Better Liberal Arguments

The Days of Gold

2012-03-01T06:24:00.001-08:00

"When there's trouble in the economy I know I can put my trust in gold."

I think gold is great. It is pretty, it never rusts, it's a great conductor, it's easy to meld, weld, and solder. In fact, it's only drawback- its weight, I find appealing. If you don't believe me, find a gold bar, or stack of gold coins to hold, and bounce it up and down in your hand to feel its weight. The super heavy result still surprises me, even though I have handled gold on many occasions. However, the geologist in me fully appreciates a wide range of what scientists call rare Earth metals, and their properties. So it isn't "Gold", to me, it's just gold.

Recent market trends have the price of gold climbing, and as a result, there's a new gold rush on. I can think of at least two television programs based on the process of sluicing. There are literally thousands of groups of people sifting gold out of the Earth as often and for as long as weather will permit, right now. They risk life, limb, friends, and family for the shiny sparkly sand.

What happens when mankind takes to space, where you can find a single asteroid, with one hundred times more gold than has been mined to date, and brings it back here? People are paying over $1500 for something that there is more of every day, and it doesn't deteriorate. If the law of supply and demand applies, the price of gold can not continue to rise indefinitely.

Personally, I like silver. Because it oxidizes, you have to polish it, to keep its luster. So, every day there's a little less of it, and some day in the far far future, it may become very rare or be all gone. Its price also makes it easily attainable. One ounce of gold. would purchase over two pounds of silver. Silver coins also have a familiar ring, when handled together.

Silver or gold, it makes no matter, because these metals aren't really rare, at the moment, at all. With gold, people are hard at work trying to flood the market with it. Every day, there is more gold in the marketplace, yet its price continues to rise. I think there's a market correction coming.

Illegal Tuition

2012-02-23T16:37:00.000-08:00

"I am sick of illegals getting all the benefits, and not paying their fair share."

I was told it takes five years residence to qualify for food stamps. The notion that supports this, is that within that time, the individual would have paid any number of taxes, through sales transactions and property rental or ownership payments to have earned such coverage. The term "illegal" is not descriptive in characterizing what specific social services one has earned.

Taxes are not interchangeable, nor are they collectively part of one big pot. Driver's license fees, inspection, and registration fees go to pay for roads, bridges, and other transportation needs. Hospital and educational programs are funded mainly through property taxes. So paying your fair share of any government service is or should be based on how long you have utilized those sorts of services. Whether or not one paid in-district rates, or in-state rates would have nothing to do with one's status as a citizen, but rather if you were a resident of that district or state, and for how long.

While all of this is true, "illegals" are still missing out on paying the all important income tax. Which is why amnesty is so important, and the part of the conservative stance that makes no sense to me. Clearly there are people in America who don't have a social security number. They failed to wait in line and now find themselves here, not paying their fair share. In my head, the right thing to do is fine them, give them a social security number, and force them to begin paying income tax. Keeping them from becoming legal citizens keeps them from paying only income taxes.

The point here is that illegals pay taxes, and they'd pay more if conservatives allowed them to.

Catholic Health Care

2012-02-14T19:34:00.001-08:00

"We (Catholics) should not be forced to pay for procedures we don't morally believe in."

Was there ever a time when religious people opposed organ, tissue, or blood transplants? Was there ever a time when the church forbid heart transplants, believing that putting one man's heart into another would be akin to a physical possession? I am almost certain that the church was opposed to blood transfusions, at the onset of this scientific miracle. Religions' job is or has been, to stand in the way of scientific progress, based on faith-based belief and tradition.

The problem of course, is that the medical profession is not a belief based system. It is a scientific based world, that demands results, verifiable tests, and careful observation. When something saves lives, then that is what is practiced. In some cases, birth control, or reproductive medicine is indeed a life saving necessity. For any church or religious institution to deny someone medical care, because they personally feel morally conflicted about the procedure is them 'playing God' over someone else's life. Hopefully, society would laugh at someone who would attempt to deny a heart transplant to a patient, because he or she thought it would make the person become someone else. Hearts are organs, not the spirit, or soul of a person, and to deny someone a life saving procedure is the embodiment of "wrong".

Making a medical insurance premium payment does not make you the arbiter of what medical procedures someone else is entitled to. Medical decisions should be made between doctors and patients, not 3rd party peanut gallery attendees dressed in red robes and pointy hats. If an organization is going to offer health insurance, then unless they are members of the American Medical Association, what they believe should not come between health care providers and recipients.

Churchs and religions have been wrong about medicine in every case for the entire history of mankind, so why are democrats still giving way to traditional faith based beliefs, within medical decisions? What was evil yesterday, and an unthinkable act, is now today a common practice that saves lives.

Democrats, for the love of life saving medicine, stop letting religions set health care policy!

Thank You

2012-02-01T20:08:00.000-08:00

I would like to offer my sincere gratitude to everyone who offered my potential campaign their donations, support, and well wishes.

Sadly, the afore mentioned goal was not reached, so I will not be making a congressional run this election cycle.

All donations made through paypal have been denied, and all the cash donations will be in the mail, and on the way back to their respective donors, by week's end.

Your generosity, well wishes, and supportive outreach is the most heartwarming thing I've experienced in quite a while. You have all made a real difference in my world and my perception of those in it.

From the bottom of my heart, "Thank You". If ever, there is anything I can do to help, support, or aid you in your endeavors, please don't hesitate to ask. For all of you now have a friend, in me.

This Blog has re-opened in support of the Occupy Wall St. Protests

2011-09-02T10:12:00.000-07:00

Please feel free to peruse the past entries at your leisure, now.

I wish all of you well.

---

Here's what I found when I visited the Occupy Dallas camp site:

This is the End...

2011-08-04T12:03:00.000-07:00

Money runs our everything,

from when we work to when we sing.

Now I'm not talking about coins and bills,

but'bout mountian money with all the frills.

These people get politicians elected time and again,

we bitch and complain and then vote just the same.

Over and over don'tcha know, over and over it's the same old show.

we get the government we deserve, that's the truth to know.

Get rich or get ruled, that's the game.

Kings, aristocrats, banking execs, CEO's...they're all the same.

Money decides and money does, this is how it always was.

Our only out is to stop what we do, stop falling back, and try something new.

We gotta stop being consumer prey,

See what they do, care not what they say.

Over and over don'tcha know, over and over it's the same old show.

we get the government we deserve, that's the truth to know.

Real Default Consequences

2011-07-28T11:18:00.000-07:00

"Don't raise the debt limit, defaulting will teach us a good lesson."

