Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts

Friday, October 5, 2012

This is what excessive wealth buys

Sheldon Adelson is working on a deal to develop a Las Vegas style gambling center in Spain (called Euro Vegas) where gambling has been banned for moral reasons.  He has already built an similar gambling center in Macau (People's Republic of China),  which helped Adelson build his wealth of approximately $25 billion dollars.  In Macau, his attempts to manipulate the government have drawn scrutiny from federal and Nevada investigators, but this has not deterred him from moving on with his plans for Spain.  Besides being an apparent manipulation of desperate people and countries, doesn't this all seem apocalyptic?  A man with more money than he, his family or generations of his family could ever spend seeks to accumulate even more wealth.  What is the point of his greed?  If Adelson showed an inordinate amount of philanthropy like Charles F. Feeney or even a more modest amount of philanthropy like Bill and Melinda Gates (which is still extraordinary), it would make sense, but this is not the case.

In Spain, Aldeson is only willing to put up 35% of the funding for Euro Vegas.  The country of Spain, which has already had to borrow a lot of money will have to borrow the rest.   Another of Adelson's demands is that the government allow him to bring in foreign workers to build (and possibly operate, his casinos):  In a country where its own citizens have had to turn to cut rate prostitution to make ends meet, does a casino sound like the answer?  Is a world full of Las Vegas' the direction in which mankind should be heading?  Who in their RIGHT mind would think the subjugation of the human race through gambling and other vices the correct path for humanity?  While I may not be a religious person, I am familiar with the stories of the Bible and I know that almost everything Adelson represents is in opposition with Christianity, Judaism and the Muslim faiths and he is not alone.

"Eurovegas" to Drag Spain Out of Crisis – or... by NewsLook

Those who support the ideas of the Republican Party in general and the ideas of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan specifically all seem to oppose the teachings of the three largest religions in the world.  Instead these extremely "successful" individuals have embraced a future where wages for the masses shrink while the cost of living for those same masses increases, a world where not only are housing prices under water, but life itself, is upside down.

The irony to this rationale is that these self-serving, megalomaniacs will have to live in the same world they hope to recreate in their own image(s).  Though these narcissists are no longer anonymous (thanks to the Internet), they believe that the ivory towers that they will have to sequester themselves in will keep them safe from the huddled masses.  In their quest to elevate themselves above the rest of mankind, to become "Gods on Earth", they have failed to realize their mortality.  As their twisted, real-life game of Monopoly unfolds, as they amass all the paper of a potentially useless currency, the world will eventually figure out who is to blame for the Ghetto that our planet will become.

Though Adelson is not alone in his pursuit of absolute power, I singled him out because he is the biggest donor of a party that has abandoned all pretenses of representing anyone other that the wealthiest of our citizens.  Take your pick of superPacs supporting either Democrats or Republicans and do a little research into their backgrounds.  I am biased in favor of the democrats because this party at least promotes ideas that are beneficial to the majority, so I can only provide information about Republican donors who I feel are helping in the destruction of America and the World.

Besides Adelson, we have Texas billionaire Harold Simmons who's been referred to as the king of superfund sites and who has built a nuclear waste dump over the third largest, crop-irrigating freshwater source in the nationThe Ogallala Aquifer, which is big enough to cross eight states now sits under a nuclear dump that Simmons hopes to expand under a Romney Presidency.  Given the poor handling by corporations of man made catastrophes in the Gulf of Mexico and over-land oil pipelines, what human would think it a good idea to put nuclear waste on top of a major supply of freshwater?  Aside from Harold Simmons and other big donors referenced herein, you've got the Koch Brothers, who have meddled in the political affairs of other states and cities to insure outcomes that favor their bottom line and allow them to avoid cleaning up Koch Industry's own waste.  How are Americans okay with this?

On November 6th 2012, the citizens of The United States of America have two, clear and very different paths to choose from:  One is controlled and dominated by big business and even bigger money and guarantees few benefits for most, and the most benefits for the few.  The other path, may not help the country recover fully, but it will keep the doors of sanity open.  One candidate offers a path to prosperity, but only to those lucky few who are already extremely prosperous, while the other candidate offers a more humane way to solve America's problems.  The proof of these claims can be easily discovered with a little research:  All one need do is look into the number and types of donors supporting each man running for president this year.  To better understand the mindsets of the republican presidential ticket and the political party behind it, simply look up Ayn Rand and those politicians who subscribe to Rand's philosophies.  It is in the discovery of this author that one can see and understand the rational behind the platform of the GOP and its hopeful candidate.

And one last note on Aldelson's demands for Euro Vegas:  He is demanding a waiver to Spain's anti-smoking laws.  A minor issue, unless you consider all of the work done to save people from secondhand smoke.

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

Stand Up or Stand By

    If our leaders refuse to take action, we must.  America is falling behind the rest of the world in so many ways it's difficult to name them all, but here are a few:  Our roads and bridges are catastrophes in waiting; poverty is on the rise after decades of supply side or trickle down economics; the banks have taken millions of homes away from families who now live in cars, motels or on the street; we incarcerate non-violent offenders and illegal immigrants at alarming rates that serve only to disenfranchise far too many of our fellow citizens; our laws seem to protect and represent only the most affluent in society more than not and seem immoral upon close scrutiny.  And, all the while, we're all forced to live by the actions of fewer than 600 people, who oftentimes have agendas which are not conducive to a cohesive, fair and compassionate leadership.

    We can sit, watch and wait as things continue to get worse for the majority or the people of the United States or we can rise up and demand an END to the favoritism that has become so apparent that one of the major parties has aborted any attempts to hide their misdeeds and harmful policies.  When you have legislators openly saying that funds for emergencies such as the tornadoes in Joplin Missouri should be withheld until budget cuts can offset those funds, we have bad leaders.  When we have elected officials who continue to support the idea of giving the wealthy and super wealthy even more money, we have misguided and downright idiotic politicians leading us.  When war is the first response considered by a man who hopes to be the Commander and Chief, we have a dangerous figurehead who is willing to put military profits over those who have pledged their lives (if necessary) to this country.  When anti-abortion bills out-number job creation legislation while 12 million people are still out of work, our leaders are focusing on policies that will resolve nothing.  For more details on any of these issues, please comment below to start the conversation or go through my previous posts, starting with the "My Mission" page on this blog.

    While, those issues I've pointed out may attack the policies of the Republicans more, I do not have that much faith in the Democratic Party, as it is comprised these days.  This view comes from my believe that the Republican Party is the party that tells us all how they're going to screw us over, and the Democratic Party is the party that watches the republicans screw us over.  This is why I'm seeking sponsors for what I call the "Really Rally' which is a forum where the audience is respectfully interactive and the only demands placed upon any speaker or candidate is that they one, present and promote good to great ideas and two, engage the audience in a manner that draws support from the majority of said audience.  For more information about these rallies, visit the "Really Rally: What is it?" page on this blog.

    In conclusion, I believe that the policies of the democrats are better for the country, but the policies and the direction that the Republican Party wishes to chart for the United States seems to be the way in which America is heading:  For this reason, people of the US better stand up against the Objectivist ideals of the Right or get used to the coming reality that there will be no help when you need it most.

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Changing Meaning But Not Topics

It is common wisdom that politicians say one thing while meaning another or, as us laypeople call this practice, lie, but there are degrees of not telling the truth.

At the, we'll call it, honest end of the dishonesty spectrum, a candidate might leave out a few details or fail to offer information that isn't asked for.  Though this may be kind of like dealing with the Devil, it isn't an outright lie.  Immoral yes, but not a lie.  After exclusion, there is exaggeration, which most people do when relaying an anecdotal story about some adventure or trip they might have taken in the past.  This form of dishonesty comes in useful for tales where the story has ended with "You had to be there".  In these instances a lion, tiger or bear makes a great substitute for the rabbit that chased you after you wounded instead of killing it.  The basic story is real.  It's simply some of the details that are fuzzy . . . like the rabbit.

And then there are your whoppers where you've raced in the Indy 500 before heading over to France for the Tour and capped the week with an excursion to Australia to hang with the Aborigines in the Outback.  These are the stories that, even if true, no one would believe.  These are the stories where all credibility goes out the window and you find it harder to find someone willing to listen to your BS.  Lies have become a part of everyday life, which is a shame, because who can you trust when you can trust no one.

And now we get to the point of this post, which as I stated in the opening sentence is that our political leaders lie.  Some leave out facts to make their positions appear more appealing than they might otherwise appear.  Some stretch the truth to get the underlying point across to the audience and then there are others who simply tell lies, because it is the only way to get elected or trick voters into siding with them.  This is expected, but when you have a ticket running for President and Vice President that fit each of these categories, it might be prudent for the citizens to be a concerned.

