apple II - his breakout computer in the 1980s. It wasn't even his first job as Apple's CEO. He was fired from Apple in the mid-nineties. His success was finally earned when Apple rehired him as CEO. From that time he developed the aforementioned iPod and iPad as well as revive the stagnant company to become competitive with then super-giant of the computer market, Microsoft.
We need to take this lesson and apply it to ourselves. Our lives happen over many years marked with many accomplishments. If you quit after one mishap you will never find success.
"Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap that you have something to lose. You are already naked. There is no reason not to follow your heart."
Jobs was worth over $10,000,000 by the time he was 25 and he couldn't care less. For him the money didn't matter. He loved to innovate and problem solve. Later in his life he loved to push people to excellence - part of why he was a great CEO.
This may sound cliché, but doing what you love is going to make you the happiest. There are many ways to make money. You could become a lawyer or doctor, you could invent the next Snuggie, or you could write the next best-seller.
However the "what" in life is not important. It is the "why." If you do one of these things just to make money, you will find disappointment. If you love to draw but make no money, I can almost guarantee that you will be happy, because you are created to fulfill your individual purpose.
If there is one thing Jobs' life can show us, it is just this. Making computers was far from profitable when he started doing it. Even when he created his first piece of functioning hardware, no one would buy it. But he saw that people would take hold of what he could innovate and he persevered until he found success, not because he wanted the money, but because this is what he loved to do. So find what you love and work at it - if you love it, it won't really seem like work.
I leave you with this final quote.
"Here's to the crazy ones, the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers, the round pegs in the square holes...the ones who see things differently - they're not fond of rules. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them, but the only thing you can't do is ignore them because they change things...they push the human race forward, and while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius because the ones who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world, are the ones who do."
Predator Drones Killing Awlaki: Right or Wrong?
Last week Anwar Al Awlaki was killed by a strike from a predator drone. There has been a little discussion on the matter, but I feel the media has not expressed deeply enough the two main concerns this event has brought up.
The first area of concern is the morality of using drones for killing. Dissenters argue that this is inhumane. If a war is going to occur it ought to be man on man. By allowing machines to do the killing for us remotely is dehumanizing the process of war.
While this seems like a weak argument, it is rather difficult to dismiss. I could bring up a historical argument that we have been using machines to wage war since Cain struck Abel with a rock. The only difference is that technology is more sophisticated.
However this does not negate the first argument as the dissenter could respond that even using a rock is dehumanizing.
So this is my argument. War is itself dehumanizing. No matter which way you slice it, when the natural rights of an individual are infringed by another the nature of humanity is deformed. For this reason, we should be very cautious to enter war. In the last half-century, America has entered so many wars that her populace feels war is perpetual and a given in society. This is a travesty that the youth in the 1960s and now today have hoped to end.
The second and perhaps more immediately important concern is that President Obama ordered the killing of an American with this strike.
This is a confusing area. After all, Awlaki was an "enemy combatant" and we have killed enemy combatants nearly every day for the last eight years. Why should this be any different?
The first glaring issue is that Awlaki was an American citizen. That means he is entitled to the Constitutional rights of habeas corpus, or his right to a trial. There is plenty of evidence to suggest Awlaki was a planner in multiple acts of terror in recent years, so I am confident that he would be found guilty in a court of law.
What surprises me also is this: Awlaki could have had his citizenship revoked on the grounds of treason. That is a constitutional power we have given our government. So again I have to ask, why was this not done?
I truly have no answer to this and all I can offer is vapid speculation.
What my concern with this action is how it sets up a dangerous precedent. Looking at this from a purely legal standpoint, it could be apt to describe the killing of Awlaki as a presidential assassination of an American citizen. If we allow this to happen unquestioned my fear is that in the future a president can turn this power domestically.
Let us think of a hypothetical situation in which a man or group is strongly opposed to a policy of a future president. The president, wanting to silence dissention to said policy, labels this group or individual as a combatant to America and has them ordered to be assassinated. There is no trial for these people nor an attempt to arrest them.
Do you think this is right?
I don't think president Obama will ever come close to performing such an act as was presented but I fear that if the growing power of the executive branch continues to grow unchecked situations similar to this may be quite likely in the future.
Agree or disagree with me on this specific circumstance, this is my challenge: look at what our federal government is doing and always question their actions. Our government is a government of the people. That means the people need to take an active role in it. I am tired of people being disillusioned to government. If we held our elected official's feet to the fire we might find that the policies they legislate more closely match our own ideals.
We have not yet reached the point where the populace is beyond controlling the government. We must act swiftly and with intelligence to turn our nation around and set us back on the road to success.
The first area of concern is the morality of using drones for killing. Dissenters argue that this is inhumane. If a war is going to occur it ought to be man on man. By allowing machines to do the killing for us remotely is dehumanizing the process of war.
While this seems like a weak argument, it is rather difficult to dismiss. I could bring up a historical argument that we have been using machines to wage war since Cain struck Abel with a rock. The only difference is that technology is more sophisticated.
However this does not negate the first argument as the dissenter could respond that even using a rock is dehumanizing.
So this is my argument. War is itself dehumanizing. No matter which way you slice it, when the natural rights of an individual are infringed by another the nature of humanity is deformed. For this reason, we should be very cautious to enter war. In the last half-century, America has entered so many wars that her populace feels war is perpetual and a given in society. This is a travesty that the youth in the 1960s and now today have hoped to end.
The second and perhaps more immediately important concern is that President Obama ordered the killing of an American with this strike.
This is a confusing area. After all, Awlaki was an "enemy combatant" and we have killed enemy combatants nearly every day for the last eight years. Why should this be any different?
The first glaring issue is that Awlaki was an American citizen. That means he is entitled to the Constitutional rights of habeas corpus, or his right to a trial. There is plenty of evidence to suggest Awlaki was a planner in multiple acts of terror in recent years, so I am confident that he would be found guilty in a court of law.
What surprises me also is this: Awlaki could have had his citizenship revoked on the grounds of treason. That is a constitutional power we have given our government. So again I have to ask, why was this not done?
I truly have no answer to this and all I can offer is vapid speculation.
What my concern with this action is how it sets up a dangerous precedent. Looking at this from a purely legal standpoint, it could be apt to describe the killing of Awlaki as a presidential assassination of an American citizen. If we allow this to happen unquestioned my fear is that in the future a president can turn this power domestically.
Let us think of a hypothetical situation in which a man or group is strongly opposed to a policy of a future president. The president, wanting to silence dissention to said policy, labels this group or individual as a combatant to America and has them ordered to be assassinated. There is no trial for these people nor an attempt to arrest them.
Do you think this is right?
I don't think president Obama will ever come close to performing such an act as was presented but I fear that if the growing power of the executive branch continues to grow unchecked situations similar to this may be quite likely in the future.
Agree or disagree with me on this specific circumstance, this is my challenge: look at what our federal government is doing and always question their actions. Our government is a government of the people. That means the people need to take an active role in it. I am tired of people being disillusioned to government. If we held our elected official's feet to the fire we might find that the policies they legislate more closely match our own ideals.
We have not yet reached the point where the populace is beyond controlling the government. We must act swiftly and with intelligence to turn our nation around and set us back on the road to success.
Friday, September 23, 2011
Political Discourse in America
With the election cycle starting up again, I have seen more than my fair share of political news stories. However a new piece to the puzzle is readers' ability to comment on the story. This may seem like a well-intentioned step by the presenter of the news to involve the readership, but I have to question its effect on our society's communication.
It has become common for people to expect bad comments these days. Affirmation of one candidate from commenter "a" is received with a "YOU'RE GAY!!" response from commenter "b" and "You are so f*&^@%# retarded you must have been dropped as a baby." from commenter "c." Commenter "a" gets angry with the two other commenters and unleashes his own foul response. The "discussion" is then led down a road of expletives and personal attacks that neither furthers the individuals' cause nor the conversation.