Defaulting on debt is not an unheard of thing for the U.S. Treasury. In 1979, the U.S. failed to make timely payments to all its bondholders. The result was not unlike what would happen if any of us failed to make the minimum amount due to any of your credit cards or other debts. If you miss one payment, the interest rates on all your loans goes up. This is because interest rates are set by a creditor's perceived ability to repay the debt at hand. Missing only a single payment is often enough to downgrade a credit score, for a very long time.

The previous U.S. Treasury default was over a mere $120 million dollars, and occurred in the middle of a debt ceiling debate, similar to the one occurring now. Even though the Treasury had some $800 billion outstanding at the time, the amount actually defaulted on was a very small proportion of the debt. At issue was the fact, that a few checks just didn't get written and sent out, due to bookkeeping and or computer problems, and this caused the federal interest rate to rise by .6%. This raised interest rate was not applied only to the $120 million that was defaulted on, but rather to the entire debt at the time, which was close to a trillion dollars. So, missing the $120 million in payments to bond holders cost the Treasury alone about $6 billion in increased interest.

The debt limit was eventually increased and the U.S. was then able to meet its following obligations, but even after 6 months of paying our bills in full, the interest rate was not decreased.

With a current debt of $14.5 trillion, a tiny rate increase of .6% would add an additional $87 billion to the interest we are already paying. Add to that, that the interest rates of all American debt, both private and public, would go up, further weakening an already unstable market and further tightening the loan industry's purse strings.

It is 30 years later, and the Congressional Freshmen brought into office by the Tea Party want no part of raising the debt limit. They are urging their Republican brethren to stand their ground and refuse to raise the debt limit, and demand that we cut spending, while at the same time refuse any notion of increasing taxes. The consequences of another U.S. default are both real and unrealized by the Tea Party.

Defaulting on our debt has in the past, and will most certainly in the future, cost Americans greatly. Sadly the Tea Party's history books, don't include past Treasury defaults and its effect on the debt and its interest rate.

The End of the Shuttle Program

2011-07-21T09:22:00.000-07:00

"We should stop wasting money on manned space flight."

As a child of the 70's, the Space Shuttle was the only space craft I saw in operation. The movie "Space Camp" spawned my short lived 'wanting to be an astronaut' fantasy, wherein a group of camp kids get a free ride into space when they are aboard, when the Shuttle accidentally launches. The notion of someday looking down upon the Earth from heaven was and still is very appealing to me.

Within a short period of that I witnessed the Shuttle Challenger explode shortly after launch. Even at the age of 10, I understood that the Shuttle's launch was performed in stages. So when there was an explosion well before the solid rocket boosters were set to detach, I knew something was seriously wrong. While there were reports that some cheered unknowingly at the explosion, I feared the worst. The reality of how dangerous space travel truly is was made plainly clear, as the reporter described the scene as a "...major malfunction."

Less than 20 years later, I would witness another Shuttle come apart during re-entry, as Columbia's heat shield failed to protect the astronauts from the temperatures closing in on 3000 degrees. As with the Challenger, I knew immediately that all those aboard had perished. Space flight is dangerous, as humans have suffered losses in both flight operations and training procedures. The Shuttle was intended to ferry men back and forth into orbit, like our own space taxi, but re-ready procedures proved both lengthy and costly.

Shuttle Atlantis just touched down, for it's last official mission, bringing an end to the program. Shuttles Discovery and Endeavor had already been decommissioned and the hangared strip down process had begun. While Shuttle Enterprise never made it into space, it will be displayed as a museum piece soon. With these ends, so follows our immediate progress into the great unknown. There was a time when man sought to expand his frontiers, with an unbridled enthusiasm. Where has that spirit gone?

Have we lost the notion of how important it is to make our world bigger, our technology more capable, and our reach further? We will now rely on the Russians for space-service. If it was a marathon, I guess the Russians finally won the space race. It is no wonder, we can't even adopt the advance green technologies or solar panel or wind turbines. We have stopped leading the world, in anything but military endeavors.

Debt Ceiling Negotiations

2011-07-14T05:43:00.000-07:00

"There are no tax increases of any kind, on the table."

Our country is in debt, and our yearly expenditures exceed the total tax revenue collected. One party doesn't want to raise taxes, or the debt limit, and seeks to cut federal spending to eliminate the deficit, but has no plans on how to recover from the debt. The other party is willing to cut some federal spending, in order to get a debt limit increase, and some new tax revenue, but also has no plans to solve the debt. The curious aspect is that BOTH parties are willing to cut funding to both Social Security and Medicare, to attack the deficit. I always thought one party was different than the other, in that it was supposed to stand up for protecting entitlement programs and responsible tax rates?

In order to merely pay our bills, liberals are willing to provide less health care and means on which to live to those who can least afford to provide for themselves. The only conclusion one can draw from this, is that liberalism is taking on new meaning or the the Democratic party is now conservative. How is it progressive to tell grandma that she gets a few less medical check-ups this year, and that she now will certainly be deciding between food and that prescription medication? Why aren't we standing up to say, "No, no, NO. We ARE going to meet our obligations to our fellow citizens. We ARE going to pay our bills on time, and we ARE going to raise taxes to do so." Surely there's one party is willing to step forward and say that we should meet our financial obligations head-on in a fully responsible manner?

The latest offering by Senatorial Republicans is to simply give President Obama authority to raise the debt limit unilaterally. This measure is intended to take their fingerprints off the matter, so they can go back to their voters and claim, "I didn't raise the debt limit, the President did!" Which I find ironic, because according to the Constitution, the President could have declared the debt limit entirely unconstitutional, and just raised it all by himself. When that notion was floated, Republicans bristled and claimed such efforts, a "silly notion".

In the end, neither party is willing to say that anyone is entitled to current entitlements, both are willing to cut from those who can least afford to sacrifice any more. One expects Republicans to quash compassion, but why are liberals now wearing the same hat, touting the same garbage?

Could it be that both parties are controlled by big money, and that neither has the middle class in mind?

Overzealous Prosecutions

2011-07-07T20:23:00.000-07:00

"That witch killed her kid, she's gotta die."

And this is how people get both longer sentences than they truly deserve and how some guilty are allowed to go free. With Casey Anthony, the prosecution 'thought' they could prove murder one, and because of that mistake, someone responsible for the death of her own child, will end up spending less than 5 years in prison.

Casey is now protected by double jeopardy, and can not be retried on lesser charges, for the same crime.

The problem of course is our appetite for revenge. A child is dead, and the mother had something to do with it. After that story hits the news, constituents start screaming for blood. Rather than follow where the evidence leads, prosecutors here allowed screaming mob obnoxious talk show hosts to set the agenda. Had the prosecutor went with a less charge, he would have been accused of being soft on crime. In the end, we are still Rome, and those in attendance at the Colosseum, still want blood for blood.

