Believe it or not, I almost want to feel excited about Barack Obama being elected. I mean, I honestly look forward to the day when it matters not what race, religion, sex, or even sexual orientation a person is; and I can be proud to cast my vote for them based not on one of those facts, but on the issues that really effect this country.
This is truly a historic day for this country. But will it be for the better?...or will it turn out to be nothing more than false hope.
I've yet to hear anything from President-elect Obama that would amount to any real "change" in the direction of this country. If anything, what will change is the rate at which this country is brought to it's knees. As if it weren't approaching fast enough.
I've decided to be optimistic about things though. Maybe this will be a wake up call for anybody out there who might still believe in the ideas that this country was founded on. And if you think I'm talking about the "Republicans"...I assure you, I'm not. In this election, they got what they deserved.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Saturday, October 11, 2008
The Blog To End All Blogs
This will probably be the last time I bother wasting anyone else's time with these blogs, much less my own. Not that anyone is actually reading them anyway. It's kinda funny actually; everyone seems to be opening it up, but I doubt many actually read it through. Oh well. There's just a few more things I wanna get off my chest before I give it up though.
I guess I'm going to try to sum up most of what I've talked about before and add a few extra details that I didn't get into to help explain them.
First of all, I have a question to ask though. Why does it seem like everyone is waiting on someone else to change something for them? Everyone expects things to change without having to actually do anything different themselves. The front-runner in the presidential race has based his entire campaign on one word: "change". Everyone wants it. You probably couldn't find anyone today who really thinks this country is headed in the right direction. But how can anyone actually believe that, despite the fact that our current President is a Republican, another Democrat is the one who can bring us the change we're looking for?...Or anyone from the two major parties for that matter? I think I've hit this point several times before though, so I won't dwell on it any longer. I just think Americans need to remember that (as much as I despise him) this started long before ol' Bush ever even arrived on the scene. I mean he'd only been in office for 8 months when 9/11 happened. Conspiracy theories aside, what could he have done to bring that on so fast?
Like I talked about in my last blog, during the last "debate" Obama was trying to mislead Americans into thinking we've been living under a conservative leadership, that supports free-market capitalism; and that it was this lack of regulation over the economy that was to blame for our current economic crisis. Despite the fact that the main cause of the problem stemmed from the passing of the Community Reinvestment Act, which forced banks to grant loans out to undesirable borrowers who couldn't afford to repay them. In addition, after we were taken off of the gold standard the Federal Reserve has been allowed to print money without having anything of value to back it with. Thus causing rapid inflation and allowing for drastic government overspending; the national debt began to pile up at a record pace, while the lower and middle classes struggled to get by and simply afford the basic necessities. One of the other mistakes that the Federal Reserve continues to make in an effort to "stimulate" the economy is lowering interest rates. On the surface this might seem like a good thing. Especially if your looking to buy a new home. But what this has done is caused over-construction and left the supply of homes at a much higher level than the demand for them. Apparently this makes them kinda hard to sell...or pay back.
Okay, so now we have the housing market collapse and we need to do something about it. So, what does the Federal Reserve do? First it pumps hundreds of billions of dollars into the market (after they printed it out of thin air), then along with the treasury secretary, they decided to start bailing out all of these banks whose collapse they were responsible for. That doesn't sound so bad until you remember who's money they're spending in order to do so.
Not so much the folks on Wall Street, but believe me, these big bankers are rakin' it in right now at our expense. And what's worse, even more so at our children's expense. Now this bailout bill that just passed has given LIMITLESS power to the treasury secretary, to bailout any and every bank he feels like. This is non-reviewable. Meet the new Czar of the treasury department...Henry Paulson. I bet his buddies at Goldman Sachs will be livin' it up (even more so than before).
...
Enough about the economy. It's safe to say, it's not goin' so well. And neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have offered up a viable solution to anything going on with it right now. They both just want more and more government intervention, the very cause of the problem in the first place.
The economy isn't the only area where the government is consistently pushing for more government intervention however. Watching the debates you might have noticed that if you can overlook the issue of the economy, they've kind of gotten us into another World War. They just talk about it like it's routine procedure nowadays though. Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Russia, Venezuela, North Korea...no big deal. We're spending a trillion dollars a year maintaining our empire around the world. Nation building and the spread of democracy are pretty much an accepted part of both major parties platforms now. Both parties leave the possibility of a nuclear first strike on the table. Speaking of which, has anyone really thought about what would happen if any country dropped a nuclear bomb on another? If not the absolute end of the world, it would be the beginning of it (the end that is). I don't consider myself a Christian, but I think the Bible did mention something about the end of the world coming by fire...scary thought.
Point is, we need to stop worrying about what countries have what, and instead do everything we can to get along with them. What gives us the right to say we can have these weapons, but they can't? Because we're afraid of them? Who's to say they don't feel the same way towards us? I find it odd that the conservatives are the ones who typically support these wars now, yet they oppose gun control in their own country. Isn't that kind of the same premise? If every country in the world owned their own nuclear weapons, who would seriously even think about dropping one on somebody else? The same rule applies to gun control. If everyone owned one, the world would either have to learn how to live in peace, or we'd all just kill each other.
People who support gun control, like people who support these wars, probably do so because they've been given a false image of gun-owners. They don't understand them; and what you don't understand you typically fear. Just as, many people fear the idea of Islamic or other countries owning certain weapons.
On the subject of guns: in a perfect world we'd never need them; but now that they're here, trying to control them would only be terribly devastating. Not only would that still leave the criminals with guns, but what's probably worse, the government as well (you know, the ones who take part of your paycheck by force...legally).
That pretty much covers the only issues being debated by the two major candidates right now, but I guess I kind of have a different idea than either of them on how to solve either of them. In fact, when you consider my position, you have to admit that neither of the two seem to differ much. But there are, I think...a few other issues that most Americans probably need to take a little time to reconsider their positions on.
First of all, I don't know why I even need to mention the so-called "Patriot" Act? Does anybody know when they plan on giving us our rights back? Somehow I don't think it'll be anytime soon (or ever). But that's okay I guess. I mean it's the patriotic thing to do right? Sacrifice a little liberty for safety (Jefferson rolls in his grave). Personally I'm more afraid of my own government and it's actions than I am of some radical Islamists in some third world country. If it comes down to it, I'll be the first to pick up a gun to defend my family and country, but only after I know what is truly at stake. They claimed the attacks on 9/11 were an attack on our freedoms, yet our courageous President Bush was so quick to sign them over.