I am here to say I am sick and tired of this. People think they can say whatever they want because the Internet hides their identity - and that is true - but does that make an action right?
I am reminded of an anecdote from Plato called the Ring of Gyges. In the myth a farmer finds a ring that makes him invisible. He uses this newfound power to sleep with the queen, kill the king, and take the power of the throne. It was originally used as an example to show how men will not retain their morality if they can get away with immoral acts. That is exactly the case we have with anonymity on the Internet.
This begs a few questions. First is the matter of proving the wrongness of acting in such a manner online.
It used to be the case, so I am told, that such behavior was taken for granted to be wrong. That is not the case any more. So let me make two appeals.
First it should be considered wrong on the "Golden Rule" basis. The Golden Rule of course is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." So I ask: do you like it when people name-call you, swear at you, insult you, degrade your humanity? If the answer is no - and it should be - then you should also not act in a manner that does the above things.
My second appeal is to the affect such actions have. Are you convinced of a position because the person talks in a poor manner, curses and argues using logical fallacies? No. So why do you do the same thing? An attack on the person is not an attack on his ideology. The argument makes no sense and you're only angering people you are trying to convince.
The second question these actions raise is should there be accountability on the Internet?
I hold freedom to be paramount in a free society. A part of that freedom is to remain anonymous wherever and whenever you desire or are able to do such. So I do not advocate for the government to reveal the people who comment on the Internet. That not only lacks feasibility but it violates people's freedom. I am however an advocate of personal accountability. Here's a good test. Copy all your comments you make online and paste them all to a document. Then send the document to your grandmother or mother. Are you hesitant? Then maybe you should not post such things on the Internet.
The last question this raises - and the main crux of my post - is how this ability to comment unidentified is affecting our political discussion as a society.
I am a firm believer that social discourse helps shape ideas, form community, and help discover truths. I love sitting down with people - whatever the intelligence - and talk about politics. What I do not tolerate is personal attacks or slurs towards the discussion. I approach everyone with respect that they have formed their opinions rationally and that their point should be taken seriously, and I hope they do the same to me. That way we can both approach whatever subject we are discussing reasonably, open to dispute and with honest consideration to the opposing view.
I like to do this because it lets me see what people think, why they think that, and how they came to the conclusions they did. It helps me to empathize with the problems people face and solutions that need to be found. It also helps to challenge my ideas. I don't want my ideas to be a house of cards. I invite people to oppose me so that if I am proven to be wrong, I can correct my mistakes.
In a political discourse where reasonable challenges to ideology are met with immediate anger and hatred, there can be none of this. As I have said above, this reaction does not further the cause, but what it does do is protect the individual from challenges. This shows that the individual is not sure of his beliefs and has no grounding for his views.
This is my hope and my challenge: When you are commenting on forums or news stories keep this in mind. That you are representing your idea. Fallacious attacks only hurt you and your credibility, which means they hurt your belief's credibility. So treat others with respect and you might be surprised that they treat you with respect as well. Give an honest and open ear to other arguments and debate the points in love. After all, if your position is right, shouldn't you want people to adopt it?
It has become common for people to expect bad comments these days. Affirmation of one candidate from commenter "a" is received with a "YOU'RE GAY!!" response from commenter "b" and "You are so f*&^@%# retarded you must have been dropped as a baby." from commenter "c." Commenter "a" gets angry with the two other commenters and unleashes his own foul response. The "discussion" is then led down a road of expletives and personal attacks that neither furthers the individuals' cause nor the conversation.
I am here to say I am sick and tired of this. People think they can say whatever they want because the Internet hides their identity - and that is true - but does that make an action right?
I am reminded of an anecdote from Plato called the Ring of Gyges. In the myth a farmer finds a ring that makes him invisible. He uses this newfound power to sleep with the queen, kill the king, and take the power of the throne. It was originally used as an example to show how men will not retain their morality if they can get away with immoral acts. That is exactly the case we have with anonymity on the Internet.
This begs a few questions. First is the matter of proving the wrongness of acting in such a manner online.
It used to be the case, so I am told, that such behavior was taken for granted to be wrong. That is not the case any more. So let me make two appeals.
First it should be considered wrong on the "Golden Rule" basis. The Golden Rule of course is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." So I ask: do you like it when people name-call you, swear at you, insult you, degrade your humanity? If the answer is no - and it should be - then you should also not act in a manner that does the above things.
My second appeal is to the affect such actions have. Are you convinced of a position because the person talks in a poor manner, curses and argues using logical fallacies? No. So why do you do the same thing? An attack on the person is not an attack on his ideology. The argument makes no sense and you're only angering people you are trying to convince.
The second question these actions raise is should there be accountability on the Internet?
I hold freedom to be paramount in a free society. A part of that freedom is to remain anonymous wherever and whenever you desire or are able to do such. So I do not advocate for the government to reveal the people who comment on the Internet. That not only lacks feasibility but it violates people's freedom. I am however an advocate of personal accountability. Here's a good test. Copy all your comments you make online and paste them all to a document. Then send the document to your grandmother or mother. Are you hesitant? Then maybe you should not post such things on the Internet.
The last question this raises - and the main crux of my post - is how this ability to comment unidentified is affecting our political discussion as a society.
I am a firm believer that social discourse helps shape ideas, form community, and help discover truths. I love sitting down with people - whatever the intelligence - and talk about politics. What I do not tolerate is personal attacks or slurs towards the discussion. I approach everyone with respect that they have formed their opinions rationally and that their point should be taken seriously, and I hope they do the same to me. That way we can both approach whatever subject we are discussing reasonably, open to dispute and with honest consideration to the opposing view.
I like to do this because it lets me see what people think, why they think that, and how they came to the conclusions they did. It helps me to empathize with the problems people face and solutions that need to be found. It also helps to challenge my ideas. I don't want my ideas to be a house of cards. I invite people to oppose me so that if I am proven to be wrong, I can correct my mistakes.
In a political discourse where reasonable challenges to ideology are met with immediate anger and hatred, there can be none of this. As I have said above, this reaction does not further the cause, but what it does do is protect the individual from challenges. This shows that the individual is not sure of his beliefs and has no grounding for his views.
This is my hope and my challenge: When you are commenting on forums or news stories keep this in mind. That you are representing your idea. Fallacious attacks only hurt you and your credibility, which means they hurt your belief's credibility. So treat others with respect and you might be surprised that they treat you with respect as well. Give an honest and open ear to other arguments and debate the points in love. After all, if your position is right, shouldn't you want people to adopt it?
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Remembering 9/11
As I sit down to write this post, multiple TV stations airing September 11 documentaries or dramas, I do not fully know where to begin or where to go with this. As an event that has struck the very heart of America there is no way I can begin to encompass it, nor am I eloquent enough to write a moving story of the bravery that surged from men and women involved with the attack. I guess the best thing I can write about is growing up in a post-9/11 world.
I was ten years old when the attacks occurred. The day itself is one of the keenest memories I have of that time in my life. I was attending school at Schaeffer Academy in Mrs. Deedrick's fifth grade class. I forget specifically how the news got to Mrs. Deedrick, but remember her telling us of the attacks and how we would remember this moment for the rest of our lives. She said this day is like the day John F. Kennedy was assassinated. She told us that our children would not understand what it was like to experience the tragic day and know it only from textbooks. She said life would never be the same.
That is the unique part of my story. That is the difference between me and Americans older than me. I was ten at the time of the attacks. The word normal didn't - couldn't - exist for me. I and my peers have grown up, developed our thoughts and opinions, and looked to the future in a world far different than the world of anyone before us for the last century. We did not have an illusion of an America that was perfectly safe. We did not have the utopian view that the whole world got together. That value - our innocence - was robbed from us on that fateful day.