So, let's see what lies the Romney/Ryan ticket have told and what has been the public's reaction to the misleading, deceitful and possibly harmful lies as well as the reactions from the candidates when called on them.

For more than a year now, Ryan has pushed his budget plan as a "Path to Prosperity", sighting all of these examples of fiscal responsibility and dates when the national budget would be balanced.  His tales of prosperity that are just a few decades away sound great.  His conclusion that Medicare will be stronger if only we limit the amount of the vouchers that the elderly will have to get insured under . . . Well, that sounds a little fishy, but maybe he's got something up his sleeve.  Wait, he hasn't run the numbers?  He actually said he 'hasn't run the numbers'?  This would be an example of leaving out information in order to make your position sound better.  To me it sounds like he's overstepped his claims of prosperity, especially when he attacks President Obama for his actual plan.  Like it or not, one of these plans is real, while the other is theoretical.

So far Ryan has claimed to have run a marathon faster than Sarah Palin, which he didn't.  He claims to have a body fat ratio that is on par with Olympic athletes, which is quite difficult to maintain and possibly dangerous.  So we've got the little white lie covered by Ryan.  If he can't remember his own personal history and is willing to risk his own health (according to Ryan), how can he be trusted to understand an entire country's history and health?  You see, we can all exaggerate, but of the ones listed in this paragraph, some can mean the difference between life and death, while others simply boost Ryan's ego.

And then there's Mitt Romney.  I can't even get into all of the outright lies he's told, but I will address one simple fact about the latest lie he's been caught in.  The lie where he claims implicitly that he hopes to represent the people of the United States, when he only intends to represent the Wealthy.  He lied, he got caught and that should be that, but it isn't.  In the few days in which this truth about Romney was exposed, several of the right have twisted what he meant by his claim that 47 % of Americans are free loading, self-pitying losers.  While some have embraced this claim, others have tried to say his message was about polling numbers and others still have tried to imply that he was merely showing concern for a nation that has become too dependent on handouts.  So, in the end, Romney's lies are covered up by other people's lies and the rest of us should still vote for this guy.

I say, if the Republicans best is Romney and all of his lies, then the RNC should close its doors and disband.

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

No matter what they say

It seems to me that far too many people can't think for themselves or discern when a leader is saying something that would prove detrimental to them.  Whether financially, as in giving tax breaks to the rich and raising the tax burden of everyone else or physical, when saying we need to go to war with more countries, it is quite difficult to understand what it will take for certain voters to understand that the GOP is not their friend, let alone a good source for leaders.  Just look who they have put up as the the leader of the party.  Mitt Romney is running on his management skills, but he can't seem to manage his own campaign.  He can't even seem to "Do no harm.", which is all he should have to do given the state of our economy.  As for his supposed management skills, what has he actually managed?  At Bain, he basically bought companies that other people managed and ran up the debt of those companies that were not managed properly and provided support to those that were managed (by others) properly.  How did he make any of these companies great?  As a matter of fact, his claim of making them great demeans the people who actually did the work and goes against the idea behind the GOP slogan "We Built This".  It is not only Mitt Romney who's serves as proof that the Republican Party has little to nothing to offer most Americans, however.  All one must do to confirm this assertion is look at the other candidates put forth by the GOP:  Gingrich, Santorum, Bachmann, etc.  Still not convinced, look at the polling numbers of the Republican-controlled 112th Congress, Sarah Palin and more.

Those who represent the republican party don't even seem to be able to say things that sound beneficial to most Americans, but somehow they retain followers.  In some way, the people who swear by Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, George W. Bush, exhibit a believe that is similar to the way in which people believe in God.  Could these be the false idols that mankind has been warned against in the scriptures?  I ask this, because, it seems odd to me that so many people are willing to follow a group that seeks to further enrich the wealthy and more so, the super wealthy.  These leaders say that every American has the same opportunities and their constituents believe lies like this which have festered in our country for decades now.  What these faithful don't seem to understand is that the gap between the wealth of the poor, the middle and even the rich and the super rich grows every time their leaders gives tax breaks that inordinately benefit the wealthy.

Even the rich fail to realize that the wealth gap between themselves and the super wealthy is widening:  "Why wouldn't it", I would ask any rich person (but not super rich person) who would argue this point.  The fact that we have billionaires who seek to take away more money from the poor and sick should be proof that these greedy individuals have little to no conscience, so why would they spare anyone who has less than themselves? . . . Take it all, seems to be the mantra of the super rich.  If my logical conclusion to this life-sized game of Monopoly the super elite are playing isn't convincing enough, I would direct them to this article:  super rich get richer while the mere rich get poorer.  I would then point them to my own post from August 19, 2012:  It can't happen to me until it happens to me.

The GOP says that Obama is trying to start a Class War when the truth of the matter is that there has been a Class War for decades.  The wealthy have had the ears of leaders from both parties and the laws reflect this fact.  Look at the way in which all public agencies are being attacked, in favor of privatization: prisons, schools, military supplies, etc.  The laws are being written to help private prison corporations by making everything illegal and extending sentences beyond reasonable periods, Schools are being privatized and the companies seeking to provide education continually get caught cutting corners to the detriment of the students.  As for our military, mission support services are now privatized, but the service provided is not better or cheaper.

The GOP says Obama is a socialist who believes in wealth redistribution, but they fail to point out the the wealth of this nation has already been redistributed:  In the 70's, the 400 richest Americans only had the same amount of wealth as 100 million people, that roughly one third of the nation.  Now, the 400 richest Americans have as much as 150 million of their countrymen and women, that means that half of the nation wealth is in the hands of only 400 people.  From one third to one half is a big redistribution of wealth, if you ask me.  America's not broke, it's broken and the GOP wants to break it even more.

America is in grave danger of becoming the country envisioned by Ayn Rand:  A country where everyone is for no one and sociopaths decide the fate of the United States and it people. 

As always, donate (to the right) or click on an ad to keep this blog going.

Thursday, August 23, 2012

Mean Creeps In

I don't care which political party you believe in, when policies seem to be mean spirited, you might want  to heed that nagging voice in the back of your head:  That's your conscience telling you that there is a disconnect between what our leaders say and what your morality demands of them.

I know that we all have our sinful moments (I know I've had mine), but there's a difference between stealing candy as a child and leaving millions out in the cold.  What I am referring to is the new wave of political leaders who seem to deem all people in need as parasites:  How else could they justify their attempts to cut unemployment benefits, welfare, food stamps, medicare benefits.  How else could they justify a position requiring budget cuts of equal value before any disaster relief funds are to be released?

Most recently, a Congressman named Todd Akins tried to differentiate between what he calls illegitimate and legitimate rape, which would place blame on the victim.  While the Republican National Committee and the GOP Super Pacs have renounced him and tried to distance themselves from him, Paul Ryan co-sponsered a bill with Akin to redefine the different types of rape: I wonder what logic was used to differentiate between what they called "Foricible Rape" and what Texas politician Clayton Williams implied would be "Enjoyable Rape"  While Clayton claimed his remark to be a joke, who in their right mind would think to say such a thing.  Even if such thoughts are rattling around in you misogynist head, under what circumstances would you feel comfortable saying this out loud?  Like Williams, Akin thought that his beliefs about rape would be deemed acceptable.  Luckily, they weren't and something about Akins philosophy or understanding about rape was revealed.  I say luckily, because republican leaders do not logically justify their policies these days.

Over the last 2 years of Obama's first term, we have seen Republican leaders oppose everything presented by the President, even those ideas which were initially their ideas.  There is no logic to this practice, especially when they don't present alternatives:  In a country that is in the midst of its greatest ever recession, simply saying "no" to everything offered is not the trait of good leadership. Anyone in the entire United States of America could belong to The Party of 'No', because it doesn't take a leader to simply act as an obstructionist; this only require someone who is more selfish than compassionate.

As for the rest of the MEAN that has CREPT into the Republican party, this list is quite long and the sad fact is that it is widely ignored by most republican voters.  Instead of contemplating what leading a people means, republican voters seem to prefer to either bury their heads in the sand or to simply call people names when they don't like their politics:  Liberal, Obaaaama sheep, Obamanot, this list is long as well.  When facts are ignored, we all suffer and the facts as they pertain to our political leaders indicate that they either have no clue or no conscience and this goes for both parties (see below).

Excerpts from the RAD Dictionary, which can be found on this blog:

Republican Party noun
1.    A political party that tells its constituents how it will screw over everyone except the wealthy.

Democratic Party noun
1.    A political party that watches the Republican party screw over everyone except the wealthy.

If you enjoy my post, please support my blog and click on link provided here or click on the "Donate" to the right.