In this instance justice was served because jurors were unable or unwilling to arrive at the prosecutors' position. Believe it or not, the worse outcome would have been a finding of guilt, without a reasonable doubt. Now, conservatives are all up in arms, because a child killer will end up walking after merely a few more months behind bars.

If only prosecutors weren't elected based on their 'perceived' stance on crime... If only talk show hosts didn't whip listeners and viewers into frothing frenzies, over allegations and accusations, but merely reported on JURY's 'findings'... If ONLY the media treated people like 'innocent' civilians, UNTIL they are found guilty in a court of law.

If only...

Gay Marriage Attacks?

2011-06-30T05:11:00.000-07:00

"A marriage, as my religion defines, is between a man and a woman."

So, why is the government involved in the affairs of religion? The government shouldn't be issuing marriage licenses, at all. What the government should do is issue Civil Union Licenses, which would allow couples to share resources, grant access to each other in emergency situations, and any other thing afforded legal couples in America. Then you could take that license to whatever church you'd like and have it sanctified or blessed with a ceremony of some kind, so that it a recognized 'marriage'.

I'd have no problem with a church deciding which licenses to sanctify, and which ones it wouldn't. There are already some churches willing to bless same sex unions, so if you don't like a religion's doctrine, you can shop elsewhere. In the same respect, I don't think anyone should be able to force a church or religion to bless every union they are presented with.

What I've never understood is how allowing homosexual couples to share their lives with one another, is an attack on traditional marriage? The only way I can interpret this action is they, those who oppose gay marriage, are attacking someone's lifestyle by denying them equal protection under the law. Moreover, these attackers are claiming to be victims, and no one is calling them on it. They are claiming they want to "protect" traditional marriage, but from what, exactly? Moreover why do they find the need to deny people civil rights, to protect theirs?

Why liberals are so bad at branding, and how conservatives get away with blatant misbranding, is beyond dumbfounding to me. The problem with democrats is that they are on the average more passive, and not forceful with their agendas or arguments. They sit back and allow the opposition to set the stage and lighting, and even give stage directions.

Not only are we allowing the other side to run the show, but we haven't even offered a clear Constitutional compromise- a Civil Unions Law, that recognizes all unions equally without prejudices. We should leave it to churches to sanctify those unions as marriages, and end this debate once and for all.

Community Activism

2011-06-23T05:50:00.000-07:00

"People need to take more individual responsibility."

I stand on the other side of that fence, where people believe that 'individualism' is a relic of state of nature, and that we left that state in order to form this more perfect union. Conservatives will rail on and on about how, if people would just be more independent, and wasn't so dependent on government, that everything would be just fine. Civilized people a long time ago abandoned that concept, because they realized that this is a united we stand and divided we fall world, that we live in.

This weekend, my hometown suffered a severe wind storm, that left power-lines and trees strewn about, and most of the town without power. Rather than each individual taking care of his or her own property damage, I saw a community become one super-efficient tree debris clearing machine. It didn't matter if you didn't personally own a chain saw, flatbed trailer, or a tree shredder, if you had limbs down in your yard it was mostly cleared by the end of the day. There was no need for someone without any of those tools or the ability, to lift logs that weighed hundreds of pounds or worry about hiring a tree clearing service, because with the whole town's resources combined, there was all of the personnel and equipment we needed at arm's length.

It was easily one of the most impressive sights I have ever seen. Without electricity, burdened by heat and humidity, those who had the means and ability, helped those who didn't. They did so without chastising those not doing as much, with less. No one required the disabled or elderly to brave the clutter, and if you didn't own a chainsaw you weren't required to 'rent' one from your neighbor. Without elongated thought or consideration, and without instructions or orders, people realized that there was something that needed to be done, so those who could, banded together and got the job done.

It was the best example of liberalism that one could demonstrate. Had conservatism won the day, half of the town would still be waiting for private contractors to clear the roads, people's yards, and local market areas. Thankfully, individualism had no place here, this weekend. People accepted the notion of community and outreach without hesitation, and we are now the better for it.

Misplaced Conservative Activism

2011-06-16T20:53:00.000-07:00

"We are against regulation."

So, that means here in Texas, you can buy as much land and the mineral and water rights to it as you want, and basically do what ever the hell you damn well please, with it. There's literally no limit to how much water you can draw from the underground aquifer, even if it causes all your neighbors' wells to go dry. If you want to start a hog farm so big that it taints the entire water shed, have at it! Texas is a Republican State, and when election time rolls round, Texas is "red" indicating our Conservative voting nature.

Tonight, I attended a local information dispatching gathering, where a group of local land owners were voicing concern over a well known energy company setting up shop, to mine and distribute fracking sand. They were concerned that released particulates could cause health problems, and most importantly that once fully operational, the processing plant would consume some 3,700 gallons of water EVERY minute... In fact, total estimated usage would easily surpass all current local municipalities' use combined.

The presenters of the information were clearly liberal activists, well versed in corporate tactics, and offered those in attendance good contact information to offer some stumbling blocks for the incoming sand mining company. However, I left with little hope that anything could ultimately be done to stop the operation from continuing forward.

The reason is that those in attendance tonight have all voted for Republican, for a long time. They voted to ALLOW people to rape and pillage the land and our natural resources. If we had proper oversight and regulations, there should be nothing wrong with any business moving in and setting up shop. Those in attendance were mostly old wealthy land owners, who don't want to see another large industry move into their countryside landscape. The irony is that these people are the same ones who would decry the E.P.A., as tree huggers who need to get out of businesses way to create jobs.

Now they are upset that a business is going to move in, suck the place dry, and leave a fine powder over everything. Well, of course "Enron" is going to do this, that's what energy companies do. They identify a natural resource, then they go in and exploit that resource. A strong E.P.A. and rigorous oversight is our only check against corporate greed and their willingness to destroy our world for a buck.

I just wish Conservatives understood that corporations don't care about them, and tree hugging progressive liberals, who want meaningful regulation, are looking out for everyone.

A Progressive Plan Forward

2011-06-09T05:24:00.000-07:00

"Democrats don't have a plan, to create jobs."

We don't. There is no massive relief plan, who's purpose it is to direct America's potential, its market forces, and indeed its people. America doesn't have a plan for future greatness. We are in a financially unstable period, and we've already tried tax cuts, and stimulus packages, to what result? We have an unemployment rate of around 9%, but actual under-employment, combining those who are working part-time and those who have stopped looking for work altogether, well that number is +20%.