Since then, we have grown up knowing multiple foreign wars. Many of us don't know what an America uninvolved with war would look like. These perpetual wars we have lived have caused many to become disillusioned to the war on terror. We have grown so accustomed to it that we don't really think about it anymore. Sure, when the moments arise where the wars are shoved into our face we will react accordingly, but not in the same way as older generations. We reverence them because we are supposed to, because we know they go through difficulties we cannot imagine, and because they are fighting for our freedom. But it seems so hallow. My peers and I are growing tired of perpetual wars in foreign countries. The Arab Spring has shown many that the people of the Middle East can find their own way to democracy without U.S. intervention. We are sick of seeing our friends and neighbors shipped off to foreign lands coming back scarred either physically or mentally. There is a growing sentiment among us: bring our troops home.
We have lived in a world where government seems to be an all-encompassing power. As we grow into our 20s and seek independence from our parents, we are seeing that a new power is taking their place - the government. Going to the airport and getting fondled by the TSA has become acceptable to many adults, but the youth say "This is my person - my property! No matter the security I am master of my own body." With almost constant access to the Internet, the youth is able to find information the mainstream media does not publish. We read reports of wire-tapping, aerial surveillance, invasion of property, and seizure without warrants and we cry "Where is the America of the Founders?"
This is an interesting point. The older generations are far removed from civics or history classes. They learned years ago about the Constitution and have since then been able to forget what it says. But my generation, we have learned of the Constitution the same way the older generations have. But because we are learning of it, we compare it directly to what America is doing now and we see there is a serious disconnect. The Founders fought against a tyrannical government that claimed to own citizens. They replaced it with a government with clearly limited powers to promote individual freedom. Today I fear we have forgotten about the Founders and their vision for America.
The propaganda machine has not pushed its way into education completely to dismiss these issues and replace it with a nationalistic sentiment that everything the government does is in your best interest. Rather, the youth is left in a sort of limbo where we have to figure it out on our own. Some join the older generations and accept these things as necessary to preserving security. Others, like myself, follow Thomas Jefferson and question the government's actions and are never trusting of it. He said that when people sacrifice their freedom for the sake of security they are deserving of neither. As I grow up I want nothing more than to experience the world in its fullest, not to be fenced in by government agencies and laws that cover the world in bubble wrap and tie my hands so I don't hurt myself.
Let me conclude with this. I love America. I love the freedom she promises and I love the people who cling to that freedom as dear as anything. As we remember 9/11 my hope is we all send a prayer of thanks to God for his grace in founding this country, one of thanks to the men and women who serve our armed forces for their valor and courage, a prayer of comfort to the thousands that lost loved ones in the attack, and a prayer for guidance in the movers of the world, that they will see the best course to be taken in the years ahead.
As we remember 9/11 I wish people to look at it in two ways. I want them to consider the generation of Americans who have known only the post-9/11 world and what they have experienced - how this event has shaped their life. Secondly, I want them to remember the power we experienced when the nation as a whole came together and worked as a whole; to know that when free people unite for a common cause, no power can overcome them.
I was ten years old when the attacks occurred. The day itself is one of the keenest memories I have of that time in my life. I was attending school at Schaeffer Academy in Mrs. Deedrick's fifth grade class. I forget specifically how the news got to Mrs. Deedrick, but remember her telling us of the attacks and how we would remember this moment for the rest of our lives. She said this day is like the day John F. Kennedy was assassinated. She told us that our children would not understand what it was like to experience the tragic day and know it only from textbooks. She said life would never be the same.
That is the unique part of my story. That is the difference between me and Americans older than me. I was ten at the time of the attacks. The word normal didn't - couldn't - exist for me. I and my peers have grown up, developed our thoughts and opinions, and looked to the future in a world far different than the world of anyone before us for the last century. We did not have an illusion of an America that was perfectly safe. We did not have the utopian view that the whole world got together. That value - our innocence - was robbed from us on that fateful day.
Since then, we have grown up knowing multiple foreign wars. Many of us don't know what an America uninvolved with war would look like. These perpetual wars we have lived have caused many to become disillusioned to the war on terror. We have grown so accustomed to it that we don't really think about it anymore. Sure, when the moments arise where the wars are shoved into our face we will react accordingly, but not in the same way as older generations. We reverence them because we are supposed to, because we know they go through difficulties we cannot imagine, and because they are fighting for our freedom. But it seems so hallow. My peers and I are growing tired of perpetual wars in foreign countries. The Arab Spring has shown many that the people of the Middle East can find their own way to democracy without U.S. intervention. We are sick of seeing our friends and neighbors shipped off to foreign lands coming back scarred either physically or mentally. There is a growing sentiment among us: bring our troops home.
We have lived in a world where government seems to be an all-encompassing power. As we grow into our 20s and seek independence from our parents, we are seeing that a new power is taking their place - the government. Going to the airport and getting fondled by the TSA has become acceptable to many adults, but the youth say "This is my person - my property! No matter the security I am master of my own body." With almost constant access to the Internet, the youth is able to find information the mainstream media does not publish. We read reports of wire-tapping, aerial surveillance, invasion of property, and seizure without warrants and we cry "Where is the America of the Founders?"
This is an interesting point. The older generations are far removed from civics or history classes. They learned years ago about the Constitution and have since then been able to forget what it says. But my generation, we have learned of the Constitution the same way the older generations have. But because we are learning of it, we compare it directly to what America is doing now and we see there is a serious disconnect. The Founders fought against a tyrannical government that claimed to own citizens. They replaced it with a government with clearly limited powers to promote individual freedom. Today I fear we have forgotten about the Founders and their vision for America.
The propaganda machine has not pushed its way into education completely to dismiss these issues and replace it with a nationalistic sentiment that everything the government does is in your best interest. Rather, the youth is left in a sort of limbo where we have to figure it out on our own. Some join the older generations and accept these things as necessary to preserving security. Others, like myself, follow Thomas Jefferson and question the government's actions and are never trusting of it. He said that when people sacrifice their freedom for the sake of security they are deserving of neither. As I grow up I want nothing more than to experience the world in its fullest, not to be fenced in by government agencies and laws that cover the world in bubble wrap and tie my hands so I don't hurt myself.
Let me conclude with this. I love America. I love the freedom she promises and I love the people who cling to that freedom as dear as anything. As we remember 9/11 my hope is we all send a prayer of thanks to God for his grace in founding this country, one of thanks to the men and women who serve our armed forces for their valor and courage, a prayer of comfort to the thousands that lost loved ones in the attack, and a prayer for guidance in the movers of the world, that they will see the best course to be taken in the years ahead.
As we remember 9/11 I wish people to look at it in two ways. I want them to consider the generation of Americans who have known only the post-9/11 world and what they have experienced - how this event has shaped their life. Secondly, I want them to remember the power we experienced when the nation as a whole came together and worked as a whole; to know that when free people unite for a common cause, no power can overcome them.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Hutsman Wins Debate, But Talk Is On Perry
In the GOP debate wednesday evening Perry came out with both arms swinging, tackling Social Security, job creation, and climate change. Personally, Jon Huntsman did the best in the debate, but the media has deemed him all but eliminated and sadly I fear he will soon be leaving the competition.
So all the attention seems focused on two individuals - Perry and Romney. Admittedly the exchange between the two front-runners at the beginning of the debate over who created the best job climate as governor of their respective states made me happy. Here I thought the two might make fools of themselves and hurt their image, but they brought it back down and by the end seems amicable enough.
Perry took a hard line on a couple of issues, though. He defended his claims in his book "Fed Up" that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, going so far as to label it a lie to the youth of America. The Texas governor also held firm in his doubt of climate change and this is an issue that will likely be misrepresented by his competition, so let me defend his claim for a second.
Perry is claiming the science on climate change is still unclear to the point that man is the cause for it. In his words, he made this distinction. Sadly, I think people will ignore or miss this distinction, so his campaign should brace for an onslaught from the Romney camp.