Then of course there's the war on drugs. Next they should probably declare a war on cigarettes, alcohol, greasy foods, and pre-marital sex. Since, If your a little overweight or something, it's the government's responsibility to put you on the proper diet. Then the taxpayer's are forced to pay for it, and then our police force is sent to sacrifice their lives for it. Of course if you don't stick to the diet, they'll just lock you up. They'll have to release some rapist from prison to make room for you, but...that's okay because there's a war on obesity going on you know.
The worst part is, the war on drugs wasn't a war that was ever meant to be won, and it never will be. It was just meant to be sustained like so many others. And like the rest, it just allows the government to increase the overall size and scope of their powers. If they were really interested in ending harmful drug use, and even cutting down on crime rates; they'd legalize drugs. Hell, maybe they could even give extra low interest loans to potential drug dealers to lead the drug market to a similar fate as they've done to the housing market.
Actually there is a drug that is illegal in this country, which with one use is said to end any addiction you may have. I can't actually remember the name of the drug off-hand, but I believe it was the guitarist from the Steve Miller Band who used it once to cure a 20 year heroin addiction. He never touched either drug again, however being classified as a mind-altering drug it was criminalized and forced out of the country rather than leaving it up to physicians to control and dispense the drug as they saw fit.
One issue I have actually heard the candidates mention a thing or two about is energy independence. It seems like it might be to little too late however. We've long had the capabilities to provide for our own energy independence and have yet to do anything about it. In fact, over 100 years ago a scientist by the name of developed a way to wirelessly transmit free and unlimited energy all over the world. Why haven't we heard anything about it?...His big investor was a banker by the name of J.P. Morgan, who upon hearing of his discoveries pulled out of the project seeing as how there was no way to profit from it.
Aside from that we've got wind power, solar power, hydro-electric power and so on. Why are we so hooked on petroleum burning vehicles and fossil fuel burning power plants? Is it really us, or is that just all that we've ever been offered? I remember how ridiculous GM's EV1 looked back when it first came out. It almost seems like they made it as ugly as possible just so no one would buy it. I just recently learned however, that when they couldn't sell all of them, GM actually had all of these cars CRUSHED! Now there's a new car company stepping up out of California, named after the same man I mentioned earlier, called Tesla Motors. They make an all electric vehicle that can go from 0-60 mph in under 4 seconds. Not only that but the car will go for some 240 miles between charges. Now, how could none of the three big automakers come up with a way to do this, yet some small start-up company out in California manages to do it all on their own?
Tesla's Roadster
I guess what it comes down to is this; if you don't do something about what is going on in this world, chances are nobody will. Everyone seems to be too caught up in their own little world, and all the dramas it unfurls. All the while there are people who are stealing our country away from us (along with our wallets). Alone or not, I am not going to sit back and let this happen to my country. If you are ready for a real change in this country then stand up and make something happen. Every election year our choices get worse and worse, and the longer we continue to vote for the lesser of two evils, the longer we allow this problem to perpetuate itself. Too many people think they can avoid the inevitable by picking the candidate who is least likely to completely destroy the country. At some point we will have to accept the fact that the world we have created for ourselves will assuredly come crashing down; at which point we will be forced to start anew. Seeing as how, I am more to blame than my children will be, I hope this change comes sooner rather than later. There will come a time when every man, woman, and child will have to go to the streets, and stand armed and ready to resist the tyranny to which this nation is facing. There will come a time when this country is forced to witness yet another, true revolution. And there will come a time when we have to choose whether we want to make history, or if we want to make the statistics. There's no time left to wait for anyone else to make change for us. It is time we stand up and make it for ourselves. Every revolution starts with one lone individual. I am ready for this kind of change, the question is...are you?
I guess I'm going to try to sum up most of what I've talked about before and add a few extra details that I didn't get into to help explain them.
First of all, I have a question to ask though. Why does it seem like everyone is waiting on someone else to change something for them? Everyone expects things to change without having to actually do anything different themselves. The front-runner in the presidential race has based his entire campaign on one word: "change". Everyone wants it. You probably couldn't find anyone today who really thinks this country is headed in the right direction. But how can anyone actually believe that, despite the fact that our current President is a Republican, another Democrat is the one who can bring us the change we're looking for?...Or anyone from the two major parties for that matter? I think I've hit this point several times before though, so I won't dwell on it any longer. I just think Americans need to remember that (as much as I despise him) this started long before ol' Bush ever even arrived on the scene. I mean he'd only been in office for 8 months when 9/11 happened. Conspiracy theories aside, what could he have done to bring that on so fast?
Like I talked about in my last blog, during the last "debate" Obama was trying to mislead Americans into thinking we've been living under a conservative leadership, that supports free-market capitalism; and that it was this lack of regulation over the economy that was to blame for our current economic crisis. Despite the fact that the main cause of the problem stemmed from the passing of the Community Reinvestment Act, which forced banks to grant loans out to undesirable borrowers who couldn't afford to repay them. In addition, after we were taken off of the gold standard the Federal Reserve has been allowed to print money without having anything of value to back it with. Thus causing rapid inflation and allowing for drastic government overspending; the national debt began to pile up at a record pace, while the lower and middle classes struggled to get by and simply afford the basic necessities. One of the other mistakes that the Federal Reserve continues to make in an effort to "stimulate" the economy is lowering interest rates. On the surface this might seem like a good thing. Especially if your looking to buy a new home. But what this has done is caused over-construction and left the supply of homes at a much higher level than the demand for them. Apparently this makes them kinda hard to sell...or pay back.
Okay, so now we have the housing market collapse and we need to do something about it. So, what does the Federal Reserve do? First it pumps hundreds of billions of dollars into the market (after they printed it out of thin air), then along with the treasury secretary, they decided to start bailing out all of these banks whose collapse they were responsible for. That doesn't sound so bad until you remember who's money they're spending in order to do so.