So, with so many unemployed or under-employed what is the plan?

There isn't one, or at least liberals are utterly failing to deliver, mention, or otherwise indicate that there is. The Republicans' seem to think that the cure all is "more tax cuts", that people need to be able to keep more of their money, as though 'individuals' would use their personal wealth to repave roads, repair bridges, or build the transportation system of tomorrow. The really rich people in this country mostly just put their names on planes, helicopters, and buses, and travel around telling people how great they are.

So, my "progressive" plan is to update our rail transportation infrastructure, to build a high speed rail system, powered by renewable energy sources, that is earthquake resistant, and tornado proof. We should be able to load both people and vehicles onto it, and it should showcase the American landscape. This high speed rail system should have at it's core, a basic building principle of 'sustainability'. It must be designed to support itself.

Of course, this means that we are going to have to raise taxes. We have to make and win the argument that we need to invest in America again. Individual wealth does not help 'us'. Revenues are down, raising taxes is the only way to gather funds necessary to both repair and improve our the very systems we depend on.

SWAT Kills Marine in His Home

2011-06-02T05:10:00.000-07:00

"SWAT was returning fire."

That is what the first official press release said anyway, about a search warrant being served on United States Marine LCpl. Jose Guerena, by SWAT Officers, while he slept. 54 seconds later, he was bleeding out through 60 bullet holes. Then it would then take an hour for SWAT to allow paramedics access to him, to confirm his death.

The second story released by Pima County Officials was that the point SWAT man 'fell' backwards, and they thought he had been hit, so they opened fire.

Most recent, is a 54 second video that clearly features a siren sound for about 8-9 seconds, a team of SWAT officers standing at a front door, there's some muffled yelling, and banging on the door, then a breach of the door. Once it swings fully open, a full 5 seconds elapses, then the SWAT team opens fire on the Marine, missing 11 out of 71 shots fired.

The question is what did this two tour combat hardened Marine actually DO to cause the SWAT team to open fire?

Well, for starters, he was asleep at 9:30 A.M. when the raid began, as he had just finished working a night shift. He awoke to his wife saying, I think someone is trying to break-in the front door. By this time, there are no more sirens, and SWAT is at his front door. At this point, it is important to note that some of the Marine's extended family members had suffered a break-in about a year prior, in their home at a different location, and had all been shot and killed. With potentially armed intruders at his doorstep, the Marine's training took over.

If you wake up a sleeping Marine, and tell him someone is trying to invade his perimeter, he will grab his weapon, shoulder it, train his sights on the point he expects to receive hostile forces from, and make his weapon ready to fire. Upon SEEING the targets he will take aim and begin firing, IF the Marine concludes they are indeed hostile forces. That the door was open for a full 5 seconds is evidence that the Marine did NOT perceive a threat. Further investigation found that not only had the Marine NOT fired a single round, but his weapon was safetied. So, upon SEEING Uniformed SWAT Officers, the Marine did exactly as his training dictated. He put his weapon on safety, disengaged the target, and probably raised his weapon and hands and began to make himself visible.

SWAT Officers opened fire on a Marine actively surrendering... We know this is what happened, because these are the actions the Marine's training would dictate.

As the Marine laid bleeding to death, this same SWAT team barred medical personnel from administering first aid for the length of an hour.

Mistakes within this operation by law enforcement occurred at each and every level, with each and every step, and sealed the fate of a law abiding citizen and Marine Vet, who had no history of criminal behavior, and possessed nothing illegal on his person or in his home.

Marine LCpl. Jose Guerena is dead today, his wife a widow, and his children left fatherless, because law enforcement officials failed to serve and protect him.

Tornado Proofing

2011-05-26T06:37:00.000-07:00

"Government shouldn't tell people how they can build a house."

Recent tornado destruction had me wondering why progressives can't use these events to raise building standards. At the very least, shouldn't the government provide public storm shelters, to give those in the path some refuge.

We are spending billions each month to 'protect' Americans from terrorists. Care to guess how much we spend on protecting us from weather? The National Weather Service receives exactly .03% of the budget or around $800 million, while NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) operates on $5.5 billion each year or .19% of the budget. Why is it surprising that hundreds of people die every year from 'bad storms'.

Tornados are not going away, in fact they appear to be on the rise. As good stewards of our union, we should take steps to fix what is clearly broken in these senseless deaths and injuries. Sirens that sound occasionally when there may, or may not be, tornado activity, is not working as adequate tornado protection.

In my hometown, warning sirens have sounded twice this year, and we've had exactly zero tornados. This happens so often that sirens send people outside, to see what going on for themselves. In Tuscaloosa people did not take cover when the warning sirens sounded, as in Joplin, for the very same reason I stated here in my town. Sirens are often sounded without cause. When you tell citizens that warning sirens mean, "a tornado has been spotted, take cover now", then no tornado occurs, you have 'Cried Wolf'.

If we are going to protect people from bad weather, we are going to have to develop more reliable warning systems and employ them properly. We are going to have to raise building standards, and we are going to have to provide some sort of public shelter facilities, nationwide. Tornados are no longer only inside Tornado Alley.

No Freedom From Religion (*Edited)

2011-05-13T13:27:00.000-07:00

"The federal government has no place telling schools, municipalities, or States what religious ceremonies or monuments they can sponsor."

What the First Amendment actually says is, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The First Amendment states that 'Congress' shall not, but it goes on to say that it can not prohibit the free exercise thereof, when it comes to religion.

The struggle here is between what the federal government can't do, and what it can't stop us from doing. If a city wants to make Islam the official religion, so long as a majority of the citizens agree with the decision, Congress isn't supposed to be able to stop such an endeavor, according to the First Amendment. So, suits against Nativity Scenes on a Court House lawns, that weren't placed by Congress, should be thrown out, according to the First Amendment.

If the power or authority isn't enumerated as belonging to Congress, then it falls to the States and Municipalities themselves to decide. There is literally no separation of church and state issue to be found in the First Amendment.

As long as Congress was not making the establishment directly, I think a State could well do so itself, and even enact a State Religion and make State Holidays. Certainly, according to the First Amendment, no prohibition of religious statues or monuments on or in schools, court house lawns, or council halls. These issues should be decided by locally 'elected' officials. So long as they act as good representatives of their electorate then they should remain in office, and any such ordinances they issue upon this, stand a First Amendment Constitutional challenge.

Within only the bounds of the First Amendment, the People, not the federal government get to decide what, if any religious monuments or ceremonies take place on publicly owned land or buildings. If that means school prayer, religious monuments, of ANY nature anyone chooses. The right to the "free exercise thereof" is an absolute right, meaning it is explicitly stated, as belonging to the individual not to states.