Perry did make concessions on his actions against HPV when attacked by Ron Paul, saying if he were to do it again, he would not use executive orders to accomplish his goal. He ended his statement with a promise that he will choose to fight cancer. So I can only conclude that he truly doesn't fear using executive orders and simply wanted to escape the situation in which he found himself.
Perry also showed his apparent lack of aptitude concerning the English language, stumbling over lines, forgetting the word "nominee" when referring to a previous comment Rick Santorum made, and generally using fragmented sentences and non-sequitors. Kind of reminds me of another governor from Texas...
On to Romney then! I think Romney did a decent job in the debate. He continues to show his savvy for the type of political rhetoric necessary to navigate a debate and was able to show himself to be more conservative than his actions are, asserting the need for a fence between the U.S. and Mexico and blasting Obamacare. He tactfully separated himself from Perry on issues of Social Security and climate change.
If I was forced to pick a loser for the debate, it would be Michelle Bachmann. She did not excite the crowd at all, made few points of interest, and remained generally inactive during the debate. I can resect her difficult position, because as a woman if she asserts herself too much she can come across as crazy, but in this debate she almost seemed resigned.
My new favorite person, Newt Gingrich, fired off more complaints about the media much as he did in the previous debate. Instead of answering probably one of the deepest questions in the debate concerning the use of individual mandates in a healthcare plan, Gingrich accused the mediator of separating the candidates in an attempt to weaken their position so Obama could win the election. United we stand, Newt! I think he is making a ploy to be in the victor's Cabinet, so well played good sir. If nothing else, your firebrand spirit is entertaining.
Ron Paul did a relatively poor job in the debate as well, which is sad because I do support the man. He seemed especially scatterbrained tonight as he was covering four to five subject matters, jabbing at candidates along the way but never fully explaining himself. This is just another instance that shows he is weakest in these debates. His philosophy is much more complex than what one minute will allow in explanation. My sincere hope is people will go to his website to get a good idea what his beliefs are.
Herman Cain was probably my second best candidate this evening. He was able to "stop the rhetoric and come up with actions" that would bring results. To his credit, he seems to have general plans for many of the top issues - though I am confused on his 9-9-9 plan. His biggest weakness continues to be on foreign affairs, which is a large portion of the electoral debate. I can see myself liking the guy, but he is far from a perfect candidate.
And finally Rick Santorum. We cannot forget Rick Santorum - referring to himself in the third person in every debate. The guy is all but done for. Tonight he didn't have that much to say. He joined in with the attacks on Perry and tried to bash the views of Paul - again. If I were to guess the next person to leave the race it would be this guy. I don't think I'll miss him.
All in all it was a good debate. Perry is officially in the race and I am interested to see how the polls shake up from this. My guess is Romney will receive a slight boost and Bachmann will continue to sink, but otherwise there will be little will change.
Feel free to continue the debate below - I will add my own two cents - and if you want to keep up with my blog follow me by clicking on the "Follow" button below the toolbar.
So all the attention seems focused on two individuals - Perry and Romney. Admittedly the exchange between the two front-runners at the beginning of the debate over who created the best job climate as governor of their respective states made me happy. Here I thought the two might make fools of themselves and hurt their image, but they brought it back down and by the end seems amicable enough.
Perry took a hard line on a couple of issues, though. He defended his claims in his book "Fed Up" that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, going so far as to label it a lie to the youth of America. The Texas governor also held firm in his doubt of climate change and this is an issue that will likely be misrepresented by his competition, so let me defend his claim for a second.
Perry is claiming the science on climate change is still unclear to the point that man is the cause for it. In his words, he made this distinction. Sadly, I think people will ignore or miss this distinction, so his campaign should brace for an onslaught from the Romney camp.
Perry did make concessions on his actions against HPV when attacked by Ron Paul, saying if he were to do it again, he would not use executive orders to accomplish his goal. He ended his statement with a promise that he will choose to fight cancer. So I can only conclude that he truly doesn't fear using executive orders and simply wanted to escape the situation in which he found himself.
Perry also showed his apparent lack of aptitude concerning the English language, stumbling over lines, forgetting the word "nominee" when referring to a previous comment Rick Santorum made, and generally using fragmented sentences and non-sequitors. Kind of reminds me of another governor from Texas...
On to Romney then! I think Romney did a decent job in the debate. He continues to show his savvy for the type of political rhetoric necessary to navigate a debate and was able to show himself to be more conservative than his actions are, asserting the need for a fence between the U.S. and Mexico and blasting Obamacare. He tactfully separated himself from Perry on issues of Social Security and climate change.
If I was forced to pick a loser for the debate, it would be Michelle Bachmann. She did not excite the crowd at all, made few points of interest, and remained generally inactive during the debate. I can resect her difficult position, because as a woman if she asserts herself too much she can come across as crazy, but in this debate she almost seemed resigned.
My new favorite person, Newt Gingrich, fired off more complaints about the media much as he did in the previous debate. Instead of answering probably one of the deepest questions in the debate concerning the use of individual mandates in a healthcare plan, Gingrich accused the mediator of separating the candidates in an attempt to weaken their position so Obama could win the election. United we stand, Newt! I think he is making a ploy to be in the victor's Cabinet, so well played good sir. If nothing else, your firebrand spirit is entertaining.
Ron Paul did a relatively poor job in the debate as well, which is sad because I do support the man. He seemed especially scatterbrained tonight as he was covering four to five subject matters, jabbing at candidates along the way but never fully explaining himself. This is just another instance that shows he is weakest in these debates. His philosophy is much more complex than what one minute will allow in explanation. My sincere hope is people will go to his website to get a good idea what his beliefs are.
Herman Cain was probably my second best candidate this evening. He was able to "stop the rhetoric and come up with actions" that would bring results. To his credit, he seems to have general plans for many of the top issues - though I am confused on his 9-9-9 plan. His biggest weakness continues to be on foreign affairs, which is a large portion of the electoral debate. I can see myself liking the guy, but he is far from a perfect candidate.
And finally Rick Santorum. We cannot forget Rick Santorum - referring to himself in the third person in every debate. The guy is all but done for. Tonight he didn't have that much to say. He joined in with the attacks on Perry and tried to bash the views of Paul - again. If I were to guess the next person to leave the race it would be this guy. I don't think I'll miss him.
All in all it was a good debate. Perry is officially in the race and I am interested to see how the polls shake up from this. My guess is Romney will receive a slight boost and Bachmann will continue to sink, but otherwise there will be little will change.
Feel free to continue the debate below - I will add my own two cents - and if you want to keep up with my blog follow me by clicking on the "Follow" button below the toolbar.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Get Out and Experience the World
Today I wrapped up another chapter in my life experiences. I ended my tenure at Seneca Foods in Rochester Minnesota.
To give a little background, Seneca Foods is a local factory that cans vegetables. They pick them in fields throughout southeast MN, bring them into the plant, process and can them to be bought by companies like Wal-mart.
My specific job in this whole system was to operate the scale the trucks would weigh on as they came in and out. Needless to say, it wasn't exactly mentally challenging, there was a lot of down time, and I don't plan on making a career out of it. But my point is not to throw the past months away as a "summer job" and move on with my life. Rather, my experience at Seneca has further opened my eyes to the world in which I live.
Let me take a step back and tell you what I am driving at: don't live your life in a bubble or a rut, experiencing the same thing over and over again with the same people in the same place. It leads to stagnation in your life, which can lead to dissatisfaction, grumpiness, even depression.
As I continue to grow, gain more independence and experience more of the world I gain a deeper gratification for my past experiences as well as continued excitement for the next thing to come along.
But there was a time not too long ago where the idea of change was terrifying, and to a large degree it still is.
The biggest hammer to knock down my fear of change was when I attended school in Jackson TN, hundreds of miles away from where I grew up. I didn't know a soul there and I didn't have any idea what I wanted to do with myself. There were many times in my first semester where my home-sickness was so strong there was nothing more I wanted than to hop on a bus home and hold myself as a sat alone in my parent's house.