Thursday, August 16, 2012

The Unemployment Unemployed

I recently read an article about how those who are supposed to be finding the unemployed work are finding themselves unemployed.  The state referenced in this story was Michigan, where apparently, the job market is improving so much that the state has issued 400 layoff notices to many of it unemployment insurance agents.

My first thought was "If these agents get laid off before noon, do they use their lunch time to wait in line to apply for Unemployment Compensation?  After that however, I wondered how state officials in Michigan had determined that the job market had improved to the point that they could feasibly cut back on the staffing of unemployment insurance agencies?  While manufacturing has been making strides towards getting people gainfully employed, it didn't look as if those strides were great enough when I visited Detroit in October of 2011.  Parts of that city looked like it had been bombed out:  Broken windows outnumber those windows that were intact; the potholes look like as if they were created by IEDs from Iraq:  It was literally like driving through an obstacle course.

Now, I realize hat Detroit might be the extreme, as far as run down cities in Michigan are concerned, but it's not alone:  Why else would the Governor of this troubled state declare an emergency and place an Overlord . . . I mean an "Emergency Manager" with the power to fire all elected officials in so many cities there?  I just can't imagine a state that requires such drastic measures as being a good place to find work and, from what I've seen and read, it isn't.

I may not know everything about Michigan, but what I do know is that I would have never sold the Pontiac Silver Dome foe 10%, no 1% of its construction costs in 1975 and then gone to work for the man to whom I sold it.  I would have never sold off a beachfront property that was explicitly donated to the city of Benton Harbor for public use, so an exclusive, private golf course could be built on it.  I suppose the residents of these two cities will enjoy refurnishing the stadium that they probably won't be visiting after their work is complete and maybe the residents of Benton Harbor don't care that, most of them could never afford to set foot on the private golf course built on land meant to be enjoy by all.

So, I wonder:  What does a person whose job it was to help other people finds jobs do when they've lost their own job?  How must they feel sitting across the desk of a former colleague when both know the true statistics pertaining to finding a job?

Oh yeah, that reminds me; I've got to fill out my online job search for my unemployment compensation check

Gotta GO!

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

How cutting entitlements for the poor would affect us all

For anyone who thinks that cutting programs for the poor or, more accurately these days, the working poor, think again. As I drive around town and take note of the various neighborhoods in my city, I can't help noticing that they are all begining to look quite similar; at least in regards to one apesct.

Most neighborhoods have "For Sale" or "Foreclosure" signs in front of far too many homes for anyone to think that the Housing Market has recovered or will recover anytime soon. What this means for the other families in these neighborhoods is that their security is that much more compromised:  More homeless people means more desperate people:  People willing to do whatever it takes to survive. Now, add on top of this growing demographic of Americans who have lost their dreams to one big bank or another:  The poor, or working poor who could lose the assistance that "leaders" like Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney seek to take away will have fewer mean with which to survive.  In hundreds of thousands of neighborhoods across the country, the situation goes from depression to outright incendiary.

In Detroit there are neighborhoods that have been impacted to the extent that families move from one foreclosed home to another.  This has become such an issue that the power company in Detroit (I forgot the name) continues to find squatters who have "jumpered" the electric meters for power.  For some children, under the age of ten whose families live in these areas, moving from house to house is the norm.  Imagine that:  This pattern of homelessness has been going on for so long that some kids know no other way of life.

As for how situations like the one faced by inhabitants of Detroit affects the rest of us; get used to bars your windows, for, as more people lose programs like Food Stamps and Welfare, they will consider more drastic measures.  Think about this way:  What would you do if you lost your job, your family home and couldn't even feed your family?  What would you do?

Sunday, August 12, 2012

Does Anyone Remember the Bush Years?

If you can't remember how bad George W. Bush was, here are some links that should remind us all of what we had to deal with and what we will HAVE to deal with if the "Axis of Evil" or, as republicans refer to them "Romney/Ryan" wins on November 6, 2012.  Click on the links below to read about Bush and then, come back and watch the videos.

Romney’s team starts to look like Bush’s

Saturday, August 11, 2012

Why Paul Ryan would be a bad leader

Two Paths: Ayn Rand's Legacy

Before the American public there were two paths that could be taken. One was open to all, accepting of all and sought to help all along their way. The other path only allowed those who were willing to leave their friends, family and all of humanity behind to travel upon it. Though anyone was free to choose which path they would take, only one allowed for an increasing number of travellers. The other narrowed until there were but a few individuals who could maintain their footing and even that number dwindled as the capacity of this path decreased. Though the two paths were so different in the demographics that followed them, they were plainly viewed by all: Those on the growing path noticed the diminishing numbers of people who chose the one which shrank. They were close enough to call out to them, or so they thought, but for some reason, the people on the other path couldn’t hear them. It could have been that they were simply ignoring what they considered lower class citizens, but it could also have been the fact that all of their focus had to be on every step they took. The reason for this requirement was that, not only did the trail become more treacherous, but the few on this crooked path had a tendency to bump one another off. It was like a perverted game of “King of the Mountain”, except the mountain was a small winding road that allowed only the most ruthless of players to advance. And even worse than the threat of other players and shrinking landscape, was that at some point there was no return. Along the trail individuals not deemed strong enough were weeded out, by either falling off the trail or by crossing over one of infrequent connecting bridges that appeared from time to time. These bridges allowed for the selfish to cast off their illicit ways and gave them the opportunity to change their course. It provided them with a chance to share in the common good, to succeed together and move forward the agenda that best suited the group. These bridges flowed both ways, but only those who became misguided ever chose to go from the path of many to the path of the few, because they were fraught with peril and of those who attempted crossing them, most fell to their doom. Other than these connecting bridges, the paths simply ran parallel to one another. If one were to look over the edges of the growing path, they might see nothing at all. They might be faced with the uncertainty of just how far the drop might be. They might even find that they had lost their balance looking into this abyss, but there was always someone there to assist them, to provide a stability that they might not have had otherwise. And on several occasions, the uncertainty they saw looking over the edge was lifted like a fog, as explanations were provided and fears were alleviated. Whether this insight was forth-coming or not, the support one received was enough to get an individual’s focus back on the goals ahead. This however, was not so of the other path, the one that shrank as one progressed: There was no support to keep one from falling upon the jagged rocks below. The only comfort that anyone could gain while walking this lonely path had to come from one’s self. Any reassurance was possible only by what one could muster up from within, which made the journey that much more dangerous, as every step could proof to be their last. Compiling any fears that might cause hesitation was the fact that, at some point there was no going back. Inevitably, there was no way to turn around and walking backwards usually led to one outcome. There were of course those who had walked the more dangerous of the two paths and eventually found a place in which they could lay down and rest for as long as they chose. At this last stop, there always seemed to be a vast, open meadow, as lush and beautiful as one could imagine. Beside the greenest grass that one could imagine, there was food of all varieties available with a mere thought. No matter what one’s palette desired it could be seen as the weary traveller entered this wide open space. As for any other needs that anyone could have at this point, they were all met before the words could be formed. Whether one’s desire was the fanciest ‘this’ or the sharpest ‘that’ all needs wants and desires were fulfilled in this final utopian setting, but none who had made it this far had ever found peace in this magically deceiving place. More often than not, those who lay in the grass found it quite course as the serrated edges scratched their skin. Those who did not know of the harsh feel of the grass had simply not taken the time to relax: They had come to a point where they should have been able to let their guard down and enjoy the fruits of their labor, but even the fruit tasted sour as one by one they would taste every apple, pear, orange, steak, cake, or whatever food they cherished the most, only to toss it aside in disgust. In due time, every one of these individuals realized that what they desired most in life could not be enjoyed by one’s self. What was the point of reaching this point in their lives, if there was no one to talk to about the perfect meal before them or the miraculous sunset that just ushered on another temperate night. Nothing looked as good or tasted as good or felt as good as it would have looked, tasted or felt had it been shared with someone important. The only thing that someone who found themselves in this position could take pride in was the fact that had they been as ruthless as possible, someone would remember them: Had they knocked off enough competitors or committed as many atrocious acts as they could, they would live on in infamy in someone’s mind and to be respected or feared was an accomplishment in itself. Had they questioned this belief however, they would have realized that those who had chosen the other path would be remembered by far more people and those memories would be fond and they would be passed down from one generation to the next. Had they taken the time to listen to those who travelled on the other path, they would have realized that it is better to be loved by many than despised by few. And as was the case more often than not, as they lay their heads down in the irritating sawgrass.

Friday, August 10, 2012

Why Our Leaders Represent Those Who Support Them

As a follow up to my previous posts "Common Sense and Complacency Parts 1 & 2", I thought I would offer my personal feelings as to why the American public does not get the representation they expect.  Besides all of the normal reasons; low voter turnout, misleading political ads, etc. I would put forth one more idea:  After being ignored by so much of the population, especially on the state, regional and local levels, candidates might find it difficult relating to the very same public they are supposed to represent.