Not so much the folks on Wall Street, but believe me, these big bankers are rakin' it in right now at our expense. And what's worse, even more so at our children's expense. Now this bailout bill that just passed has given LIMITLESS power to the treasury secretary, to bailout any and every bank he feels like. This is non-reviewable. Meet the new Czar of the treasury department...Henry Paulson. I bet his buddies at Goldman Sachs will be livin' it up (even more so than before).
...
Enough about the economy. It's safe to say, it's not goin' so well. And neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have offered up a viable solution to anything going on with it right now. They both just want more and more government intervention, the very cause of the problem in the first place.
The economy isn't the only area where the government is consistently pushing for more government intervention however. Watching the debates you might have noticed that if you can overlook the issue of the economy, they've kind of gotten us into another World War. They just talk about it like it's routine procedure nowadays though. Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Russia, Venezuela, North Korea...no big deal. We're spending a trillion dollars a year maintaining our empire around the world. Nation building and the spread of democracy are pretty much an accepted part of both major parties platforms now. Both parties leave the possibility of a nuclear first strike on the table. Speaking of which, has anyone really thought about what would happen if any country dropped a nuclear bomb on another? If not the absolute end of the world, it would be the beginning of it (the end that is). I don't consider myself a Christian, but I think the Bible did mention something about the end of the world coming by fire...scary thought.
Point is, we need to stop worrying about what countries have what, and instead do everything we can to get along with them. What gives us the right to say we can have these weapons, but they can't? Because we're afraid of them? Who's to say they don't feel the same way towards us? I find it odd that the conservatives are the ones who typically support these wars now, yet they oppose gun control in their own country. Isn't that kind of the same premise? If every country in the world owned their own nuclear weapons, who would seriously even think about dropping one on somebody else? The same rule applies to gun control. If everyone owned one, the world would either have to learn how to live in peace, or we'd all just kill each other.
People who support gun control, like people who support these wars, probably do so because they've been given a false image of gun-owners. They don't understand them; and what you don't understand you typically fear. Just as, many people fear the idea of Islamic or other countries owning certain weapons.
On the subject of guns: in a perfect world we'd never need them; but now that they're here, trying to control them would only be terribly devastating. Not only would that still leave the criminals with guns, but what's probably worse, the government as well (you know, the ones who take part of your paycheck by force...legally).
That pretty much covers the only issues being debated by the two major candidates right now, but I guess I kind of have a different idea than either of them on how to solve either of them. In fact, when you consider my position, you have to admit that neither of the two seem to differ much. But there are, I think...a few other issues that most Americans probably need to take a little time to reconsider their positions on.
First of all, I don't know why I even need to mention the so-called "Patriot" Act? Does anybody know when they plan on giving us our rights back? Somehow I don't think it'll be anytime soon (or ever). But that's okay I guess. I mean it's the patriotic thing to do right? Sacrifice a little liberty for safety (Jefferson rolls in his grave). Personally I'm more afraid of my own government and it's actions than I am of some radical Islamists in some third world country. If it comes down to it, I'll be the first to pick up a gun to defend my family and country, but only after I know what is truly at stake. They claimed the attacks on 9/11 were an attack on our freedoms, yet our courageous President Bush was so quick to sign them over.
Then of course there's the war on drugs. Next they should probably declare a war on cigarettes, alcohol, greasy foods, and pre-marital sex. Since, If your a little overweight or something, it's the government's responsibility to put you on the proper diet. Then the taxpayer's are forced to pay for it, and then our police force is sent to sacrifice their lives for it. Of course if you don't stick to the diet, they'll just lock you up. They'll have to release some rapist from prison to make room for you, but...that's okay because there's a war on obesity going on you know.
The worst part is, the war on drugs wasn't a war that was ever meant to be won, and it never will be. It was just meant to be sustained like so many others. And like the rest, it just allows the government to increase the overall size and scope of their powers. If they were really interested in ending harmful drug use, and even cutting down on crime rates; they'd legalize drugs. Hell, maybe they could even give extra low interest loans to potential drug dealers to lead the drug market to a similar fate as they've done to the housing market.
Actually there is a drug that is illegal in this country, which with one use is said to end any addiction you may have. I can't actually remember the name of the drug off-hand, but I believe it was the guitarist from the Steve Miller Band who used it once to cure a 20 year heroin addiction. He never touched either drug again, however being classified as a mind-altering drug it was criminalized and forced out of the country rather than leaving it up to physicians to control and dispense the drug as they saw fit.
One issue I have actually heard the candidates mention a thing or two about is energy independence. It seems like it might be to little too late however. We've long had the capabilities to provide for our own energy independence and have yet to do anything about it. In fact, over 100 years ago a scientist by the name of developed a way to wirelessly transmit free and unlimited energy all over the world. Why haven't we heard anything about it?...His big investor was a banker by the name of J.P. Morgan, who upon hearing of his discoveries pulled out of the project seeing as how there was no way to profit from it.
Aside from that we've got wind power, solar power, hydro-electric power and so on. Why are we so hooked on petroleum burning vehicles and fossil fuel burning power plants? Is it really us, or is that just all that we've ever been offered? I remember how ridiculous GM's EV1 looked back when it first came out. It almost seems like they made it as ugly as possible just so no one would buy it. I just recently learned however, that when they couldn't sell all of them, GM actually had all of these cars CRUSHED! Now there's a new car company stepping up out of California, named after the same man I mentioned earlier, called Tesla Motors. They make an all electric vehicle that can go from 0-60 mph in under 4 seconds. Not only that but the car will go for some 240 miles between charges. Now, how could none of the three big automakers come up with a way to do this, yet some small start-up company out in California manages to do it all on their own?
GM's EV1
Tesla's Roadster
I guess what it comes down to is this; if you don't do something about what is going on in this world, chances are nobody will. Everyone seems to be too caught up in their own little world, and all the dramas it unfurls. All the while there are people who are stealing our country away from us (along with our wallets). Alone or not, I am not going to sit back and let this happen to my country. If you are ready for a real change in this country then stand up and make something happen. Every election year our choices get worse and worse, and the longer we continue to vote for the lesser of two evils, the longer we allow this problem to perpetuate itself. Too many people think they can avoid the inevitable by picking the candidate who is least likely to completely destroy the country. At some point we will have to accept the fact that the world we have created for ourselves will assuredly come crashing down; at which point we will be forced to start anew. Seeing as how, I am more to blame than my children will be, I hope this change comes sooner rather than later. There will come a time when every man, woman, and child will have to go to the streets, and stand armed and ready to resist the tyranny to which this nation is facing. There will come a time when this country is forced to witness yet another, true revolution. And there will come a time when we have to choose whether we want to make history, or if we want to make the statistics. There's no time left to wait for anyone else to make change for us. It is time we stand up and make it for ourselves. Every revolution starts with one lone individual. I am ready for this kind of change, the question is...are you?