But it struck me one day - I believe it was divine providence - that other people have gone through such change, and many had gone through much worse change, like being forced out of their home. I realized that my hatred for my situation came from myself, and I was the only thing holding myself back from making my situation the best possible it could be.
So I came back to Union for my second semester with a goal in mind - find a niche, make a place for myself and expand my views. Skipping all the details in between, I would like to think I have done just that, and it is weird but when I stopped hating my situation and opened myself up things actually got better.
Now I try to make the best of every situation I find myself in, especially the new ones.
Which brings me full circle to Seneca.
I am far from the typical employee at that establishment. Few people there outwardly proclaim Christianity, most everyone smokes or chews tobacco, and the talk - laced with profanity - centers around going to bars and strip joints. My job was to interact with all these people, often balancing opposing egos in the attempt to please everyone.
In my first few days, I hated the job and wanted to quit, but again I resolved myself to make the best of the situation. I worked hard, didn't hide from my faith, and did my best to be an enjoyable person. Weirdly, it worked and the workers in the plant and the truckers all enjoyed working with me - at least outwardly - and today when I was saying my goodbyes they were genuinely sad to see me go.
From this I want to make two statements. One is the overwhelming power and grace that God gives to believers. I do not doubt for one minute that it was his good people were seeing through me that made them like me, and for such grace I cannot thank God enough, and let me encourage my fellow believers that even if you find yourself "in the lion's den" of the world you should not shy from your faith, because that makes you look weak to non-believers. Rather stand your ground on your beliefs, not making any concessions while at the same time not harassing others who oppose your views. It's a balancing act.
The second point I want to make is that from my time spent with worldly people, I have gained such a better understanding of how people think and go about their daily lives. I grew up in a Christian household, going to church and a Christian school my whole life - even now I attend a Christian University. I'm not saying this is a bad thing (rather I think it has bolstered my faith to be surrounded by giants of the faith), but I have lived in a bubble. Getting to experience life outside that bubble has been good for me.
So let me summarize what I am saying to my readers.
Jump at the opportunities that come your way. Making the best of any situation pans out to create invaluable experiences in life.
Look always to God for guidance in how you should act and seek his grace in your actions.
Do this while you are young. It's good to see more and more as you grow to help you develop into a more well-rounded individual. Breaking down barriers that make you uncomfortable let you have a bigger personality and help you to seek better opportunities later in life.
Finally, never stop loving life. There is so much in the wide world for us to experience I just don't know why you would let yourself become stagnant, but the more you experience life, the greater you come to love it.
I always love seeing elderly people who haven't lost their joy of living, because I know it's possible to never lose that joy - and who really wants to grow to be a miser? Love your place in life, look always for a better future, and you will see a brighter path ahead.
_____________________________________________________
Leave a comment below on what you think of my post, or share some of your own experiences. If you're interested in following my blog, just click the "follow" button at the top of the page.
To give a little background, Seneca Foods is a local factory that cans vegetables. They pick them in fields throughout southeast MN, bring them into the plant, process and can them to be bought by companies like Wal-mart.
My specific job in this whole system was to operate the scale the trucks would weigh on as they came in and out. Needless to say, it wasn't exactly mentally challenging, there was a lot of down time, and I don't plan on making a career out of it. But my point is not to throw the past months away as a "summer job" and move on with my life. Rather, my experience at Seneca has further opened my eyes to the world in which I live.
Let me take a step back and tell you what I am driving at: don't live your life in a bubble or a rut, experiencing the same thing over and over again with the same people in the same place. It leads to stagnation in your life, which can lead to dissatisfaction, grumpiness, even depression.
As I continue to grow, gain more independence and experience more of the world I gain a deeper gratification for my past experiences as well as continued excitement for the next thing to come along.
But there was a time not too long ago where the idea of change was terrifying, and to a large degree it still is.
The biggest hammer to knock down my fear of change was when I attended school in Jackson TN, hundreds of miles away from where I grew up. I didn't know a soul there and I didn't have any idea what I wanted to do with myself. There were many times in my first semester where my home-sickness was so strong there was nothing more I wanted than to hop on a bus home and hold myself as a sat alone in my parent's house.
But it struck me one day - I believe it was divine providence - that other people have gone through such change, and many had gone through much worse change, like being forced out of their home. I realized that my hatred for my situation came from myself, and I was the only thing holding myself back from making my situation the best possible it could be.
So I came back to Union for my second semester with a goal in mind - find a niche, make a place for myself and expand my views. Skipping all the details in between, I would like to think I have done just that, and it is weird but when I stopped hating my situation and opened myself up things actually got better.
Now I try to make the best of every situation I find myself in, especially the new ones.
Which brings me full circle to Seneca.
I am far from the typical employee at that establishment. Few people there outwardly proclaim Christianity, most everyone smokes or chews tobacco, and the talk - laced with profanity - centers around going to bars and strip joints. My job was to interact with all these people, often balancing opposing egos in the attempt to please everyone.
In my first few days, I hated the job and wanted to quit, but again I resolved myself to make the best of the situation. I worked hard, didn't hide from my faith, and did my best to be an enjoyable person. Weirdly, it worked and the workers in the plant and the truckers all enjoyed working with me - at least outwardly - and today when I was saying my goodbyes they were genuinely sad to see me go.
From this I want to make two statements. One is the overwhelming power and grace that God gives to believers. I do not doubt for one minute that it was his good people were seeing through me that made them like me, and for such grace I cannot thank God enough, and let me encourage my fellow believers that even if you find yourself "in the lion's den" of the world you should not shy from your faith, because that makes you look weak to non-believers. Rather stand your ground on your beliefs, not making any concessions while at the same time not harassing others who oppose your views. It's a balancing act.
The second point I want to make is that from my time spent with worldly people, I have gained such a better understanding of how people think and go about their daily lives. I grew up in a Christian household, going to church and a Christian school my whole life - even now I attend a Christian University. I'm not saying this is a bad thing (rather I think it has bolstered my faith to be surrounded by giants of the faith), but I have lived in a bubble. Getting to experience life outside that bubble has been good for me.
So let me summarize what I am saying to my readers.
Jump at the opportunities that come your way. Making the best of any situation pans out to create invaluable experiences in life.
Look always to God for guidance in how you should act and seek his grace in your actions.
Do this while you are young. It's good to see more and more as you grow to help you develop into a more well-rounded individual. Breaking down barriers that make you uncomfortable let you have a bigger personality and help you to seek better opportunities later in life.
Finally, never stop loving life. There is so much in the wide world for us to experience I just don't know why you would let yourself become stagnant, but the more you experience life, the greater you come to love it.
I always love seeing elderly people who haven't lost their joy of living, because I know it's possible to never lose that joy - and who really wants to grow to be a miser? Love your place in life, look always for a better future, and you will see a brighter path ahead.
_____________________________________________________
Leave a comment below on what you think of my post, or share some of your own experiences. If you're interested in following my blog, just click the "follow" button at the top of the page.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Economic Woes and Political Blows
The markets are bracing for impact this weekend after the S&P downgraded the nation's credit rating from AAA to AA-plus. This marks the first downgrade in America's credit rating since 1917, a stat that the GOP presidential candidates have jumped on to bash Obama's presidency.
So is Obama to blame for the current economic crisis? According to John Mariotti, yes. But I think there are more people to blame than just the Commander in Chief.
In the past half century, the power of the presidency has taken center stage in federal economic policy - from LBJ's Great Society, to Reaganomics, to Bush and Obama stimulus - so the presidency is partially responsible for the ecomonic trends we have encountered. But necessary for all these economic plans is the complacency of Congress.
Thus we arrive at my point that Congress is to blame for our economic woes as much as Obama is.