As a simple example, imagine trying to become friends with as many people as you can, but only finding acceptance from a small sampling of those you try to befriend.  What would you do?  Would you continue to try to promote yourself or would you concentrate more on those individuals who at least seem receptive to your attempts?  Don't answer that.  We all know how human nature works.

Now, let's consider someone on the National Stage:  This person has had to move up through the ranks; running for local, then state offices and eventually making it to the office of U.S. Representative, U.S. Senator or POTUS (God forbid).  Along this journey, this imaginary candidate has had to campaign, schmooze, cajole and convince a myriad of people who could possibly stand behind their bid for higher office.

If the only demographic that is paying attention, in this scenario are the wealthy, then those are the people to whom our candidate will pander.  If, those with fewer resources, ie. the middle class and the poor pay little or no attention, fail to support the candidate in the only manner at their disposal (sheer numbers), why would any candidate pay them any mind?  Even if that candidate's intentions are or were to fight for the people, disillusionment could and most likely would get the best of his or her desires, goals, necessities.

What America needs to keep our leaders from turning to the Dark Side is to support them in all phases of their careers.  From the local dog catcher (if an elected position) to the Commander in Chief, these public servants, as do all people, need to know that their efforts are appreciated, lest they decide they're hard work entitles them to the gifts offered by their most generous donors.

For myself, I can only imagine that more than one public figure has made or thought the following:

"If I'm going to work so hard to get elected and the public is, for the most part ignoring me, then I deserve all of the perks from those who do support me."

- Imaginary Candidate, Anytown, USA

Thursday, August 9, 2012

For those who don’t think the Republican Party is the party for racists and homophobes. THINK AGAIN

While, I will not go as far as to say that the Republican Party itself is racist, I will say that there must be some aspect of the G.O.P. that attracts individuals who believe themselves part of “the one and true” race created by GOD.  And this is why I am puzzled by Sheldon Adelson’s desire to promote the right-wing agenda.
Oh, I understand the greedy, vulture-like aspect of his support for Mitt Romney now and Newt Gingrich previously.  I fail however, to comprehend the fact that, tied to the financial gains he might feel entitled to and the expedience with which his legal troubles might disappear if a “new management” is placed in the White House in 2013 is White Supremacy.  Maybe Mr. Adelson feels that his wealth entitles him to be accepted as a member of the Arian Brotherhood.  I tend to think that the opposite would be true however and his fortune might tie him more closely to the stereotypical view the Arian Brotherhood reserve for Jewish people.
Again, I am not saying that the Republican Party itself is racist, but it seems a stretch to clam that a portion of its membership isn’t.  When there are so many instances of race baiting from those who sought the Presidency and just as many instances of those racist comments getting the biggest applause during the Republican Primary Race, it’s hard to believe otherwise.
It seems to me that, what Mr. Adelson and Harold Simmons (another billionaire supporting any GOP presidential candidate) fail to realize is that when people lose hope, they grasp at anything and anyone to blame for their plight:  All a charismatic speaker need do is find an incendiary source to ignite the fire.  In today’s divisive political environment, all of the Tea Party jokes about black people being lazy and a drain on our economy and gay people being a scourge opposed to “American Values” sounds a lot like the rhetoric of Adolf Hitler.
Perhaps the two gentlemen referenced above and any other Jewish billionaires pushing for a Republican-led America are okay with these types of attacks, because they are not levelled at Jews   Maybe they believe that they’ll escape unjust scrutiny for their success even if the racist underpinnings of the GOP were to leave the realm of the written or spoken word.  Ultimately however, racism is racism and hatred is hatred and given a foothold, both will infect, evolve and spread.
How this truly relates to the Republican Party, I could not fully say:  Perhaps there is some study that provides statistics, but a simple survey of the Internet or television (both right and left leaning) would provide a real world sampling of which political party draws out the most, hate-filled rhetoric. Whether it’s Gingrich calling Obama the first food stamp president or Rick Santorum saying he wants black people to learn to rely on themselves instead of the Government, or Michelle Bachmann’s allegations of a Muslim infiltration, there seems to be far more examples of racism in the G.O.P. than in the D.N.C. these days.*
One final point I might add is this:  Before World War II, Humanity did not have the example Hitler gave it.  I’m not saying that genocide, racism, slavery and a plethora of other inhumane acts didn’t exist before the Nazis.  I’m saying that Hitler left the supreme example of what could be accomplished through hatred and he did it all with words.

* - While, I do believe that racism exists in both political parties, I don’t seem to be able to find many from democratic leaders today.  I would appreciate links to examples of current, democratic leaders making statements that are or could be perceived as racist.  Just add the links to the comments section below.  Thank you

Wednesday, August 8, 2012

Common Sense And Complacency Pt. 2

Though this video was posted in October of last year (2011), the problems it addressed still persist to this day, and have only festered and grown worse in that time period. Not only do people continue to complain about our government, but it seems that some have accepted the fact that most of us will never get the type of representation that our founding fathers fought for over two hundred years ago.

Speaking to a younger man who is in his thirties, which is the new twenties according to advertisers, but seems more like the new teens, in my opinion, he said one of the most disconcerting things I’d ever heard. When I asked him how he thought America would turn itself around and become a country that strives to improve the lives of more than just the wealthy, his response was baffling:

“I know that some of us are going to have to kiss the asses of others and I know that most of our lives are going to suck. I don’t worry about that shit. I’m just trying to have fun.”
- Orgy

His nickname made it apparent that he was living the life implied in his words. As for the impact his words had on me; they served as an example of life imitating art: In this case that art would be a movie called Idiocacy” (2006), in which humans have become so stupid that they water crops with a Gatorade like product and wonder why nothing grows.

Besides the young or semi-young not taking an interest in the future, it seems to me that the elderly have chosen to bury their heads in the proverbial sand as well, when it comes to politics these days. This, I could understand if our country was prospering as it had in the 1980s and 1990s, but why now? One suggestion that I would offer is that the person I was talking to in this instance is a die-hard Republican. I offer this as a reason, because I can only imagine how disillusioned republican voters have become when faced with the leaders of the GOP in recent times. Even while George W. Bush led America to default, elderly republican voters swore he was working in the best interest of the country. Now however, they don’t like to talk that much about politics, except to say Obama is the Devil. Whenever I ask whether they’re concerned about the future that their children and grandchildren will have to face, I get answers to the negative. I get answers such as the following:

“I will be dead in a few years and then I won’t care about these things at all. I’ll be dead”
- Stanch Republican Voter

In the truest sense this is correct, even if you go to Heaven; you probably aren’t looking back and wondering why there is so much suffering on Earth. After all, you’ve made it to the Promised Land . . . but wait, what is Ayn Rand doing up here? Sorry. I got a little sidetracked.

Getting back to my point; Americans have become disillusioned with our Government, as well they should. My feeling is that, instead of fading quietly into that dark knight, Americans should be taking to the streets, protesting the injustice that will eventually befall us all. Whether you’re poor, middle class, upper class, wealthy, black, white, Asian, Latino, gay, straight, bi-sexual or anyone other than the super wealthy, you should be outraged, because we all must live in the American Ghetto that these greedy bastards are creating. It’s time to wake up and understand that whether the current actions of the elite affect you directly or not, there is no logic in wanting to further stagnate the economy by giving more money to people who are not creating the jobs we pay them to create through tax breaks/refunds.

What people must understand is that there are less than six hundred (600) individuals who pass laws that have incarcerated more people than were enslaved in 1850, even though crime rates have not increased. They are the same people who send our soldiers to die in foreign lands based on the lie of weapons of mass destruction (Iraq War). They are the same people who allow billionaires like Harold Simmons to build nuclear waste facilities over the third largest crop irrigation aquifer in the United States (Ogallala). They are the same people who have allowed Climate Change deniers to misguide us to the point that not only is Climate Change real, but there is nothing we can do about it now, except adapt to it as best we can. They are the same individuals who have allowed corporations to outsource American jobs and hide their profits offshore so they could utilize tax loopholes to pad their profits on the backs of taxpayers. How can a corporation be considered loyal to its country of origin if its presence is greater in other countries and it drives the people in its native lands into poverty?

“Five Hundred and Forty Four (544) individuals did this” and are leading America to chaos; we can stop them by replacing them all with people who will represent our best interests. I’m not claiming to have all of the answers; I’m claiming to have more than the “Five Hundred and Forty Four” who are supposed to have them. I’m making the claim now, that nothing will change as long as we don’t change it.  Check out my Really? Rally page here, or go to the to see what you can do to be that change.