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
One More Choice Than Communist China
Jesse Ventura pointed out that the two-party system is like having one more choice than Communist China. Yet, to say that is to assume there is some real difference in your two options to begin with. So, I'm gonna try to break this down and find out what really seperates the two major candidates and, well...what doesn't.
First of all I have to point out the inevitable problem with the two party system, is that one party only has to be slightly more appealing to a majority of the country than the other in order to win the election. Over time, in an effort to pick up more of the "swing votes" their platforms begin to merge; leaving few distinguishable policies between the two parties.
The biggest difference right now is that the Democrats are slightly more opposed to the war than the Republicans. Likewise, the Republicans are slightly more opposed to higher taxes than the Democrats (as long as it doesn't cut into their budget).
That's it.
Think about it: we have a "Republican" President right now. This is the man who passed "No Child Left Behind", The "Patriot Act", invaded a sovereign nation that posed no threat to our country, did nothing to haste illegal immigration (or the free health-care and education they receive once they get here), nothing to repeal Roe vs. Wade, nothing to decrease our dependence on foreign oil and other resources, has increased the national debt more than any other President in history, and is now trying to pass an outrageous bailout bill that gives practically unlimited spending power to an unelected official (I can't name all the liberal things he's done, but that's a good start). I guess this is where the term "neo-conservative" comes from.
The term "Conservative" used to have something to do with...well, being conservative. Apparently small government is now defined as more government, but with a slightly lower tax rate than the Democrats propose. It means increasing our debt at record pace, so we can continue to spread our empire around the world. My generation wasn't around for it, but it wasn't long ago that this was the policy of the Democratic Party (It was a Democratic administration that led us into the Vietnam War by the way). However, at this point I'm not even sure talking about anything other than the war issue matters with Republicans. That's obviously the only issue they're concerned with. How else would Joe Lieberman, one of the most liberal senators in Washington, get a speaking role at the Republican convention? Oh yeah...he supports the war.
The Democrats on the other hand say, they...kind of think we should get out of Iraq...sometime in the next four years. Blah, blah, blah...health care...blah, blah, blah...empty promises...blah, blah, blah. It all just feels like a high school student council election to me sometimes. They promise new Coke machines in the cafeteria and a student break room, knowing all along they won't have the ability nor the finances to get all of the things they promise.
To sum it up: Obama is the candidate slightly more opposed to the war, slightly more in favor of the current bailout bill, and just wants to raise taxes on the top 1% of income earners in the country. McCain is obviously more in favor of the war, has a few problems with the bailout bill, and says...he wants to keep taxes where they are.
Wow.
Talk about "change". These candidates are just full of original ideas aren't they.
Does all of this seem nitpicky to anybody else? I mean, where is the real debate?
Has anyone talked about ending the Federal Reserve, and going back to the gold standard to stop inflation and runaway government spending? How about withdrawing all of our troops from overseas; not just from Iraq, but the other hundred and thirty countries we currently occupy. So that Maybe, just maybe...the rest of the world won't despise us and feel threatened to the point where they attack innocent civilians in this country ever again. Or how about defending THIS country, instead of someone elses; so that when we are attacked, maybe we can do something about it. How about we stop paying for illegals hospital bills and education, and instead put that money towards supporting those who rely on a bankrupt social security administration. And here's one more...how about allowing states to make and enforce their own drug laws. Hell if your that concerned you can spend those leftover billions on setting up rehab centers and counseling for families rather than ruining lives by locking people away for a personal choice. I don't know though...it's just a thought.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
The Economy and Bailouts Explained
For anyone who might be wondering how we got in this situation and what the best way to get out of it is; here's what I think.
Like I've said before, the government's answer to any problem that comes along is always more government intervention. The very thing that gets us in trouble in the first place. During the Great Depression the government began getting involved in the housing markets to try to help those who were struggling to get into homes they couldn't afford. Fannie Mae was created in 1937, and Freddie Mac came along in 1970. Then in 1977 the Community Reinvestment Act was passed, forcing banks to give loans out to risky borrowers (a mistake the free-market never would have made on their own).
Then to add insult to injury, the Federal Reserve began creating artificially low interest rates as an attempt to ward off the coming recession. This means investments that normally wouldn't be profitable, are now more profitable. But since the demand is artificially created by the Fed creating more money, rather than by demand of the free market; it creates what's called malinvestment. In other words the market is flooded with more of something that it didn't really have a high demand for in the first place.
Case in point...real estate. Think about how much new home construction was going before this whole housing bust came along. Now we're left with all those houses, and nobody to fill 'em all.
Ordinarily in the free market the prices would have to be adjusted to...well, whatever it took to sell them. This is how the free-market evens itself out naturally. People who need homes can then find more affordable ones, and unnecessary construction of new ones is brought to an end until the market balances itself back out and the demand returns.
So here's the problem...the government just wants to have their cake and eat it too. They want housing prices to remain high to protect investment, yet they don't want to leave people out on the street who can't afford them.
So in the end what will happen is simply this; Wall-street will stay rich, and the rest of us will work harder to pay for the everyday things we need in order to survive. The only asset most Americans invest in, the American dollar, will be at a new all-time low. All in order to protect the investments of a few on Wall-street.
Once again, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans will offer a viable solution to this problem. Instead, they will most likely avoid any debate of context other than...more of the same.
Like I've said before, the government's answer to any problem that comes along is always more government intervention. The very thing that gets us in trouble in the first place. During the Great Depression the government began getting involved in the housing markets to try to help those who were struggling to get into homes they couldn't afford. Fannie Mae was created in 1937, and Freddie Mac came along in 1970. Then in 1977 the Community Reinvestment Act was passed, forcing banks to give loans out to risky borrowers (a mistake the free-market never would have made on their own).