It is the constitutional authority of Congress to set the nation's budget. Just because presidents have dabbled in the process does not mean Congress is excused from that responsibility. And I must admit, this last debacle was quite revealing of how our lawmakers in Washington operate.
We have seen in the last couple of weeks that Congressmen are so driven to have political power that they will not deal with dissenting factions, leading to gridlock and public unrest.
Don't misunderstand me, I think that this is how politics should work, and it should be difficult for lawmakers to pass sweeping bills that cover taxes, spending, and entitlement programs. The issue arises then, when we find ourselves in situations where immediate and drastic action is needed. Too much political banter slows down action and forces either failure (default) or poor solutions (the compromise that was hastily made).
So what could happen that would make our political and economic systems better? Easy solution: end the plethura of programs and fiscal responsibilities our federal government has.
Allow me to make an anecdote.
A family of five is living the good life. They live in a 4 bedroom home in a suburban community, a dog in their fenced backyard, a sedan and SUV in the driveway. Father works at a successful law firm and Mother works part-time as a teacher's assistant at the local middle school. They are making payments on their house and cars, but are able to stay on top of their budget. Suddenly, Father has lost his job and the money flow has slowed to a small trickle. What would be the best actions to take?
If he were a Keynesian, like our lawmakers in Washington, he would spend money on a newer, more expensive car, a new wardrobe, perhaps even a $300 haircut so as to appeal to employers as he searches for a new job. After all, you have to spend money to make money.
6 months later, Father has defaulted on his credit payments, lost his home, his car, and his dog (he had to sell it to pay for a monthly payment - poor Fido). Clearly, spending money to jumpstart his career did not work.
But let's backtrack 6 months and allow Father to take a different route.
This time around Father decides he should save what money he can and look for any job willing to hire. He sells his BMW and buys a used Corolla, he refinances his home to make smaller payments over a longer period of time, he even gets rid of his ultra-deluxe cable package and Netflix account. He gets hired on as an assistant at another law firm and makes 80% of what he used to, but because he is frugal with his money, he and his family are staying out of credit problems and are able to live in relative economic safety.
Ok, my anecdote done here's my point: when faced with economic instabiliy and credit failure, the response should not be for the government to print more money and throw it into the marketplace in an attempt to jumpstart the ecomonic engines. The government needs to set the example by cutting their spending and finding appropriate areas to tax (perhaps the Fair Tax) so as to run a balanced budget.
Consider this a battle between Keynesian and Austrian economic theories. If you want a simple explanation of what these two positions are, check out this rap.
So what are some of the repurcussions of this great Keynesian experiment?
S&P has already downgraded our credit once, we may need to plan on having it happen again in the near future. The budget deal is only a temporary patch that really accomplishes little. Yes, $940 billion will be cut, but it's over the next 10 years and those are just cuts on projected spending hikes, which basically means we're not lowering our budget spending. In the long term, if we don't stop real spending in Washington by cutting out or reducing multiple programs, America will eventually default and then really bad times are in store for us.
Looking into foreign markets, there is a good chance that if America does not get her financial house in order, the dollar will lose its hegemony over global trading. Already China is looking to dethrone the fiat currency that has been in power since the 1960's.
So let's take a step back and look at the whole picture. It doesn't look pretty. America needs to run a balanced budget and reduce our debt, not allow for us to go into more debt. We need to "tighten our belts" and take the necessary steps, unpleaseant thought they may be, to fix our spending problem.
_________________________________________________________
Please comment below so you can tell me how crazy my ideas are. If you want more of my crazy ideas, subscribe by clicking the link to the left.
So is Obama to blame for the current economic crisis? According to John Mariotti, yes. But I think there are more people to blame than just the Commander in Chief.
In the past half century, the power of the presidency has taken center stage in federal economic policy - from LBJ's Great Society, to Reaganomics, to Bush and Obama stimulus - so the presidency is partially responsible for the ecomonic trends we have encountered. But necessary for all these economic plans is the complacency of Congress.
Thus we arrive at my point that Congress is to blame for our economic woes as much as Obama is.
It is the constitutional authority of Congress to set the nation's budget. Just because presidents have dabbled in the process does not mean Congress is excused from that responsibility. And I must admit, this last debacle was quite revealing of how our lawmakers in Washington operate.
We have seen in the last couple of weeks that Congressmen are so driven to have political power that they will not deal with dissenting factions, leading to gridlock and public unrest.
Don't misunderstand me, I think that this is how politics should work, and it should be difficult for lawmakers to pass sweeping bills that cover taxes, spending, and entitlement programs. The issue arises then, when we find ourselves in situations where immediate and drastic action is needed. Too much political banter slows down action and forces either failure (default) or poor solutions (the compromise that was hastily made).
So what could happen that would make our political and economic systems better? Easy solution: end the plethura of programs and fiscal responsibilities our federal government has.
Allow me to make an anecdote.
A family of five is living the good life. They live in a 4 bedroom home in a suburban community, a dog in their fenced backyard, a sedan and SUV in the driveway. Father works at a successful law firm and Mother works part-time as a teacher's assistant at the local middle school. They are making payments on their house and cars, but are able to stay on top of their budget. Suddenly, Father has lost his job and the money flow has slowed to a small trickle. What would be the best actions to take?
If he were a Keynesian, like our lawmakers in Washington, he would spend money on a newer, more expensive car, a new wardrobe, perhaps even a $300 haircut so as to appeal to employers as he searches for a new job. After all, you have to spend money to make money.
6 months later, Father has defaulted on his credit payments, lost his home, his car, and his dog (he had to sell it to pay for a monthly payment - poor Fido). Clearly, spending money to jumpstart his career did not work.
But let's backtrack 6 months and allow Father to take a different route.
This time around Father decides he should save what money he can and look for any job willing to hire. He sells his BMW and buys a used Corolla, he refinances his home to make smaller payments over a longer period of time, he even gets rid of his ultra-deluxe cable package and Netflix account. He gets hired on as an assistant at another law firm and makes 80% of what he used to, but because he is frugal with his money, he and his family are staying out of credit problems and are able to live in relative economic safety.
Ok, my anecdote done here's my point: when faced with economic instabiliy and credit failure, the response should not be for the government to print more money and throw it into the marketplace in an attempt to jumpstart the ecomonic engines. The government needs to set the example by cutting their spending and finding appropriate areas to tax (perhaps the Fair Tax) so as to run a balanced budget.
Consider this a battle between Keynesian and Austrian economic theories. If you want a simple explanation of what these two positions are, check out this rap.
So what are some of the repurcussions of this great Keynesian experiment?
S&P has already downgraded our credit once, we may need to plan on having it happen again in the near future. The budget deal is only a temporary patch that really accomplishes little. Yes, $940 billion will be cut, but it's over the next 10 years and those are just cuts on projected spending hikes, which basically means we're not lowering our budget spending. In the long term, if we don't stop real spending in Washington by cutting out or reducing multiple programs, America will eventually default and then really bad times are in store for us.
Looking into foreign markets, there is a good chance that if America does not get her financial house in order, the dollar will lose its hegemony over global trading. Already China is looking to dethrone the fiat currency that has been in power since the 1960's.
So let's take a step back and look at the whole picture. It doesn't look pretty. America needs to run a balanced budget and reduce our debt, not allow for us to go into more debt. We need to "tighten our belts" and take the necessary steps, unpleaseant thought they may be, to fix our spending problem.
_________________________________________________________
Please comment below so you can tell me how crazy my ideas are. If you want more of my crazy ideas, subscribe by clicking the link to the left.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Violent Games and Social Change
Violence across the nation is on the rise and some people point to violent video games and movies as the reason for this. I contend two things on this subject: 1) if you don't agree with violent games, do not purchase them and 2) Take a proactive approach and find ways to promote healthy interaction in society.
As a proponent for individual liberty and a true believer in capitalism, I find a simple solution to the problem of too many video games containing graphic violence - don't buy them. There is no need for the government to get involved in whether games should contain violence or not. A recent Supreme Court decision upheld that limitations on violent games is censorship and take away people's freedom of speech.