Sunday, July 15, 2012

R.A.D. Dictionary

ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) noun
1.    An nonpartisan, Republican organization that facilitates the buying and selling of legislators or legislation.
2.    Defunct, debunked, lie

1.    An ecological disaster created by a few corporations and industrialists to satisfy their greed.

1.    Republican Party doctrine which states that there is no need to help the needy.  It requires that services meant to individuals (the poor, elderly, disabled) not be provided:  Whether seeking funds to attain a degree higher than primary education or loans to start a business or simply funds to avoid becoming homeless, THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENTS forbids any such attempts.
2.    A Christian philosophy according to republican leaders like Paul Ryan, a self-admitted follower of atheist author Ayn Rand who now denies his praise for her.

Democratic Party noun
1.    A political party that watches the Republican party screw over everyone except the wealthy.

Disposable Income noun
1.    Money consumers spend on products that don't last (TVs, cellular phones, health insurance, etc.).

1.    An international speaking tour of Mitt Romney

Global Economy noun
1.    Monetary system used by the rich to screw over the 99%.
2.    System of economic growth that promoted national disloyalty as a means for prosperity

Job Creator noun
1.    Slang, circa 2012, term used to justify funneling money away from the poor and middle classes in order to further enrich the wealthy.
2.   Myth

Immoral Legality noun
1.    A system of regulation that causes harm to the majority through the implementation of immoral laws which only serve a minority.

Inequanomics noun
1.    The misguided belief that a few rich people can match the spending power of 100s of millions of consumers.  An example would be a comparison between the daily spending of the 400 richest people in America and the 150 million people this elite group's wealth equals:  For every meal, tank of gas, car, home, clothing purchase, there is no way in which these 400 individuals could ever spend as much as 150 million people.  Even if each of these 400 wealthy people bought the most expensive of any of the items mentioned above and supported families consisting of 100 members each, their spending would still only amount to 40,000 (thousand) people versus that of 150,000,000 (150 million) people.

Liberty Slave noun
1.    An individual incarcerated and made to do free labor in a country where Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness are usurped by laws written "By, For and Of the Private Prison Corporations."

Loan Shark noun
1.    Any bank labeled as "Too Big To Fail" that issues credit cards with excessive interest.rates which were deemed illegal when the mob loaned out money at similar rates.

Neo- Feudalism noun
1.    A system similar to Feudalism, inclusive of all forms of commerce (not simply land ownership), but lacking the titles of nobility of its predecessor.
2.    A period in the 21st century of American history when all commerce was controlled by supremely wealthy individuals and/or corporations.  Examples sited include, food production (85% of the beef industry was controlled by 4 corporations, 66% of the pork industry controlled by 4 corporations and 60% of the poultry industry is controlled by 4 corporations), large retail or wholesale stores such as Costco, etc.

President of the United States noun
1.    In the New Century, this term simply meant ‘the lesser of two evils’.

Tax Incentive or Subsidy noun
1.    Entitlement(s) paid to wealthy individuals and corporations.  In the early part of the 21st Century, tax incentives/subsidies went to corporations that outsourced labor, in-sourced labor , after years of outsourcing labor and corporations that made more money than the certain deities.
2.    Reward(s) that inordinately benefited the wealthy.

Republican Party noun
1.    A political party that tells its constituents how it will screw over everyone except the wealthy.

Responsible Homeowner noun
1.    People who pay and/or paid their mortgages whether employed or otherwise.
2.    Designation used to appease constituents with upside down mortgage, who hadn’t lost their jobs.

Romnesaur noun
1.    A creature with multiple heads.  Each head could speak the language of whomever it faced, except for the negroid.  This creature was especially dangerous to the Americanous Voterasaurus, which it devoured after herding towards cliffs or pits called Trickle Downs.  Also had an uncanny ability to hoard and hide its possessions.

Rush Limbo noun
1.    The Urgency with which the Republican Party hopes to keep the United States of America stuck in the Quagmire created by the Republican Party.

Second Amendment noun
1.    The "right of the people to keep and bear arms" not armaments.

Self Complacency adj.
1.   The act of ignoring actual or possibly bad things that could have an impact on one's self.
2.    Sometimes referred to as Ostrich Syndrome.

Self Mass Extinction noun
1.    The act of causing extinction of one’s own species in a relatively short period of geological time, usually as a consequence of a catastrophic global event, or an abrupt change in the environment

Slumming it verb
1.    A means for the Super Rich to practice or prepare for the future they are creating.

Supply Side/Trickle Down noun
1.    An economic policy in which the majority of taxpayers forfeit their own money, which is given to the rich in hopes that the rich will in turn give some of this donated money back to the poor and middle class after said poor and middle class have performed some labor or task for the rich.
2.    Myth

Untied States of America noun
1.    Formerly known as The United States of America which became unraveled due to insane greed.

Walled Off Well Off noun (also known as Gated Communities)
1.    Areas where the "less than super rich" sequestered themselves starting in the late 2000s.
2.    Also known as “WOWOs”, due to sounds that emanated from these homeowners whenever a neighbor walked on their grass.

* - Visit again to see new additions to the R.A.D. Dictionary or suggest your own by commenting here.  You will be credited and links to your site will be mentioned in the definition.

Friday, May 11, 2012

Differences Between Republicans and Democrats

With Obama coming out for gay marriage (sounds kind of funny). Let's look at our choices this November. While I do believe that there are republican leaders who do seek to help people out, I feel that they will never have the support of their party. With this in mind, let's look at how our choice for president should be considered later this year.

The democratic party at least says that it seeks to help out the poor, while the republican party says that it wants to cut Medicare, Social Security.

The democratic party at least says that it seeks to help out the middle class and the unemployed, while the republican party says that it wants to give more tax breaks to the rich and they want to shorten the time people can claim unemployment benefits.

The democratic party at least says that it seeks to help out students, while the republican party says that it wants to double the interest rate on certain student loans.

The democratic party at least says that it seeks to increase the number of public sector jobs, while the republican party says that it wants to reduce the size of government. . . Austerity like the plans that have led the UK into a double dip recession and it hasn't help Spain, France or Greece either. But the republican's messiah Paul Ryan is still trying to shove the same bad plan down America's throat.

The democratic party at least says that it supports women's rights, while the republican party tried to repeal the Violence Against Women Act.

The democratic party at least says that it seeks to help immigrants, while the republican party says they should all leave of their own accord. Of course this is an exaggeration, but the sentiment is correct

And now it seems that the leaders of the democratic party say that they believe consenting adults should be able to marry any other consenting adult they love, while the presumptive leader of the republican party says men should one marry women and vice versa.

And then there's A.L.E.C., which is supposed to be a bi-partisan organization, but of its 244 legislators only one was a democrat. A.L.E.C. stands for American Legislative Exchange Council and sounds like a place to buy and sell legislators. The "Bi-partisan" organization is responsible for some of the more radical laws that have infected so many states since their republican Governors took power. If you go to, you can find model legislation that in some case was adopted verbatim in several states. This is where the voter suppression bills came from. This is where all of the opposition to unions, the EPA, and a plethora of bad ideas comes from.

In the the past, politicians of both parties have tried to tell the People that the garbage manufacturing plants and refineries spewed into the atmosphere had little to no negative affect on our environment. Why is it that everyone in this country must dispose of their own garbage (waste) or at least have someone else dispose of it, except for corporations? And now, we've got republican governors visiting pink slime factories and eating food with toxic by product fillers in it. Do they think people are stupid, because they don't drop dead immediately? People didn't eat Asbestos, but it sure has killed them. And now they're telling us to ingest food that has to be exposed to ammonia to kill the stuff that would kill us otherwise.

Why is it that the republicans always seem to tell us that everything is good for us. Things like putting a nuclear waste dump over an aquifer that provides 1/3 of the irrigation to crops in North America (Ogallal Aquifer). This was allowed to happen because of donations made to the republican governor of Texas and other republican Texas legislators. And worse still is the same billionaire who made the contributions in Texas is the biggest donor to the republican presidential race, because he hopes to expand the types of nuclear waste his facility can accept.

Now, I believe that neither party is currently solely comprised of people who seek to help the majority, but I fail to see how anyone can vote for a party with the ideas exhibited by the republicans. We need to get rid of most of the GOP and we need to get democrats in office who have both good ideas and can actually deliver their message in a way that connects with the public.

That is why I proposing the Really? Rally. Look it up here:

Friday, April 20, 2012

The Double Standards We Live By

The higher standards that some of our leaders place on their constituents never ceases to bewilder me, because these same standards don't seem to apply to them.  As I was driving to drop the kids off at school this morning, I kept hearing stories about the impending FCAT.  For those unfamiliar with this acronym, F.C.A.T. stands for the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, which was initially intended to measure a student's academic achievement.  Recently however, it also serves as a basis to rate the quality of the education at public schools as well as the quality of the teachers at those schools.
One of the problems, as was reported in a story I listened to today is that the F.C.A.T. or at least version 2.0 which will be administered this year, has questions that are not accurate or are misleading.  An example is provided here:

* This sample question offers the following observations, and asks which is scientifically testable.