Then to add insult to injury, the Federal Reserve began creating artificially low interest rates as an attempt to ward off the coming recession. This means investments that normally wouldn't be profitable, are now more profitable. But since the demand is artificially created by the Fed creating more money, rather than by demand of the free market; it creates what's called malinvestment. In other words the market is flooded with more of something that it didn't really have a high demand for in the first place.
Case in point...real estate. Think about how much new home construction was going before this whole housing bust came along. Now we're left with all those houses, and nobody to fill 'em all.
Ordinarily in the free market the prices would have to be adjusted to...well, whatever it took to sell them. This is how the free-market evens itself out naturally. People who need homes can then find more affordable ones, and unnecessary construction of new ones is brought to an end until the market balances itself back out and the demand returns.
So here's the problem...the government just wants to have their cake and eat it too. They want housing prices to remain high to protect investment, yet they don't want to leave people out on the street who can't afford them.
So in the end what will happen is simply this; Wall-street will stay rich, and the rest of us will work harder to pay for the everyday things we need in order to survive. The only asset most Americans invest in, the American dollar, will be at a new all-time low. All in order to protect the investments of a few on Wall-street.
Once again, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans will offer a viable solution to this problem. Instead, they will most likely avoid any debate of context other than...more of the same.
U.S. To Suffer Same Fate as Soviet Union
FYI: "The Soviet Union's collapse into independent nations began early in 1985. After years of Soviet military buildup at the expense of domestic development, economic growth was at a standstill. Failed attempts at reform, a stagnant economy and war in Afghanistan led to a general feeling of discontent, especially in the Baltic republics and Eastern Europe." - History of the Soviet Union
If this sounds familiar to you, well...it should. We are witnessing the end of America as we know it.
It's important to note that the head of a private bank, along with a little help from the secretary of the treasury (also, not an elected official) are now running this country. Deciding which companies are going to be bailed out and how much new currency they can print up to cover it all. This isn't to say Congress nor the President would be doing a better job. They've made it quite clear that they have absolutely no idea how to get us out of our current situation.
"You mean, the government led us into trouble and now they don't know how to get us out?!!"
Hard to believe, but yeah...it's true. Any solution they come up with will only mean more big government. It's the only thing they know how to do. They never stop to think that maybe they could be the problem to begin with.
It'd be easy to blame the Bush administration and the Republicans for this recession, but it'd be just as easy to blame Pelosi and the Democrats too. I'm not going to lay the blame on either of 'em though. No, instead I blame every American who'll still be voting for them in this next election.
Every politician and every corporation in this country is powerless without your support. And I don't mean maybe one day years from now, if enough people wake up and start voting third party. No, I mean right now. We have to remember that everything that is real and necessary in this world can never be taken away from you.
This country has allowed itself to become enslaved by the big corporations, all based on the idea that they can offer us something that we can't live without. Whether it's your cell phone, satellite t.v., your car (that burns way too much gas), the nice clothes, or the food we could easily grow or hunt ourselves. And what do we do to afford all these unnecessary things...we work for the very same corporations that offer them to us of course.
Nowadays however, you have to go through the government just to be able to do anything for yourself. You have to get a license to hunt or fish, a permit to carry a weapon to defend yourself, and a license if you want to start your own business. Providing for and defending ones own family is apparently NOT a right. It's a privilege the government grants you (if they approve of course). If you want some free handouts though, your more than welcome to collect your welfare or unemployment checks. All they ask in return is that you continue to depend on the government and their intervention in every aspect of you life. Sound like a fair deal to you?
Maybe I'm crazy, but I'm about ready to give it all up. Imagine a life without bills to pay...every month...for the rest of your life...
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
Thursday, September 18, 2008
The Dumbing Down of America
I laugh, but this is really not funny. I guess the U.S. Department of Education got exactly what they wanted. An American public ignorant enough to believe anything that they're told. Imagine what kind of atrocities the government could be getting away with right in front of our noses, and we're too stupid to realize it.
Thought of the Day
One thing everybody knows, yet too few discuss is the fact that this country is in serious debt. The most likely reason not many discuss this is because neither of the major parties can offer a real solution. Both parties vote for more spending, the only difference being that the Republicans say they want to keep taxes where they are, and the Democrats want to raise them. Considering the overwhelming amount of debt we're in it seems that the latter of the two would be the obvious choice to move us in the direction we need to go. Hardly any issue in politics is so cut and dry however. The effects of a higher tax rate on the overall economy first has to be considered. Especially when you factor in the current recession we're in. The fact is, the majority of jobs are created by the wealthy. As an anarchist, I'm not a big fan of this idea, but with the way our market functions, that's just how it works. Taxing the wealthy more, would only cause them to decrease the amount of money they re-invest back into the economy. This means less growth, fewer jobs, and lower wages for the rest of us. In other words...like it or not, right now we all depend on the few wealthy Americans that create our jobs (I'm ready and willing to make the sacrifice, but I'm not sure the rest of America is).
Secondly, raising taxes doesn't necessarily mean an overall increase in the governments revenue. If a tax increase causes the economy to slow, or even decrease, despite the fact that tax rates were higher the overall income of the federal government could actually decrease.
One area where I might support a possible increase in taxes is on corporate taxes. This, however has to be done very carefully as not to drive away more jobs than it creates. Scaring corporations overseas is never a good thing unless you have small businesses ready to take over the hole they've left in the economy. With increased corporate taxes, they can not only go overseas to avoid the tax, but also typically pay lower wages to their workers; therefore still providing the same product at cheaper prices than American owned businesses can. There has to be a careful balance between corporate taxes, and tariff taxes on goods that we import from other countries in order to even the scales on these corporations that are considering going overseas to save money. In any case I support the small businessman over big corporations any day. The majority of the jobs in this country come from small businesses, and not only that but...they pay better too.
In the end I'm not sure it really matters how much revenue the federal government takes in. Regardless of whether we have a Republican or a Democrat in office, they simply see that as more money they have to throw away. The majority of our tax dollars goes simply to paying off the interest we've accrued on the money we borrowed to begin with. Everything we spend thereafter is simply added on to that.