The law in question was brought up in California. It's goal was to prhibit the sale of "ultra-violent" video games to anyone under 18, unless it contained artistic or ethical value. It included a $1000 fine to sellers who violated this law.
Let's just assume that this bill did pass. What would that mean? Sure, stores would be unable to sell violent games to minors (they already can't sell games rated "M" to anyone under 17), but what about online sales? How could the California governnment regulate that? What if children went to bordering states to get their games. This would, in effect, create a black market for ultra-violent games.
So if government is not the answer, what is?
Responsibility. I know, it is a word that is almost foreign today, but if parents were a little more responsible with how they raised their kids, we might actually see some change for good.
Here's an example:
A coworker came to me today complaining about "Family Guy," an animated show that is vulgar and crude. He said he saw his kid watching it and couldn't believe the things they did or said in the show. I asked him what he did, and he responded by sitting down and watching it, getting a couple of laughs at the jokes but generally finding it too mature for his kids.
What he didn't do - change the channel or, better yet, turn the TV off. Parents need to understand that passive aggression towards something is, in a child's mind, passive approval. My suggestion, as a humble 20 year old without children, is to be straight forward with your kids. Tell them not to watch shows or play video games you find innappropriate for them and tell them why.
Kids do not often take it for granted that their parents know what is best for them. If you explain to them your reasoning for the parameters, they will understand. However, don't get into a debate with your kid. At the end of the day, you are the adult, arguing lowers you to their level.
Since I'm handing out parenting advice, I might add that it would bea good idea to not only set parameters in the negative, but give options in the positive. Turn off the TV (negative) and then play ball with your kid (posistive). It's more effective if you show your children good activities as well as restrict bad ones as opposed to doing just the latter.
Back to my main point - violent video games.
We have already covered using your power of the purse to influence game developers, now I want to hit the subject of proactively supporting less violent games. The Wii and other Nintendo systems offer a lot of family-friendly games, often at a cheaper price than Xbox 360 or PS3 games. This is a way for game developers to know there is a market out there for less violent video games.
Long story short, violence in entertainment is part of our culture. It is found not only in games (even the early ones like Space Invaders) but classic movies, comics and books. We should not have a government censor what can be on the market but rather be responsible for ourselves and our dependents. Be active in your children's lives and monitor what you watch yourself and see if it is what you think is right.
As a proponent for individual liberty and a true believer in capitalism, I find a simple solution to the problem of too many video games containing graphic violence - don't buy them. There is no need for the government to get involved in whether games should contain violence or not. A recent Supreme Court decision upheld that limitations on violent games is censorship and take away people's freedom of speech.
The law in question was brought up in California. It's goal was to prhibit the sale of "ultra-violent" video games to anyone under 18, unless it contained artistic or ethical value. It included a $1000 fine to sellers who violated this law.
Let's just assume that this bill did pass. What would that mean? Sure, stores would be unable to sell violent games to minors (they already can't sell games rated "M" to anyone under 17), but what about online sales? How could the California governnment regulate that? What if children went to bordering states to get their games. This would, in effect, create a black market for ultra-violent games.
So if government is not the answer, what is?
Responsibility. I know, it is a word that is almost foreign today, but if parents were a little more responsible with how they raised their kids, we might actually see some change for good.
Here's an example:
A coworker came to me today complaining about "Family Guy," an animated show that is vulgar and crude. He said he saw his kid watching it and couldn't believe the things they did or said in the show. I asked him what he did, and he responded by sitting down and watching it, getting a couple of laughs at the jokes but generally finding it too mature for his kids.
What he didn't do - change the channel or, better yet, turn the TV off. Parents need to understand that passive aggression towards something is, in a child's mind, passive approval. My suggestion, as a humble 20 year old without children, is to be straight forward with your kids. Tell them not to watch shows or play video games you find innappropriate for them and tell them why.
Kids do not often take it for granted that their parents know what is best for them. If you explain to them your reasoning for the parameters, they will understand. However, don't get into a debate with your kid. At the end of the day, you are the adult, arguing lowers you to their level.
Since I'm handing out parenting advice, I might add that it would bea good idea to not only set parameters in the negative, but give options in the positive. Turn off the TV (negative) and then play ball with your kid (posistive). It's more effective if you show your children good activities as well as restrict bad ones as opposed to doing just the latter.
Back to my main point - violent video games.
We have already covered using your power of the purse to influence game developers, now I want to hit the subject of proactively supporting less violent games. The Wii and other Nintendo systems offer a lot of family-friendly games, often at a cheaper price than Xbox 360 or PS3 games. This is a way for game developers to know there is a market out there for less violent video games.
Long story short, violence in entertainment is part of our culture. It is found not only in games (even the early ones like Space Invaders) but classic movies, comics and books. We should not have a government censor what can be on the market but rather be responsible for ourselves and our dependents. Be active in your children's lives and monitor what you watch yourself and see if it is what you think is right.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
A Pet Peeve: Bicyclists on the Road
Yesterday I nearly hit a bicyclist with my car. He - the bicyclist - had to swerve farther into the road because a car was parked on the side. This is just one example of a long list of grievances I have towards bicyclists and pedestrians using the road, so I am finally going to put some of my thoughts on paper - or keyboard.
I understand that our laws are such that bicycles are allowed to share the same road space as cars and other motorized vehicles, but this is one of those times where just because you can, does not mean you should.
I have no qualms with a person who is an avid bicyclist, dressing up in spandex and owning a $1500 bike he rides for 30 miles every day. If that is how you want to stay fit, more power to you. But I want these cyclists to just think a bit about their situation: you are on a two-lane road that is heavilly trafficked and relatively narrow. There is a sidewalk on both sides of the street, but no bike lane in the road. In the terrible yet very probable case that one day you get hit with a car, who will be the most hurt - you or the car? Sadly, the loser in this situation is you.
This is a consequence I believe too few cyclists consider when they go for their ride. At least in my home city of Rochester- a very cycle-friendly city, mind you - cyclists get all worked up after an accident is reported where a car hits a cyclist. Don't misunderstand me, it is always a tragedy when someone gets injured or even killed, but cyclists need to understand that this is an inherent risk they take.
Construction of bike lanes or bike paths off the road help to provide cyclists with safer places to ride, but be aware that when you are on the road, you are at the mercy of the larger vehicles around you. Personally, I don't ride on the road even if there is a bike path. It's just much safer to ride on the sidewalk, and if I need to take a more cicuitous route to stay on sidewalked areas, so be it. It is a sacrifice I am willing to make.
An argument I have heard against riding on the sidewalk has been that it is illegal. I have yet to be pulled over by a police officer for riding on the sidewalk. Even if a cyclist were pulled over, I sincerely doubt an officer would issue more than a warning.
Another argument is that cyclists could run into pedestrians on sidewalks. Again, I have never run into a pedestrian while riding on the sidewalk. It's strange but pedestrians seem to understand that bikes are bigger than them and if they collide with one, it will hurt. So they generally move out of the way. Besides, bikes have brakes for a reason - to stop. If you are approaching a pedestrian while riding a bike, do the smart thing and slow down. No one is timing you on how long it takes you to ride your 30 miles.
A while ago there was a humorous op-ed piece in my local paper where a cyclist argued sideWALKS were made for walking, thus the name. Oddly though, I am quite capapble of riding my bike on those WALKways. I am sure people on scooters, rollerblades, or kids in their plastic cars would agree that sidewalks - amazingly enough - are capable of more uses than just walking.