The petals of red roses are softer than the petals of yellow roses.
The song of a mockingbird is prettier than the song of a cardinal.
Orange blossoms give off a sweeter smell than gardenia flowers.
Sunflowers with larger petals attract more bees than sunflowers with smaller petals.

The document indicates that 4 is the correct answer, but answers 1 and 3 are also scientifically testable.

For answer 1, the Sunshine State Standards list texture as a scientifically testable property in the third grade (SC.3.P.8.3), fourth grade (SC.4.P.8.1), and fifth grade (SC.5.P.8.1), so even the State Standards say it is a scientifically correct answer.
For answer 3, smell is a matter of chemistry. Give a decent chemist the chemical makeup of the scent of two different flowers, and she will be able to tell you which smells sweeter without ever smelling them.

While this question has three correct answers, any student that answered 1 or 3 would be graded as getting the question wrong. Why use scientifically correct “wrong” answers instead of using responses that were actually incorrect? Surely someone on the Content Advisory Committee knew enough science to spot this problem.

Another change in the F.C.A.T. this year is that the standards have been raised substantially.  Questions will not only test a student's current knowledge, but will also tax their memories of lessons taught years prior.  Concepts such as "mean and median", which for some students would have been taught years before, will be asked without providing formulas for either.
While it would be ideal that all students remember everything they've ever been taught, it seems quite a stretch to mandate this, or at least require it to an extent that those who create the tests might not be able to adhere to themselves.  In other words, how many of those who design these tests would be able to pass these tests.
Next, it seems to me that those who are so opposed to abortion, claiming to cherish life above all else, don't seem to follow up on the lives their decisions impact or will impact.  It appears that life is only to be protected up until birth for there is little support for those women who choose to have children they cannot afford to raise.  And as far as republican leaders are concerned, these women should not receive assistance without working, even when the economy is in such dire straights.
Contrary to some republican leader's public support of all life, their policies seek to eliminate assistance for impoverished mothers who they believe should be forced to give birth no matter the circumstances of their pregnancy.  These supposed leaders say that everyone should stand on their own two feet even when the rug has been pulled out from under those feet with policies that insure the rich get richer, while the rest of us get poorer.  Here, the Republican philosophy seems to be that all life is precious, except when that life requires assistance.

And one final example of how there seems to be a double standard our leaders (especially the Republicans) have is how individuals are treated in contrast to corporations when it comes to the environment.
In the United States, we have built a society in which most people are held to a certain standard pertaining to the waste they produce.  Throughout neighborhoods around this nation, individuals, families, agencies, organizations, small businesses, etc. are required to manage and dispose of their own waste, but this same requirement does not seem to be true for too many corporations.
While the people of this country have to clean up after themselves, manufacturing plants, refineries and other businesses that spew their garbage into our atmosphere don't seem to be required to do so.  This is what "Cap and Trade", amongst other environmental regulations is meant to address and it's quite bewildering why there would be any who represent the best interests of the public would not seek to hold businesses accountable for their waste.  Actually, what's bewildering is the fact that American voters would continue to elect any politician who refused to fight for or more accurate fight against any regulations that would require these businesses to keep our air pure.
The most recent example that I can think of is the Texas Billionaire (Harold Simmons) who has put a nuclear waste facility over the Ogallala Aquifer.
This is a bigger disaster in the making than the BP oil Gulf spill, and Republican legislators in Texas looked the other way when a new map was presented which showed that the Aquifer had mysteriously moved from where it was previously located.  Whether the aquifer is where it was shown or where it is shown is irrelevant, because there was a mistake made as to its location.  Who's to say the mistake made wasn't the relocation?
As a former engineering consultant at the Miami International Airport, I have personally worked with maps that supposedly indicated where plums of discarded fuel and oil had been removed from the soil under airport property.  This oil, to my knowledge was not put there by illegal dumping, it was put there due to ignorance of its impact, but this is not the problem I am addressing with this anecdote.  The problem was that these maps were supposed to indicate "clean" areas where the oil had been removed by contractors, but monitoring indicated that the contaminants were still present.  Eventually, it was determined that the fuel and oil had migrated to those areas where remediation had occurred.
If not apparent from my example, the point is that the maps from Miami International were wrong, as could be those maps indicating the new whereabouts of the Ogallala Aquifer.  Simmons being allowed to build a nuclear waste dump in the first place is questionable and his desire to expand the types of waste that it can be stored within is scary.  If people want to store dangerous materials in their own homes or businesses that could cause a fire or poison a water supply, they can be fined or arrested.  This is illegal.  In other words there are laws that protect the rest of us from the selfish acts of others.  Why didn't those Texas law makers uphold those laws meant to protect the people of their state and country.
Their actions seem unpatriotic at the very least, because, while some may believe the decisions made by the Texas legislators and Governor Perry do not impact the rest of us, this could not be further from the truth.  The Ogallala Aquifer is a body of fresh water that crosses 8 states and supplies a third of the irrigation in the United States.

And, more importantly, there is currently a limit on the types of waste materials that can be stored at the facility built by Simmons, but that could all change.  Harold Simmons is currently the biggest donor of the republican presidential campaign.
Now, I realize that this is a tangent from my initial point, but what will happen to this man, if the safety mechanisms of his facility fail and impact one of the largest supplies of fresh water in the United States?  What will happen to the lives of those babies that the republicans seek to save from abortion?  What will happen to a country which allows polluting industries to self-regulate their waste, while mandating that the rest of us "Clean up after ourselves?"  Ultimately, why is there a double standard between those who legislate, their biggest donors and the rest of us?
To find out why I think this double standards persists, visit my blog: or contact me at

* - The example sited was obtained from the following source.

Friday, April 13, 2012

My Mission Statement and Statement of Values and Beliefs (Updated)

Mission Statement
Statement of Values and Beliefs
by Chris Stanley Ossman

Mission Statement

I believe that the country in which we live currently is not the one the founders of this nation sought or proposed when they wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America.  I believe that our Democracy has been undermined and over-taken by plutocrats who have been reshaping America based on an ideology that only seeks to; further the fortunes of the few, eliminate the will of the majority and segregate us all by the standards that they set regarding an individual’s status.
I refuse to allow what has happened, over the past twenty five to thirty years, represent the next few decades.  In this regard, I will fight to usurp the authority of any person group or organization that seeks to do harm, purposefully or accidentally to the United States of America. I am of the belief that those who lead a sovereign nation should hold, above all else, the desire to lead the masses to prosperity and happiness and foster a sense of loyalty one’s own country specifically and all of humankind in general.
In this desire, my goals pertaining to public service have become clear as I have become resolute to attain them.  Whether the elected office I seek be one of a local, regional, state or national level, my main intention is to reverse the economy of influence that has over-thrown the mandate of our constitution that all men (and women) are created equal and endowed with the inalienable rights granted by one’s Creator.  It is this seemingly insurmountable task, which seeks to eliminate inordinate supply of money that represents the greatest barrier to a system of government in which the vote of one individual is weighted as heavily as the vote of any other individual.  It is the pursuit of campaign donations that monopolizes too much time of our legislators, forcing them to choose acquiescing to the voices of their largest benefactors over listening to the needs of their most needy constituents.
In summary, I will fight for the will of the masses with the knowledge that this is not merely a selfless act, but one that benefits us all, my species, my race, my friends, my family, myself. 
Statement of Values and Beliefs

Disclaimer: My views are not set in stone, and their evolution could be brought about by debate and any compelling evidence that suggests a viable alternative.  You do not need to read the anecdotes to understand my values and beliefs, as listed here.  They simply provide further insight and rationale into my values and beliefs, they can be skipped for brevity.

Abortion:               I have no stance on abortion and I will never take a stance on this matter.  It is too inflammatory and I believe that people make poor decisions on leadership based on this issue and the issue of faith in general.  I also believe that the underlying issue which is a determinant in an individual’s choice about abortion is the economic situation of the individual.  Whether a person is opposed or in favor of abortion, their final choice will be influenced in large part by personal factors such as employment, savings, prospects and hope as they relate to the future.

Accountability:  Mistakes are made and lessons should be learned from those mistakes, but the first step to learner from one’s mistakes is admitting that the mistake was made in the first place.  Those who are unwilling to be held accountable for their decisions, have no place in a leadership capacity.  I believe that, whether the war in Iraq was caused by faulty intelligence or not, the fact remains that it was a mistake that has cost over a trillion dollars, the stability of the U.S. economy (and the world’s economy to a certain extent) and worse still, thousands of lives, both American and Iraqi, yet no one seems to be responsible for this war:  Someone started it, but no one has apologized for it to date, except maybe Colin Powell (who has stated that he was against it from the outset).  Without delving too deeply into my own beliefs about the war, I will simply state that, at the very least, an apology is owed to all of those service men and women who lost their limbs, their sight, their sanity, their sense of security, and their lives in this struggle to force democracy on a country that might have taken their own steps towards freedom, had they been given the opportunity.  It is to these individuals and their families that the greatest debt is owed and the most heart-felt apology is warranted.