We are now fast approaching 10 trillion dollars in debt. That's about $33,000 worth of debt for every one of us. My generation will never see a dime of what they've paid into their social security, and speaking as someone who's accumulated over $200,000 in medical bills; Medicaid and government intervention in medical care has done nothing but decrease response time and increase the prices. I have a feeling if Grady Hospital didn't think the government was going to cover my medical bill for me, they wouldn't have bothered charging me to the fullest extent on every little thing they did. Being young and self-employed, I was uninsured. And yet, Medicaid refused to cover my hospital bill, because at the ripe old age of 21, I was strong enough to recover from a horrific traffic accident and work a part time job making a solid $12,000 a year. At that rate it would have taken me just over 17 years to pay it off. Assuming of course that I devoted my entire salary to my hospital bill. I find it strange that the issue of socialized medical care wasn't even in question until long after the government had already stepped in with their so called "managed care". They seem to have created this dependency; just as they create these problems, then try to offer up a solution. The bad part is, that solution always seems to involve more government intervention.
Despite my horrendous experience, I'm not one to think health care is a "right". To me something that is a right is something that CANNOT be taken away from you. Not something that has to be granted to you. If health-care was free it would have to be provided to you by the government. Therefore, the government has granted you this "right". In the same sense, they can take it away just as easily. I believe in self-reliance. No one can take anything away from you then. You have the right to...the PURSUIT of happiness. Not necessarily the right to happiness, but rather the right to pursue it...on your own. Whatever that may mean to you. There will always be good doctors out there who will do the right thing, regardless of whether the money is there or not.
Our government has managed to create a dependency on their intervention in every aspect of our lives. Not only is this present within our own country, but abroud as well. Iraq being the obvious example of a country that is dependent on American support. We need to allow these countries to become independent while we draw our troops back into our own country, and begin to defend Americans rather than our oil reserves in the middle-east or other interests that do not directly effect our national security.
We ABSOLUTELY need to become energy independent. Drilling is NOT the answer. It's not that I have a huge personal problem with drilling for oil, but rather the fact that it would take upwards of 5 years before we saw the first barrel of oil if we started drilling today. We need a solution NOW. Alternative energy is within our reach and there is nothing stopping us from powering our homes with wind or solar power. We have to remember with the power of the free market, comes great responsibility. It is us who ultimately decides what products sell and what businesses fail in this country. If you are concerned about your independence, much less your environment, you must demand products that provide for such concerns. As far as cars go, right now there is a fully electric car that can go from 0-60 mph in under 4 seconds, and drive on a single charge for over 200 miles. Why have you never heard of it?
As far as immigration goes, I am just a little uncomfortable with the idea of building a wall around our country. However, I think immigration is a serious problem that needs to be dealt with. Illegals in this country are allowed a free ride (no taxes), while we (the taxpayers) provide them with free medical care and education. I think a lot of the concern over immigration could be solved if we simply stopped offering up the handouts. The next step would be to find a tax system that would force them to provide an equal contribution to this country, like a consumption tax of sorts.
I'm not sure what time it is now, but I'm going to have to leave it at that until I can rejuve. I don't even remember what my point was, or why I got started on this rant in the first place.
Secondly, raising taxes doesn't necessarily mean an overall increase in the governments revenue. If a tax increase causes the economy to slow, or even decrease, despite the fact that tax rates were higher the overall income of the federal government could actually decrease.
One area where I might support a possible increase in taxes is on corporate taxes. This, however has to be done very carefully as not to drive away more jobs than it creates. Scaring corporations overseas is never a good thing unless you have small businesses ready to take over the hole they've left in the economy. With increased corporate taxes, they can not only go overseas to avoid the tax, but also typically pay lower wages to their workers; therefore still providing the same product at cheaper prices than American owned businesses can. There has to be a careful balance between corporate taxes, and tariff taxes on goods that we import from other countries in order to even the scales on these corporations that are considering going overseas to save money. In any case I support the small businessman over big corporations any day. The majority of the jobs in this country come from small businesses, and not only that but...they pay better too.
In the end I'm not sure it really matters how much revenue the federal government takes in. Regardless of whether we have a Republican or a Democrat in office, they simply see that as more money they have to throw away. The majority of our tax dollars goes simply to paying off the interest we've accrued on the money we borrowed to begin with. Everything we spend thereafter is simply added on to that.
We are now fast approaching 10 trillion dollars in debt. That's about $33,000 worth of debt for every one of us. My generation will never see a dime of what they've paid into their social security, and speaking as someone who's accumulated over $200,000 in medical bills; Medicaid and government intervention in medical care has done nothing but decrease response time and increase the prices. I have a feeling if Grady Hospital didn't think the government was going to cover my medical bill for me, they wouldn't have bothered charging me to the fullest extent on every little thing they did. Being young and self-employed, I was uninsured. And yet, Medicaid refused to cover my hospital bill, because at the ripe old age of 21, I was strong enough to recover from a horrific traffic accident and work a part time job making a solid $12,000 a year. At that rate it would have taken me just over 17 years to pay it off. Assuming of course that I devoted my entire salary to my hospital bill. I find it strange that the issue of socialized medical care wasn't even in question until long after the government had already stepped in with their so called "managed care". They seem to have created this dependency; just as they create these problems, then try to offer up a solution. The bad part is, that solution always seems to involve more government intervention.
Despite my horrendous experience, I'm not one to think health care is a "right". To me something that is a right is something that CANNOT be taken away from you. Not something that has to be granted to you. If health-care was free it would have to be provided to you by the government. Therefore, the government has granted you this "right". In the same sense, they can take it away just as easily. I believe in self-reliance. No one can take anything away from you then. You have the right to...the PURSUIT of happiness. Not necessarily the right to happiness, but rather the right to pursue it...on your own. Whatever that may mean to you. There will always be good doctors out there who will do the right thing, regardless of whether the money is there or not.
Our government has managed to create a dependency on their intervention in every aspect of our lives. Not only is this present within our own country, but abroud as well. Iraq being the obvious example of a country that is dependent on American support. We need to allow these countries to become independent while we draw our troops back into our own country, and begin to defend Americans rather than our oil reserves in the middle-east or other interests that do not directly effect our national security.