UNTIL THE XIV AMENDMENT, that is...

Wherein you find that, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Hereby the Constitution clearly limits the states' ability to infringe upon citizens with anything that would deprive them of freedoms and their protected rights.

While not found in the Bill of Rights, there ARE Constitutional protections for citizens against state sponsored religion.

So, while there is no separation of church and state claus to be found in the Bill of Rights, there are Constitutional protections that extend from the Fourteenth Amendment to those who don't wish to have state religion or religious iconography funded with their money.

President Obama Gets Osama

2011-05-05T07:05:00.000-07:00

"I don't care dead or alive... I don't know if we are going to get him today, tomorrow or a year from now, but we are going to get him!"

President G.W. Bush said that shortly after the 9-11 attacks. Years later he would say "Bin Laden isn't important." When faced with the opportunity to kill or capture bin Laden at Tora Bora, President Bush instead had intelligence and military planning resources transferred to begin planning the next war in Iraq. This refocus on Iraq and Saddam Hussein allowed Osama bin Laden to escape. So, President Bush failed to stop the attacks of 9-11, then failed to kill or capture America's #1 enemy. In fact, President Bush failed in every way you could fail in a War on Terror.

President Obama on the other hand, took the exact opposite course. Upon arrival into office, the President made the capture of Osama bin Laden the C.I.A.'s number one priority. These actions led to doing in 2 years what President Bush could not do in 8. Clearly, no one can now doubt the resolve in our President's stand on defense?

To which, I must now give due respect to one Rush Limbaugh, who said things of our President I would never have imagined possible. Unabashed praise and even thanks unto God, for him. Well done, sir. I hope this event and the corresponding actions of our President give our nation the strength and courage to move forward in a bold fresh manner. Let us now unite as Americans once again, all striving toward a single cause.

Let the days of strict partisanship be done, and have us usher in the real days of hope and change, leaving behind us the days of Conservative 'government is the problem' type of thinking. Once America sets it mind to do something, there is nothing that can stop us.

It would seem that the moment of unity is passing us by, and politics has taken over, as discussion of the 'bin Laden bump' fills the airways. Some have turned this event into President Obama's re-election guarantee.

Rather than embrace this event as a 'win' for America, some liberals have decried the event as an assassination and chastised those who have and are celebrating the action. Our leader made the decision not to bomb the compound that could have been harboring the most wanted man on the planet, and instead chose to send in "Seal Team 6" to end THE terrorist threat against America. Osama bin Laden is over, and for this all Americans should be thankful, and moreover appreciative to our President Barrack Obama and 'his' decision not to bomb from afar, but to use ground troops to insure there would be no escape for a man plotting daily to harm Americans.

Let there be no doubt, that President Obama is STRONG on defense.

Rising Gas Prices

2011-04-28T04:42:00.000-07:00

"President Obama isn't doing enough to lower gas prices."

The truth of the matter is that gas prices aren't high enough for Americans to be willing to take any real steps to change them. Let's face it, if gas prices were a real problem, we would outlaw gasoline-powered racing. We'd heavily tax the most inefficient vehicles, or make them illegal. We would institute higher gas milage standards for new vehicles, or we would take serious steps to replace gasoline-powered cars entirely with electric ones.

NO ONE has mentioned doing anything like this. In fact, if the President were to take drastic steps like the ones outlined, he'd be attacked and accused of interfering with the free market.

Interestingly, a look at our free market reveals that there are factors at work herein, that are anything but free. Oil production is up, while actual gas usage is down. So, we have high supplies and low demand, yet prices are still climbing. Why?

The answer in a word is "speculators"- those who purchase gas not to consume, but to hold, in hopes that prices will continue to go up. Such speculation is fear driven, and ignores actual market place consumption. Unrest in the middle east isn't a new thing, and the current turmoil hasn't represented any serious interruption in crude oil supplies, and refineries are operating at around 80% capacity. So, there is a sincere disconnect between supplies, demand, and pump prices.

The really sad thing is that unless gas prices get much much higher, there will be no political will to take serious steps to fix this problem. The only real solution to high gas prices is much higher gas prices than the $4.25 per gallon we saw under President Bush. In order for America to take rising gas prices seriously, we are going to need to see $6 per gallon, or possibly more.

Until marketplace consumption and real demand take the place of speculative pricing, we will continue to see fuel prices completely disconnected from actual usage.

Is Tornado Alley Moving?

2011-04-21T13:25:00.000-07:00

"Climate change is an unproven science."

Admittedly, I am a tree hugging progressive, attempting to garden my way into a greener world, and encourage others to do so, as well. I have always tried to be connected to the land on which I lived, trying to grow whatever I can where ever I live. When there is good growing weather, predictable patterns, I can get my crop(s) in safely. In my youth, I was told that living in north Texas meant that we were right in the middle of "Tornado Alley", which continued up into Oklahoma, Kansas, and Nebraska. Most of the tornados occurred in this area.

There was a tornado in Vermont last year. Tornados east of the Mississippi were once a rare thing, but not anymore. Just a few days ago tornados killed 45 people in North Carolina. The weather is becoming more unpredictable.

As tornados march east, the lack of rain and humidity have left western states like Texas in a tinder-box condition, resulting in over 1 million acres burned by wildfires. With over 125,000 acres burning at once, several reporters described Texas as burning from border to border.

While easterly tornados and western wildfires are not unheard of, both are occurring on a more regular basis and with greater intensities. Granted, these observations are anecdotal and based on a period of only 30 years, but when one addresses even broader historical data, the same inferences are drawn.

Our climate is changing, this is not in question. Whether or not this change is caused by our own hands, or is simply part of our planet's natural process, might be. Given that the global market has seen no indisputable proof that it is man-made, all broad sweeping efforts to alter made-man CO2 emissions standards were halted or outrightly discarded. So, if our world is changing again, and there is nothing we are doing to cause the change, nor anything we are willing to do to avert the change...then expect to see drought areas get wider, while some storms in other areas get more severe.

The Earth's climate is changing, and we are ushering it forward.

No More Tax & Spend

2011-04-13T23:34:00.000-07:00

"We have to start tackling our debt."

With this I agree with Republicans. Our debt needs serious attention, and the sooner we start making serious payments, the sooner American Stock, the U.S. Dollar, will go up.

We should raise a debt tax, the sole function of which would be, to pay down our debt. Rather than include this new tax in or as part of the general revenue, like we did with social security, ALL of the revenue collected is to be applied solely to the national debt. Instead of being 'tax & spend liberals', we can be 'tax & PAY DOWN the debt progressives'.