Accountability Anecdotal:     I, personally, was appalled when George W. Bush came out to proclaim that the lowest point of his presidency was when a rapper (Kanye West) said that he (Bush) didn’t like black people.  If our “God Fearing” leaders cannot even concede to the fact that sending young men and women into harms way for no justifiable reason, then what hope do we have as a nation?  Lies and denial have taken too great of a toll on our society.  It is time to hold some feet to the fire and avoid the complacency that has become far too prevalent in this country and to promote common sense.

I believe that people can tell when something being said is not right.  We can’t always tell what it is that is wrong about what is being said, but common sense tells us that something is definitely out or place.  Things like the idea that taking money from the poor, elderly, middleclass, teachers, students, fire fighters, policemen, and nurses to give to wealthy individuals and mega corporations (in the form of tax cuts) in hopes that they will in turn give back to the former (in the form of labor) just doesn’t sound right.  This is especially the case when it is that group of poor, elderly, middleclass who won’t be able to buy those goods provided by companies, because of the lack of money.  Perhaps a better plan would be to give the money to the poor, middleclass and elderly who have to buy the products sold by companies to survive.  This, in turn would create a greater demand for products, which leads to the need to hire more people to make the products, or grow the food that they can now afford because they are working.

I know that I might have gone off topic in that last paragraph, but this shows the interrelatedness that exists between all facets of our society.  Accountability leads to correcting for past mistakes.  Correcting past mistakes leads to a change in ideology that currently supposes that the rich should get all of the money to dowel out as they see fit.  A reversal of this train of thought leads to this country helping out those individuals most in need of help, which leads to lifting up the nation from the bottom up.  With greater demand for products, companies hire more and have more to put into education.  Education leads to innovation, which helps fix the problems of the world.

We’ve tried it the other way:  Most of the means in the hands of the few and it seems that every time this route is taken, the world gets thrown into despair.  Maybe it’s time to try something new.

Campaign Finance Reform:          Since campaign contribution are perceived to have too great of an influence over legislation (if only in the sense that legislators cannot perform their public duties due to the excessive time requirements of raising campaign contributions), there should be the inception of legislation does one or more of the following:

1)         Limit campaign contributions by limiting how much can be spent.
2)         All spending should be documented and any suspect spending should be fined while all parties involved will have  to pay fines that match or exceed the contribution.  Any offending parties should not be allowed to contribute or partake in any political activities for a set period of time.
a.         There should be requirements that advertisers will have to meet to insure that a advertising company isn’t simply created for the express purpose of manipulating the rules of whatever legislation comes about through this plan.
b.         All individuals will be held accountable for the actions of any advertising company breaking the rules that govern this requirement.  They will be fined for any time they spend on activities that are deemed to circumvent the law.  And, if no parties are willing to be held accountable, the entire staff of any advertising firm in question will be held accountable:  This will prompt reporting (whistle blowing) of any illicit activity.
3)         Eliminate SuperPacs
4)         Require all contributions to be allocated to the political parties only, no direct contributions that can be attributed to any company or individual.
5)         Eliminate certain aspects of “Citizens United”
6)         Work towards eliminating the requirement of favors by any corporate or private entity:  Take away the reason for lobbyist to court the politicians and you take away their influence
7)         Facilitate the inception of a viable third party that will be designed and voted upon by a popular vote only.
I know that the idea of a third party option may seem counter-intuitive to the goals of the Democratic Party, but I believe it will provide a useful resource for any political group that seeks to re-invigorate the disillusioned voters who believe that their votes count for naught.  It is also a tactic that has been used quite effectively by people such as the Koch Brothers who created the astroturf movement called the TEA Party.  In the hands of the people whoever, a third party would represent a means holding elected officials accountable that does not currently exist because, like the TEA Party, third party members could push for the discussions and debates that the people wanted and that Washington D.C. seems to avoid all too often these days.

The People’s Party    Should have as a minimum, the following characteristics:

1)                  It should be and continue to be based on popular vote:  Though the electoral system may be something that many want to cling to, even though it has out-served its usefulness, this third party should always be representative of the people.
2)                  Any contributions to this party should be transparent.

Education:                        Simply put, education is “key” to the economy.  A less educated population is one in which advancement stagnates.  Civilization has moved forward, due to innovation and innovation has come about, due in large part to education.  Instead of rediscovering the wheel, subsequent generations have been told of the wheels existence and been given the opportunity to not only improve upon its design, but to put a chassis on top of it so the masses could move about more easily.  There are of course those who needed no fore knowledge of ideas, equations and theories.  They’re called geniuses and even their existence mandates that the pursuit of education continue.  The rationale for this viewpoint is as follows:  A genius has a great idea on how to desalinate sea water, but is uncertain of the costs and the logistics of implementing such a system.  It is at this point that the expertise of people with knowledge of what is truly required to bring a product to market comes into play:  It is this peripheral group of accountants, logistic professionals and technicians who know how to assemble equipment to bring the dream of desalinization to fruition.  Besides all of this ancillary work, there is the simple matter of the genius being able to communicate their ideas to the rest of us.  Perhaps the genius’ assistant is not as smart as the genius, but he or she knows how to convey the genius’ thoughts in a manner that is easily understood by the accountants and fabricators of the project.  Perhaps without this educated mediator/translator, the project would not have gone past the genius’ imagination, and the world’s drinking water dilemma would continue to plague mankind.

Education Anecdotal: As another example of the usefulness of an educated population, let’s consider the bind in which most states find themselves financially, these days.  In a country, where jobs are scarce, those states that can attract the most businesses will succeed, but those successes must be judged not only on the quantity of jobs, but also on the quality of jobs created due to legislative policies.  If the state deems hacking funding for education as a means to allow for tax cuts for corporations, than they must only be aspiring to attract companies that only have needs for workers.  With an uneducated population, companies need only supply the managerial staff to oversee those who would spend their days performing menial tasks that require little, if any, thought.  This is not to say that these types of jobs aren’t necessary, quite the contrary, they are of utmost importance to our economy, but they represent a limit on the diversity of companies willing to move into states that only offer people with limited education.  Inversely, those states that support education and offer citizens with higher degrees of learning represent the possibility of innovation.  Companies that hope to grow through innovation and competitiveness will flock to those states that offer a greater percentage of individuals with the base knowledge, acquired in colleges and universities that could lead to the “Next Big Idea”.  In the state that promotes education, the range of prospective companies is greater than in those that only offer one type of workforce.

U.S. Economy:   Stop giving money to banks, and corporations, they know nothing of putting it back into circulation.  To save the economy a wiser choice would be to create consumers, so the companies will have someone to sell their products and services to, instead of giving bigger bonuses to executives who seem to have to real sense of what to do with these government handouts.  I am not saying that consumers will know what to do with a government windfall such as the ones that big banks, automobile companies and other corporations knew, but they will do one thing that neither the banks, nor any of the corporations did:  Consumers will spend that money and part of this spending will be guaranteed, because it will be out of necessity.  Those with less to spend have to spend more, if only to survive than those with excess.

U.S Economy Anecdotal:       If only 1% of the economy has half the money, what would they spend that money on?  Well, everyone has to eat, including that 1%, but they’re not eating the same amount as the 150 million people who they are wealthier than.  Simply put, the 400 richest individuals will eat three meals a day . . . No let’s take it to an extreme.  The wealthiest 400 individuals eat ten meals a day, which comes to a grand total of 4000 meals per day.  That’s 4000 proteins, 4000 carbs, 4000 fats per day.  Now, let’s compare that to the 150 million who have the same amount of money as those 400 wealthiest individuals and let’s even be reasonable on the portions as a way in which to honor the First Lady’s agenda for healthy living.  So 150 million people eating three meals a day (not ten) equals 1,500,000,000 meals.  That’s 450 million meals; 450 million proteins, 450 million carbs, and 450 million fats.  Now, maybe the rich are eating higher priced foods, like the cream of the crop of creamed corned, or carrots encrusted with karats, but it would still take a lot to narrow the gap between 4000 meals and 450,000,000, which amounts to 112,500 times as many meals consumed daily.  And that’s with the rich eating more than three times as much as the remaining half of this nation.  This concept applies to every single facet of life, because just like the middleclass and the poor, the rich are human beings and human beings all need food, water and shelter to survive.