We ABSOLUTELY need to become energy independent. Drilling is NOT the answer. It's not that I have a huge personal problem with drilling for oil, but rather the fact that it would take upwards of 5 years before we saw the first barrel of oil if we started drilling today. We need a solution NOW. Alternative energy is within our reach and there is nothing stopping us from powering our homes with wind or solar power. We have to remember with the power of the free market, comes great responsibility. It is us who ultimately decides what products sell and what businesses fail in this country. If you are concerned about your independence, much less your environment, you must demand products that provide for such concerns. As far as cars go, right now there is a fully electric car that can go from 0-60 mph in under 4 seconds, and drive on a single charge for over 200 miles. Why have you never heard of it?
As far as immigration goes, I am just a little uncomfortable with the idea of building a wall around our country. However, I think immigration is a serious problem that needs to be dealt with. Illegals in this country are allowed a free ride (no taxes), while we (the taxpayers) provide them with free medical care and education. I think a lot of the concern over immigration could be solved if we simply stopped offering up the handouts. The next step would be to find a tax system that would force them to provide an equal contribution to this country, like a consumption tax of sorts.
I'm not sure what time it is now, but I'm going to have to leave it at that until I can rejuve. I don't even remember what my point was, or why I got started on this rant in the first place.
Another Reason Not To Lose Hope
I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not gonna take this anymore!
I know there are some Obama supporters out there so, please tell me...what is this big "change" he's seems to be so fond of?
I have to ask the same question for any McCain supporters, since they're now trying to run their campaign on idea of change as well.
How can either of these two major candidates be considered a change from the current administration, much less each other? There are four primary issues that all of the third party candidates have agreed on. Neither of the major candidates proposes to do anything different on these issues than that of the current administration.
So if you're unhappy with Bush (as most Americans are), why would you think things will get any better with a different name and the same game?
The four issues all of the third party candidates agreed on and Obama and McCain (and Bush) don't:
We Agree
The Republican/Democrat duopoly has, for far too long, ignored the most important issues facing our nation. However, alternate candidates Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney, and Ralph Nader agree with Ron Paul on four key principles central to the health of our nation. These principles should be key in the considerations of every voter this November and in every election.
We Agree
Foreign Policy: The Iraq War must end as quickly as possible with removal of all our soldiers from the region. We must initiate the return of our soldiers from around the world, including Korea, Japan, Europe and the entire Middle East. We must cease the war propaganda, threats of a blockade and plans for attacks on Iran, nor should we re-ignite the cold war with Russia over Georgia. We must be willing to talk to all countries and offer friendship and trade and travel to all who are willing. We must take off the table the threat of a nuclear first strike against all nations.
Privacy: We must protect the privacy and civil liberties of all persons under US jurisdiction. We must repeal or radically change the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the FISA legislation. We must reject the notion and practice of torture, eliminations of habeas corpus, secret tribunals, and secret prisons. We must deny immunity for corporations that spy willingly on the people for the benefit of the government. We must reject the unitary presidency, the illegal use of signing statements and excessive use of executive orders.
The National Debt: We believe that there should be no increase in the national debt. The burden of debt placed on the next generation is unjust and already threatening our economy and the value of our dollar. We must pay our bills as we go along and not unfairly place this burden on a future generation.
The Federal Reserve: We seek a thorough investigation, evaluation and audit of the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationships with the banking, corporate, and other financial institutions. The arbitrary power to create money and credit out of thin air behind closed doors for the benefit of commercial interests must be ended. There should be no taxpayer bailouts of corporations and no corporate subsidies. Corporations should be aggressively prosecuted for their crimes and frauds.
Having said this, hopefully I can keep myself from bringing it up for a while. If you watched the press conference yesterday you may have heard Ron Paul quoting from Carroll Quigley's "Tragedy and Hope", but the significance of this statement is far more clear having seen it for myself.
"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead the two parties should be almost identical so that the American people can throw the rascals out in any election without leading to any profound or extensive shift in policy." - Carroll Quigley
To Summarize...
I was a little too disgusted by this whole thing yesterday to even say much about it, so to summarize, I will no longer be voting for Bob Barr. Despite the fact that he claims he is showing the leadership to unify the liberty movement, what he has done will forever divide the movement Ron Paul and others worked so hard to start. He hitched a ride on the freedom train, if you will, and tried to steer it in a different direction. Sadly, if we're not careful there's a good chance he may steer it right off the tracks.
Not to sound pessimistic, but the average American voter is not ready for a Libertarian President. The movement first has to be just to get the third parties in the debates and on the ballots. This will open up the stage for a stronger liberty based candidate in all the elections to come. But Bob Barr is not interested in third party politics and bringing down the status quo like he so often speaks of. No, Bob Barr is only interested in Bob Barr politics.
There is still a very real chance for us to bring about a peaceful change in this country. We just have to realize that it will not happen overnight. It took us the last hundred years to get where we are now, I feel like I'm being optimistic when I say, we can bring it all back down in the next two to four.
And for those who have no idea what I'm talking about, here are some links you should check out.
Fellow Republican Paul rejects McCain, boosts othersBarr 'embarrasses LP' by no-show at Ron Paul press eventBarr says he shows 'leadership' in dissing Ron Paul
Not to sound pessimistic, but the average American voter is not ready for a Libertarian President. The movement first has to be just to get the third parties in the debates and on the ballots. This will open up the stage for a stronger liberty based candidate in all the elections to come. But Bob Barr is not interested in third party politics and bringing down the status quo like he so often speaks of. No, Bob Barr is only interested in Bob Barr politics.
There is still a very real chance for us to bring about a peaceful change in this country. We just have to realize that it will not happen overnight. It took us the last hundred years to get where we are now, I feel like I'm being optimistic when I say, we can bring it all back down in the next two to four.
And for those who have no idea what I'm talking about, here are some links you should check out.
Fellow Republican Paul rejects McCain, boosts othersBarr 'embarrasses LP' by no-show at Ron Paul press eventBarr says he shows 'leadership' in dissing Ron Paul
The Lesser of Two Evils is STILL EVIL!
Sorry, but it doesn't make it any better that your voting for the "LESSER of the two evils". I'm sick and tired of hearing that tired old argument. It's the people who say things like that who are the reason this country has lost it's way.
This is why it seems like every election is "THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION EVER!" Because by continually picking the lesser of two evils we're allowing our country to stray further and further off path and into this hole we're in.