Rather than waiting for after the re-election, we should run on 'responsible tax rates', in regards to debt payment. We can win the middle if we demonstrate real responsible stewardship over an economy that sees both job growth, and the increase in the value of a dollar.

Cuts in spending to offset deficits should be met with increases in taxes to pay off long overdue debt. That Republicans managed to threaten a government shutdown, and get over $70 billion in spending cuts, while Democrats only managed to save Planned Parenthood and ZERO tax increases is simply mind blowing. This shutdown aversion was a missed learning opportunity, as far as I am concerned. People need to understand that taxes and services are directly proportionate.

Raising tax to pay down the debt will do two things, first it will show voters how truly detached Conservatives are from fiscally sound policy, but more importantly it will raise the value of the American Dollar, providing us with more spending power, further stimulating the economy.

Democrats need to start talking about the benefits behind raising taxes, and showing how we can raise taxes while at the same time stimulate economic growth.

Above all, Democrats and Progressive Liberals alike, need to make better arguments about raising taxes.

Shut It Down

2011-03-31T06:25:00.000-07:00

"...'time is up', no more short term funding bills to avert a government shutdown."

I for one, hope the GOP follows through with this threat. Moreover, I hope that Democrats will stand firm on not allowing cuts to essential services. In the end, I hope all this leads to a shutdown of the federal government.

Far too many Americans have or are taking our government for granted. Especially among Republican voters, and or those who hold the Tea Party in such high esteem. "We need less government!", they exclaim. Let them sit with only 'essential services' operating and see how that works out. Our infrastructure is crumbling beneath us, everything from roads and bridges to our power grids and our waste and water delivery systems.

So as America collapses and degrades before our eyes, we are engaged in now 3 wars in 3 different countries, and Republicans are toying with the idea of shutting down the federal government. I say "Let'em!"

We need a healthy dose of what our government does around us, and where your tax dollars are spent. As a nation, we have to be made aware that taxes equal services. Tax cuts have led to shortfalls, and given these cuts didn't 'stimulate' the economy as intended, there were even greater revenue shortfalls. Now, Conservatives want to cut services, to cover the deficit.

What Democrats need to do is allow Republicans to get what they are asking for, and then just sit back wait for the public backlash.

The problem is Americans haven't felt the sting of underfunding government, because we've been offered tax cuts, while we ran deficits. We simply haven't felt the years of our underfunding government.

Well, we need to. Shut it down, we have a lesson to learn.

Nuclear vs. Solar

2011-03-24T11:01:00.000-07:00

"Nuclear energy is safe."

Unless you put nuclear plants near earthquake prone areas that are also susceptible to tsunamis. Additionally, there is the having to deal with the waste produced by the nuclear fusion process. Spent energy rods tend to need a place far away from humans for about a quarter of a million years so, there's that. Worst case scenario in a nuclear power plant is the cooling systems fail, the plant melts down making the area within a 20 mile radius inhabitable, while releasing tons of radioactive material into the atmosphere, and killing tens of thousands with cancer.

Solar energy on the other hand does not require the same production footprint. While there are waste products created in the construction of solar panels, and fossil fuels consumed to create them, once completed, solar energy produces no emissions. The worst case scenario is a newer more efficient one is developed, and you have to toss the old one in a land fill.

The difference between the two is efficiency. A small nuclear power plant can power over 25,000 homes. To produce that amount of energy you'd need around a million solar panels, or around 30 to 40 per house. The real difference is that nuclear power plants work all day and all night, while solar power only works its best during clear sunny days.

So, while solar panels have never killed anyone, they aren't washing the market clean of other energy sources. Even though solar energy is ambient, meaning that it is just sitting out there, most of it is still just sitting there waiting to be collected and employed. One doesn't even need solar cells to collect it, a series of mirrors all aimed at the boiling pot of a steam engine will produce usable clean energy.

Rather than fully employ a rather benign energy source that is all around us, it is cheaper to attempt to control a nuclear reaction. $9,000 per kwh for solar and we kill no one vs. $1,500 per kwh for nuclear, and we could possibly destroy 100 sq miles for decades and kill tens of thousands of people... which seems more reasonable?

We need energy, because we are a consumption nation. So let's invest in energy sources that won't kill us, and we don't have to kill anyone for... Rather than create a process we can't 'always' control, that makes waste that remains toxic for millennia, why not just fully employ what is all around us and is perfectly safe?

Raising Taxes to Save Money

2011-03-16T06:57:00.000-07:00

"Government is the problem, not the solution."

At present, this is true. The reason is that Conservative Republicans are actively undermining government initiatives, then crowing about how inefficient it is.

Allow me to present an example. A Democrat proposes the building of a highway, and estimates cost to be $1 million. It is proposed that taxes should be 'raised' to increase revenue, by 2%, to fund the project. Republicans claim that this increase will slow economic growth, so they only agree to a 1% increase, resulting is less revenue in which to fund the project. The result is the highway is paved only partially, then Conservatives say, "Look how inefficient government is, they can't even properly pave a road!"

I'd like to argue that we should go the other way. What if government could provide better or ideal services, and still save taxpayers money, all by raising taxes?

Skeptical? Allow me to explain...

Government should take over the entire insurance sector. Instead of paying bloated premiums to for-profit private insurance agencies that are legally allowed to discriminate, you pay 'part' of that money as higher taxes. Without the need to turn a profit, advertise, or pay high salaried executives and board members, government could offer you more delivered claims for lower prices.

Insurance companies don't produce anything. They simply collect, hold, and distribute money, while keeping some for itself. That sounds like exactly what government was designed to do. Insurance companies are legally allowed to discriminate to set premiums, then legally allowed to deny claims, and lobby for broader ability to do so. Why?

Why not allow government non-profit agencies to do a better job, while costing less?

Raising taxes could save money while offering better services. The savings of which, would further stimulate economy growth, all by offering full coverage government.

Supporting Democratic Revolutions

2011-03-10T08:37:00.000-08:00

"Gaddafi is a brutal killer and Libya – not to mention the world – would be better off if he were out of power."

Sarah Palin is right, we should be helping and publicly supporting those in Libya who are fighting to oust Gaggafi. Although, I don't think that the institution of a no-fly zone is enough. Were I President, I'd be sending in covert operatives to help organize and arm rebels actively fighting Gaddafi forces.

The other thing we should be doing as a freedom-loving democratic nation is calling for the U.N., N.A.T.O., and any other international organization to take direct action against Gaddafi, and assist those struggling against him.