This is really what I would like to see changed. First of all, cyclists: be aware of your surroundings and appreciate that you are in serious danger when on the road with cars. Also, the rules of the road apply to you too - don't run red lights, don't ride through stop signs, and don't draft behind cars. You're not Lance Armstrong and you are not cool, so stop. Thirdly, I would like to see more people travel on side walks or bike paths - especially if the road you ride on has one adjacent to it. Lastly, I would like to stop hearing the cyclist community complain about how unfair automobile drivers are to them on the road. Ninety percent of the time - especially in a city - there are other options to ride on other than the road. Drivers do not have that luxury. If drivers make you so angry, avoid them and use another pathway.
If cyclists were to think about their situation a little more, there would be less enmity between them and drivers.
I understand that our laws are such that bicycles are allowed to share the same road space as cars and other motorized vehicles, but this is one of those times where just because you can, does not mean you should.
I have no qualms with a person who is an avid bicyclist, dressing up in spandex and owning a $1500 bike he rides for 30 miles every day. If that is how you want to stay fit, more power to you. But I want these cyclists to just think a bit about their situation: you are on a two-lane road that is heavilly trafficked and relatively narrow. There is a sidewalk on both sides of the street, but no bike lane in the road. In the terrible yet very probable case that one day you get hit with a car, who will be the most hurt - you or the car? Sadly, the loser in this situation is you.
This is a consequence I believe too few cyclists consider when they go for their ride. At least in my home city of Rochester- a very cycle-friendly city, mind you - cyclists get all worked up after an accident is reported where a car hits a cyclist. Don't misunderstand me, it is always a tragedy when someone gets injured or even killed, but cyclists need to understand that this is an inherent risk they take.
Construction of bike lanes or bike paths off the road help to provide cyclists with safer places to ride, but be aware that when you are on the road, you are at the mercy of the larger vehicles around you. Personally, I don't ride on the road even if there is a bike path. It's just much safer to ride on the sidewalk, and if I need to take a more cicuitous route to stay on sidewalked areas, so be it. It is a sacrifice I am willing to make.
An argument I have heard against riding on the sidewalk has been that it is illegal. I have yet to be pulled over by a police officer for riding on the sidewalk. Even if a cyclist were pulled over, I sincerely doubt an officer would issue more than a warning.
Another argument is that cyclists could run into pedestrians on sidewalks. Again, I have never run into a pedestrian while riding on the sidewalk. It's strange but pedestrians seem to understand that bikes are bigger than them and if they collide with one, it will hurt. So they generally move out of the way. Besides, bikes have brakes for a reason - to stop. If you are approaching a pedestrian while riding a bike, do the smart thing and slow down. No one is timing you on how long it takes you to ride your 30 miles.
A while ago there was a humorous op-ed piece in my local paper where a cyclist argued sideWALKS were made for walking, thus the name. Oddly though, I am quite capapble of riding my bike on those WALKways. I am sure people on scooters, rollerblades, or kids in their plastic cars would agree that sidewalks - amazingly enough - are capable of more uses than just walking.
This is really what I would like to see changed. First of all, cyclists: be aware of your surroundings and appreciate that you are in serious danger when on the road with cars. Also, the rules of the road apply to you too - don't run red lights, don't ride through stop signs, and don't draft behind cars. You're not Lance Armstrong and you are not cool, so stop. Thirdly, I would like to see more people travel on side walks or bike paths - especially if the road you ride on has one adjacent to it. Lastly, I would like to stop hearing the cyclist community complain about how unfair automobile drivers are to them on the road. Ninety percent of the time - especially in a city - there are other options to ride on other than the road. Drivers do not have that luxury. If drivers make you so angry, avoid them and use another pathway.
If cyclists were to think about their situation a little more, there would be less enmity between them and drivers.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Casey Anthony Verdict: Not Guilty
A lot of people are up in arms over the verdict announced the day after Independence Day that Casey Anthony is not guilty on the charge of 1st degree murder.
So many Americans - and almost every media outlet - has declared Casey guilty for quite some time now, so their anger and disbelief does not come as much of a surprise. However, I am going to take a minority approach and say that the jury made the right call.
First off, let me remind you that in our court system, a person must be found guilty of the charges levied against them beyond a reasonable doubt. That means it is the burden of the prosecution to provide evidence and arguments for their case that is irrefutable and, frankly, that didn't happen with this trial.
The two pieces that were missing to have a conviction were the method of the murder and the motive of the murderer.
The prosecution said the motive for Casey to kill her daughter was to allow her to live the "Bella Vita" or beautiful life of partying and clubbing, evidenced by her partying spree following Caylee's death. I am with the jury on this one is believing that this is pretty weak. Casey would have to be pretty shallow and egotistical to KILL her daughter just so she can party. This was evidenced pretty poorly because the prosecution showed Casey and Caylee in home video of a typical mother and child bonding, playing and showing affection. To this point, the prosecution failed.
To the point of method, the prosecution created the story that Casey drugged her child with chloroform, straggled her by covering her mouth with duct tape, stuffing her body in a trash bag, and dumping the body in a nearby swamp. The issue with this evidence was that is was circumstantial and could not be tied together beyond a reasonable doubt.
Take the chloroform, for instance. The prosecution thought Casey used this because there were 80-some searches for it on the internet from her residence. However, Casey's mother testified that she had looked it up, not Casey, because she feared her daughter was drugging Caylee with it. Regardless of whether Casey was using chloroform, the argument for it's use in Caylee's death is shot.
So let me clarify my thoughts on this trial in a brief summary. Casey Anthony may very well have killed her daughter, which is a terrible travesty and at the end of the day no matter what the verdict, a child is dead and no one should rejoice about that. I think Casey got acquitted because of bad prosecution, a drawn-out trial, over-informed jurors, and an over-reached conviction. Regardless of what you personally thought concerning Casey's innocence or guilt I think we as Americans should reflect on our system and appreciate that we would rather see a thousand guilty people walk than one innocent person be penalized. We don't live in a perfect world or a perfect society, but our system is appropriate and as close to perfection as we have seen on this earth.
So many Americans - and almost every media outlet - has declared Casey guilty for quite some time now, so their anger and disbelief does not come as much of a surprise. However, I am going to take a minority approach and say that the jury made the right call.
First off, let me remind you that in our court system, a person must be found guilty of the charges levied against them beyond a reasonable doubt. That means it is the burden of the prosecution to provide evidence and arguments for their case that is irrefutable and, frankly, that didn't happen with this trial.
The two pieces that were missing to have a conviction were the method of the murder and the motive of the murderer.
The prosecution said the motive for Casey to kill her daughter was to allow her to live the "Bella Vita" or beautiful life of partying and clubbing, evidenced by her partying spree following Caylee's death. I am with the jury on this one is believing that this is pretty weak. Casey would have to be pretty shallow and egotistical to KILL her daughter just so she can party. This was evidenced pretty poorly because the prosecution showed Casey and Caylee in home video of a typical mother and child bonding, playing and showing affection. To this point, the prosecution failed.
To the point of method, the prosecution created the story that Casey drugged her child with chloroform, straggled her by covering her mouth with duct tape, stuffing her body in a trash bag, and dumping the body in a nearby swamp. The issue with this evidence was that is was circumstantial and could not be tied together beyond a reasonable doubt.
Take the chloroform, for instance. The prosecution thought Casey used this because there were 80-some searches for it on the internet from her residence. However, Casey's mother testified that she had looked it up, not Casey, because she feared her daughter was drugging Caylee with it. Regardless of whether Casey was using chloroform, the argument for it's use in Caylee's death is shot.
So let me clarify my thoughts on this trial in a brief summary. Casey Anthony may very well have killed her daughter, which is a terrible travesty and at the end of the day no matter what the verdict, a child is dead and no one should rejoice about that. I think Casey got acquitted because of bad prosecution, a drawn-out trial, over-informed jurors, and an over-reached conviction. Regardless of what you personally thought concerning Casey's innocence or guilt I think we as Americans should reflect on our system and appreciate that we would rather see a thousand guilty people walk than one innocent person be penalized. We don't live in a perfect world or a perfect society, but our system is appropriate and as close to perfection as we have seen on this earth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)