So, the next time that the government has 700 billion dollars lying around, why not give every individual (including the wealthy) $2000 dollars and let’s see what happens.  We already know what happens when we give it to banks and corporations.

Unemployment: To counter arguments of "job creators", I would propose a series of changes to unemployment compensation that would benefit both employer and employee alike, while saving the government and taxpayer money.

First:  Do not give the "job creators" money up front for jobs that they have yet to create in the form of tax breaks.  Instead, provide a subsidy to those employers who have created jobs and put those subsidies on a graduated scale to entice employers to consider hiring the long and longer term unemployed.

1.      For those who have been unemployed for six to 12 months, the subsidy would be a certain percentage (TBD), while those who have been unemployed for more than 12 months the percentage would be greater (TBD).  The reason for the higher subsidy would be due to the greater risk that an employer would perceive in hiring an individual who's been out of the workforce for such a long period.
2.      These subsidies would expire for an individual and to avoid abuse measures would have to be taken to determine when an employer is simply laying off one of these individuals so they could hire another individual who makes them eligible for the subsidy again.  One requirement could be that they retain all current employees unless a justifiable reason for termination could be provided.

Benefit to Society:
1.      Our consumer driven economy does better when there are consumers consuming and when those consumers actually have jobs they consume more than when they don't.
2.      That money which is current going out as tax breaks to "job creators" could be cut tremendously.  As an example, take 100 unemployed individuals.  If we give "job creators" taxes breaks for all 100 of these unemployed individuals that amounts to 100%.  If these jobs aren't created, as has been the case for far too many years, that's money that basically goes into the pockets of these employers "job creators", but no jobs have been created.  Under the plan outlined above, only those employers who actually create jobs would receive money for those jobs that they actually have created, so if only 20 jobs are created than only 20% of the funds that would have gone to tax breaks for "job creators" would go to those companies that did in fact create jobs.  The remaining 80% could be utilized in other ways.

Benefits to employees (or unemployed):  A job is created and the resume will reflect this work, lessening the impact that the gaps so many people currently have on their resumes.

Benefits to the employers:  They get the subsidies that help their business lower overhead.

Second:  Require that all recipients of unemployment who have been receiving the benefit for more than a specified amount of time (3 months, possibly) should be required to work 10 hours per week to maintain their benefits.  At the current rate of $275 per week, that would amount to each individual in this program making $27.50 per hour.  The remainder of the 30 hours that would amount to a 40 hour week could be utilized to continue to seek out work and all current requirements pertaining to seeking work while receiving unemployment would remain in place:  for example, 5 job inquires are required weekly to maintain benefits.

Benefits to society:
  1. One way in which this man power could benefit the "People" is to require that the 10 hours of work be done at government offices, initially.  As government has had to scale back its workforce, those who are still employed have found it more difficult to meet the demand of the public for certain services necessary for life these days.
  2. This money is being paid out currently (thanks for this point David), so if people are required to do some work for these funds, especially work as described earlier (county, city, state, federal) it is less likely that opponents of these funds can claim that this money is being wasted on lazy people who have no intention of working.

Benefits to the individual:
  1. Those who are sitting at home or going to the library to fulfill the unemployment benefits online and those who have to go to the unemployment office get discouraged by the jobs offered in both instances.  An actual job gives the individual purpose and keeps them involved in society.
  2. Given the diversity of jobs offered by municipal, state or federal agencies, the positions filled by the unemployed could prove to be a suitable (if not exact) replacement for the type of job they lost.  The benefits here are:
                  1.  The individual keeps their skills honed:  no lag due to continually updating software and any knowledge gained over the years is retained as it is continually put to use at these part time positions.
                        2.  As these individuals continue to seek out permanent opportunities, they can avoid the problem that listing one's self as unemployed has caused in the recent past.  Employers can conform that these individuals are currently employed, so any concerns of these individuals not have current skill or have skills that have waned due to under utilization are negated.

Global Economy:         Global corporations do not benefit any particular country in the long term.  The reason for my belief in this matter is that corporations, no matter where they originate do not serve their country of origin.  Perhaps to those who are short-sighted, this may seem untrue, but what country truly controls corporations such as General Electric, Siemens, Carnival Cruise Lines, and Halliburton?  All of these companies have countries of origin, and while they profit in the year 2011, their countries of origin flounder on the brink of financial ruin, which has lead to the ruination of the masses in those countries of with which these corporations are supposedly aligned. 

While bank executives post record bonuses in the United States, the people of this country go bankrupt.  While three wars are waged, the profits of these wars benefit no one except those corporations that sell these, high tech, high dollar weapons.

Is it so beneficial to the United States to have so many manufactured goods, built in other countries by “American” companies only to be shipped to the US to be sold for a profit:  A profit that does not garner any taxes from these same corporations?  And worse still is the fact that as these companies outsource their jobs to the lowest bidders, wages worldwide are affected:  If India builds computers for 10 cents on the dollar, India’s workers make what is possibly a better wage, but one that is less than the amount an American could survive on.  The problem arises when there simply are no jobs in America, because they have all gone to India.  In this instance, people who have been out of work for one or two years will fight for lower paying jobs, as we saw when McDonald’s announced that it would be hiring 50,000 people nationally.  Now, while this is great for McDonalds, it doe not help the recent college grad who is facing years of student loan repayment.  It send a signal that college is a waste of time and money, ‘because the only people hiring only require a high school diploma and they’re only paying minimum wage.

So, with the population of the United States desperate to get back to work and willing to take jobs that, not only pay less, but to take them without the promise of health benefits or paid vacation even the ability to pay basic necessities such as rent or mortgages, utility bills, or food.  And still, the mantra that these companies want the masses to repeat is “Be happy you’re working.”

In my opinion, at least in America, we should spend a little more on those items that can be bought locally.  Avoid the cheap imports when possible, because their long term cost is far greater than their overall value.  Let’s not allow the corporations play such a big part in our lives and let’s stop giving them all of our money, because totalitarianism does not sound like anything that we should be a party to, but it does sound like the direction in which this country is heading.  Instead of Hilter or Stalin, we are getting corporations, which write most of our legislature these days.

Environment:    When our elected officials will not recognize that we have a disaster, such as the one created in the Gulf of Mexico by BP, which demands more attention than it has received, then how are we ever to recognize Climate Change as inevitability?  One of the greatest arguments against Climate Change naysayer is the tragedy that has occurred in the Gulf of Mexico and the fact that yet another corporation (BP) is getting away with “murder”.  Perhaps murder is too strong of a word to describe the increased number of animal deaths that have occurred in the wake of the Deep Horizon catastrophe.  Maybe the livelihoods that have been irrevocably diminished or eliminated don’t have any grave implications for neither the families directly effected by these losses, nor the country that now has to bear the burden of supporting these families that people like, the Governor of Florida, Rick Scott would claim chose poverty.  To stay on topic however, let’s examine the world objectively.

Environment Anecdotal:        For humanity, planet Earth is mostly a closed system.  What we have on this planet right now is, more than likely, what we had on this planet one hundred, two hundred, a thousand and maybe even 100 thousand years ago.  As, I heard, every drop of water we drink had at some point been filtered through some dinosaurs kidneys and every drop our descendants drink will have met the same fate as well as having been filtered through our kidneys.  Disgusting as this may sound it it true, because Earth does not get a fresh source of water, delivered by Evian from Pluto or any of the ice planets.  All of the water on Earth has been here for millennia and will be here for many more millennia.  The only thing that will change about the water of planet Earth is its quality, which simply put, means, that the more we pollute the less we’ll have to drink.  This whole closed system thing holds true for the air we breathe, so the more air we pollute, the less clean air we’ll have for things such as breathing.  Now, mankind is quite adaptable, but there is a limit to our adaptability.  Perhaps some day, our bodies will be able to utilize carbon dioxide as opposed to oxygen, but maybe that change will take 30 thousand years, while we are changing the atmosphere to match this adaptation in 10 thousand years.  We better be able to hold our breath for a long, long time to clear that gap.

Religion:    I will never divulge my faith, but this does not mean that I don’t believe in any particular religion or that I believe in any particular religion.  It simply is my way of re-establishing the separation of church and state that I believe is necessary to avoid any persecution or promotion of any particular religion.  I feel that one’s religion has blinded people to an individual’s true intent:  Case in point would be how politicians have invoked the name of God, while proclaiming that the poor should not receive assistance, while the rich and wealthy companies should.  Religion, in my opinion, serves to misdirect and should therefore be a private matter that one must reconcile with one’s self, not something to boast about with the public.  A politicians legislation and voting policy should be indicator enough of what they believe.  How they belief structure dictates their actions should not be made cloudy by proclamations of faith.
There was an error in this gadget

I M 2 Traffic Tracker