America's problem is that we don't really support freedom and democracy, beyond our borders, in a consistent reliable manner. In fact, our government has allies and long standing relationships with unelected dictators, repressive monarchies, and not so democratic leaders. We tolerate these nations' actions because we get something, usually oil, from such outlets. Saudi Arabia one of our biggest crude contributers is not a democracy, or republic of any kind. Yet, this royal family has been the honored guest of more than one U.S. President, and our ally.

We support what is in our economic interest to support, if that's a democracy, great. If it's a repressive monarchy, oh well...

We live in a complicated world, but what shouldn't be complicated is saving people from being murdered by a violent dictator, bent on staying in power by killing civilians until everyone gets back into line. One of the reasons we went into Iraq was to stop Saddam Hussein from his oppression of Iraqis, and his people weren't even actively complaining or actively protesting.

All that said, even if our economic needs keep us from taking principled public stands, we should be taking covert steps to organize, arm, and train democratic rebellions.

Allowing Gaddafi to maintain control over Libya is entirely unacceptable.

Union Busting

2011-03-03T06:23:00.000-08:00

"Public workers shouldn't be allowed to Unionize."

That's right, Republicans do not believe that Teachers, Firemen, and the Police, or any other public sector workers deserve the right to join Unions, and collectively bargain for wages and benefits. The people who educate our youth, protect and serve you and your home, DON'T deserve to decide among themselves how much money they make? How did that argument win the day?

The recent economic downturn has indeed seen a drop in tax revenues collected, and it would be and is wise for Unions to realize that we all need to sacrifice, which they have. Wisconsin's and other Unions have accepted cuts in pay, reduced pension benefits, and agreed to pay in more for their health benefits. They fully accepted the reductions, cuts, and increases in benefits dues. This wasn't enough for Conservatives, however. Because they managed to elect some overwhelming majorities, Republicans see this as an opportunity to strip Unions of all their collective bargaining power.

Were I a Union boss, I'd be preparing everyone for a nation-wide walk out. Republicans and by extension those who voted them into office, need to appreciate the work Teachers, Firemen, Police, and other public sector workers do for the United States and Americans. What voters need is a huge dose of the reality of underfunding public works.

Taxpayers seem completely removed from the rate of taxes they pay, and level of services they receive. This is because we have been operating on deficits for over a decade. Our current tax rate isn't paying the bills. It is not enough to pay for our military efforts, or even the general maintenance on our degraded infrastructure, and those charged with molding our future and protecting our livelihood are willing to take a pay cut...but this still isn't enough for Conservative Republicans.

I say we let Republicans try to enact ALL their policies. Let them drive Unions away from the bargaining table, and allow things to really fall apart. People need to understand what happens when you don't fully fund a working government that can respond to all of its citizens' needs.

People deserve to know what collective bargaining really means.

Internet Revolutions

2011-02-24T07:42:00.000-08:00

"Technology doesn't really change the world."

It took a while, but the Internet is connecting the world in ways its creators could only have dreamt of. People living literally under brutal dictatorships are using "Facebook" and other social networking sites, to foment and incite outright Revolution. This digital age is freeing people, and the world may never again be the same.

Egypt is now under military control, but only because the people of Egypt have successfully ousted Mubarak. Libya's Maummar Gaddafi is now facing the same fate. The people Libya, despite being shot at with military jets, stand united to demand free democratic elections. There is now an online petition to begin revolts in Saudi Arabia, but I predict that, that will be a tougher freedom-nut to crack.

Questions have arisen from Conservative talking heads, as to why President Obama isn't speaking up or doing more to support these endeavors. While I'd like to see the President be more outspoken in these regards, I think it is equally strong, to sit back and watch freedom and revolution create democratic nations without expanding U.S. military forces. President G.W. Bush spent billions overthrowing Saddam Hussein, when all we needed to do was send them a bunch of laptops and mobile internet devices.

Given any opportunity to speak out, be heard, and unite with others yearning for freedom, people will do it. You don't need guns, knives, bomb, or bullets. The pen, or in this case the keyboard, is mightier than the sword, I mean jet fighters...

The Internet is finally now beginning to help people achieve real freedom. So, let's invest in global WiFi, rather than another aircraft carrier. Wars cost more than websites.

Educational Spending and Ranked Results

2011-02-17T08:37:00.000-08:00

"We spend too much money on education administration."

On the contrary, we rank 37th in the world, in percentage of GDP spent on education. The result is that our students are well behind the rest of the world in both performance and ability. In fact, depending on which website you look at, there are some 15-30 countries that score better than the U.S. American students are failing to compete with students from other countries that spend almost twice the amount that we do on education. Surprise!

The State of Texas is facing a $15 billion revenue shortfall, due in part from a drop in sales tax revenue and federal mandates on Medicaid spending. Because Texas operates on a balanced budget amendment, the revenue shortfall demands either an increase in the tax rate or budget cuts. Given Texas rates 49th in verbal SAT scores and 43rd in math, nationally speaking, guess which way Texas Conservatives went? That's right, regardless of our already winning the race to the bottom, Texas Republicans want to spend even less, wholly ignoring the fact that Texas ranks 6th in student population growth.

Texas high schools see 68% of their students graduate, ranking it 36th among other states. The Texas school system is literally failing students and taxpayers, is at the bottom of the heap nation-wide, and is one of the driving forces pushing America well behind the rest of the world. Rather than raise taxes to maintain this already subpar standing, Texas legislators are cutting educational spending by $5 billion.

Texas leads the nation and the world in a race to the bottom of high school student performances.

All this because Conservative Republicans fail to understand that there is a direct correlation between how much money a nation spends and the quality of services it provides. Tax cuts hurt student performance, period.

Remembering President Reagan

2011-02-10T05:57:00.000-08:00

"Build the damn fence, (between the U.S. and Mexico)."

'Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!' That is what I remember President Reagan saying about walls between people. Yet, today's republicans forget that notion, and exclaim that we must begin to control our borders. How can you control the whole of your borders, in a country this size? Every great empire wasted resources, and utterly collapsed trying to wall itself off from outsiders and invaders. China's Great Wall and Rome's Hadrian's Wall immediately leap to mind.

America is the world's greatest marketplace. If you have products and or services to offer, the U.S. is the best place to try to sell them. Instead of building walls around us, we should be building high speed railways in. We should make the process of citizenship instantaneous, and not the 3-5 year, thousands of dollars, arduous task it is now. America benefits by having hard working entrepreneurs come here and invest themselves in our economy. So, why isn't someone calling conservatives for this trespass upon the seminal moment of Reagan's Presidency? Why do conservatives forget everything about President Reagan besides the letter that appeared by his name?

One could even go further, and point out the fact that President Reagan realized that budget shortfalls are cured by tax increases, not cuts. He realized that cutting government spending meant that some Americans would bleed as a result. So, the only way to balance the budget, without harming Americas, is to raise taxes, something President Reagan did as the situation required.