And if voting your conscience is a wasted vote, then I'd like to know what a properly used vote is like. This year it looks like most of the Republicans will be voting for a candidate they have strong disagreements with, out of their fear of someone else who might get elected. That sounds like terrorism at it's worst to me.
ter·ror·ism
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
How many more years will Americans allow the two parties to bury us further and further in debt? Our national debt is now $9,669,863,994,566.08. That's right, that means that just for being an American citizen, your share of that debt is $32,110.86 (hopefully they'll give a couple weeks notice before they mail out the bills for that one).
So let's see...right now we're stuck in a war we don't know how to get out of, we never really finished the job in Afghanistan, we've been talking about invading or even carrying out a nuclear first-strike on Iran, North Korea just announced they're reopening their nuclear facilities, of course we felt it necessary to get ourselves involved in the Russian-Georgian conflict, and who the hell knows how many other countries we've managed to piss off with our involvement overseas (Venezuela & Cuba for starts).
Neither of the two major parties offers up a solution to these problems.
The big government Democrats have failed to go any further than to criticize the Republicans for their support of the war. And likewise, the war-mongering Republicans, while they claim to be "the conservatives"; have done little more than to spread their empire using the same interventionist and nation-building policies that George W. Bush ran against in the 2000 election. All the while, our national debt is in a sky-rocket and our military is spread so thin we couldn't even defend our own country if we needed to. Much less win a war against a few unorganized radical Islams.
A good rule of thumb when considering whether or not to go into war is to ask yourself, if we lose will you still be glad that we had fought knowing that you stood up for what is right and did all you could. Sadly, I don't think many Americans take into consideration the possibility that we might one day actually lose a war.
I'm also sick of hearing the phrase, "in a post 9/11 world...we can't allow these this or that to happen". It's like after 9/11 we entered some alternate dimension or something where it's okay to invade other countries because "we're Big Bad America...and we're scared".
Pat Buchanan put it well when he said, "you don't step on Superman's cape". But I guess... if Bin Laden was behind 9/11, we sure showed him.
This is why it seems like every election is "THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION EVER!" Because by continually picking the lesser of two evils we're allowing our country to stray further and further off path and into this hole we're in.
And if voting your conscience is a wasted vote, then I'd like to know what a properly used vote is like. This year it looks like most of the Republicans will be voting for a candidate they have strong disagreements with, out of their fear of someone else who might get elected. That sounds like terrorism at it's worst to me.
ter·ror·ism
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
How many more years will Americans allow the two parties to bury us further and further in debt? Our national debt is now $9,669,863,994,566.08. That's right, that means that just for being an American citizen, your share of that debt is $32,110.86 (hopefully they'll give a couple weeks notice before they mail out the bills for that one).
So let's see...right now we're stuck in a war we don't know how to get out of, we never really finished the job in Afghanistan, we've been talking about invading or even carrying out a nuclear first-strike on Iran, North Korea just announced they're reopening their nuclear facilities, of course we felt it necessary to get ourselves involved in the Russian-Georgian conflict, and who the hell knows how many other countries we've managed to piss off with our involvement overseas (Venezuela & Cuba for starts).
Neither of the two major parties offers up a solution to these problems.
The big government Democrats have failed to go any further than to criticize the Republicans for their support of the war. And likewise, the war-mongering Republicans, while they claim to be "the conservatives"; have done little more than to spread their empire using the same interventionist and nation-building policies that George W. Bush ran against in the 2000 election. All the while, our national debt is in a sky-rocket and our military is spread so thin we couldn't even defend our own country if we needed to. Much less win a war against a few unorganized radical Islams.
A good rule of thumb when considering whether or not to go into war is to ask yourself, if we lose will you still be glad that we had fought knowing that you stood up for what is right and did all you could. Sadly, I don't think many Americans take into consideration the possibility that we might one day actually lose a war.
I'm also sick of hearing the phrase, "in a post 9/11 world...we can't allow these this or that to happen". It's like after 9/11 we entered some alternate dimension or something where it's okay to invade other countries because "we're Big Bad America...and we're scared".
Pat Buchanan put it well when he said, "you don't step on Superman's cape". But I guess... if Bin Laden was behind 9/11, we sure showed him.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Blowback
Here's a good example of what our CIA has termed "blowback".
Ted Kaczynski - "The Unabomber"
While at Harvard, Kaczynski was taught by the famous logician Willard Quine, scoring at the top of Quine's class with a 98.9% final grade. He also participated in a multiple year personality study conducted by Dr. Henry A. Murray, an expert on stress interviews.[2]
According to an article by Alston Chase for the June 2000 issue of The Atlantic Monthly, students in Murray's Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)-sponsored study, dubbed MKULTRA, were told they would be debating personal philosophy with a fellow student.[4] Instead, they were subjected to the stress test, which was an extremely stressful and prolonged psychological attack by an anonymous attorney. During the test, students were strapped into a chair and connected to electrodes that monitored their physiological reactions, while facing bright lights and a one-way mirror. The "debate" was filmed, and students' expressions of impotent rage were played back to them at various times later in the study. According to Chase, Kaczynski's records from that period suggest that he was emotionally stable at the start of the study. Kaczynski's lawyers attributed some of his emotional instability and dislike of mind control to his participation in this study.[4][5]
For those who don't know what the CIA's project MK-ULTRA is: "Experiments included administering LSD to CIA employees, military personnel, doctors, other government agents, prostitutes, mentally ill patients, and members of the general public in order to study their reactions. LSD and other drugs were usually administered without the subject's knowledge and informed consent, a violation of the Nuremberg Code that the U.S. agreed to follow after WWII."
Yes We Can!
"Some people partly satisfy their need for power by identifying themselves with a powerful organization or mass movement. An individual lacking goals or power joins a movement or an organization, adopts its goals as his own, then works toward these goals. When some of the goals are attained, the individual, even though his personal efforts have played only an insignificant part in the attainment of the goals, feels (through his identification with the movement or organization) as if he had gone through the power process. This phenomenon was exploited by the fascists, Nazis and communists. Our society uses it too, though less crudely...In particular, leftist movements tend to attract people who are seeking to satisfy their need for power. But for most people identification with a large organization or a mass movement does not fully satisfy the need for power."
Monday, January 7, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)