I was in junior high, when President Reagan held office, and was only faintly aware of politics in general. What I remember were the moments he was a part of, like his remarks about the Challenger disaster, and when he spoke directly to Soviet Union, demanding the re-unification of Germany. What I learned later in high school and college was that he was a middle of the road conservative, who had great support from many independent liberals, because he could and did compromise.

Today's conservative republicans are nothing like President Reagan, and they are currently working in direct opposition to his efforts, yet they herald the man's name to no end.

President Reagan would have very little in common with the republican agenda, and would not support nor receive support from the Tea Party.

The Re-birth of a Nation

2011-02-03T07:43:00.000-08:00

"We support President Mubarak."

The Egyptian people took to the streets in peaceful demonstrations, that turned violent, when government riot police were sent in to disperse a crowd, who would not be dispersed...

Egypt is a democracy, who has elected the same President for 30 years. Days ago a quarter of a million people marched on the capitol, calling for his resignation.

People on both sides have died, and with the prisons mysteriously opened, there is chaos in the streets...

Putting Egypt back together again, will take more than all the King's horses and men, it is going to take a peaceful patient citizenry, willing to undergo great political hardships. The country will have to try to unite with sparse cell service, a single functioning internet service provider, and no readily available sources of a free media. This is going to be a sight to behold.

My hope is that America will take this opportunity to review its support for other less than fully Democratic nations, that we presently give aid and support to. We support Saudi Arabia's royal family, who owes its lifestyle to oil reserves they sell to the U.S., on the cheap. While the people of Saudi Arabia don't live quite so lavishly as their leaders who defecate upon golden toilets. Maybe we will begin leaning on other political allies who oppress their people, rather than supporting less than fully democratic governments.

Absolutely nothing can look quite so bad as stamped "Made in the U.S.A." tear gas canisters, being employed as a tool to help dictators disperse peaceful protesters. Simply put we should be exporting tools to help spread freedom, rather than passing out crowd disbursement paraphernalia.

The Egyptian people decided they would no longer be ruled by someone who had won 30 years worth of elections. They did not believe the elections were free, fair, or representative of their goals for government. These protests have led Hosni Mubarak first dismissing the whole government, then him saying that he will not seek re-election, in September. This is not enough for protesters, who want him to step down.

Two million people marched on Cairo, and now pro-Mubarak thugs, armed with whips riding horseback are attempting disperse the crowds, as violence once again grips the streets.

Freedom, friends, is not free. It is procured only by the blood of patriots.

Winning the Future

2011-01-27T06:47:00.000-08:00

"President Obama only talked about more spending in the State of the Union."

This is what Republicans heard and hear, when Democrats call for government to fulfill its purpose, by collecting taxes and providing services. "This is just more tax and spend liberalism." Republicans simply don't get that taxes = services.

Our infrastructure is crumbling beneath our economy. Roads and bridges in disrepair cost drivers $290 billion every year to person and property. The American Association of Engineers gave our transportation system a "D", and it is costing us daily. We need here and now to spend money, to repair and upgrade our roads and railways, and in doing so we will save both time and money. With more roads in better condition, we will all spend much less time in traffic and less money on fuel, and more time actually working.

The President called this our "Sputnick moment", an opportunity to build the future that times now demand. This is the time for us to show our kids that science fairs are as important as sports championships. This is our time to out build, out teach, and out innovate the rest of the world. The time is now for us to create and embrace those better ways, to lead us all into better days. We have to invest in a world better than this one.

To pay for this, instead of proposing tax increases, the President asked that we eliminate tax loopholes, that allow far too many to avoid paying their fair share. He said that by eliminating these loopholes, we will be able to cut corporate taxes, and yet Conservative Talk World flatly called the State of the Union- "a call for more spending."

They missed, or outrightly ignored his call to re-organize and make government more efficient, by eliminating bureaucracy and waste. The President said, "Let's do away with the programs we can honestly do without." Before that he started with, "We have to confront the fact that our government spends more than it takes in." He even froze federal salaries and offered multiple cuts, even to his beloved community outreach programs, but Republicans heard none of it.

What I heard, is that we are wasting money, and that we can and must do better..."We can't win the future with a government of the past."

Mr. President, I agree. We will not see better days without employing better ways.

The problem is that Republicans don't understand this, and have no faith in government to fulfill its purpose.

Civil Discourse

2011-01-20T08:00:00.000-08:00

"Rhetoric about guns, second amendment remedies, encroaching tyranny, and Obama Care had nothing to do with the Tuscan shooting."

Given that our entire political environment has been awash with 'inflamed rhetoric' since President Obama took office, I would argue that it had 'something' to do with shooting at a Democratic Congresswoman. This is true, because commercials sell products. If you hear how great hamburgers are, and see people smiling while eating them 24/7, there is an increased likelihood that you are going to hit a burger joint on the way home from work. Microsoft didn't spend $12 billion dollars last year because commercial programming doesn't work.

Now, while there are no commentators outwardly saying point blank, "We should shoot people we don't agree with, politically." Sharon Angle said, "You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact Thomas Jefferson said it's good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years." Besides butchering Thomas Jefferson's words, she thinks you can keep the tyranny of a Democratic Republic at bay with personal arms. Rather than encourage people to become more democratically active, she thinks you'd be better off arming yourself against your government. Thankfully, she lost her bid for the senate.

The point here is that we are all shaped, at least somewhat, by our environment and everything in it. If you hear 50 times a day, from sources you trust, that President Obama is fundamentally changing your country, and leading the U.S. into communism or socialism, you'll begin to believe it. We hear Sarah Palin every time she opens her mouth say, "Don't retreat, reload." Talking heads like Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck all literally make a living using inflamed rhetoric to drive their ratings higher. The more outlandish or overtop the more attention they garner, driving their behavior to even worse extremes.

Glenn Beck has said on Fox News, that he believes President Obama has a deep seated hatred for white people, and if you'll tune into his show, it will only be a matter before you hear how America is under direct attack from the left. This is to say nothing about Ann Coulter, who's antics make me weep for America.

The most interesting thing about this latest shooting tragedy, is that the Congresswoman said she felt targeted by Sarah Palin's placing crosshairs over her district. Then Congresswoman Giffords gets shot, and Sarah Palin acts like SHE is the victim in all this. Only Sarah Palin could wrap herself in gun metaphors and hunting euphemisms, while placing a sniper scope over someone's congressional district WHO GETS SHOT, and then play the unwitting victim. She has since taken the crosshairs map down, but has admitted no wrong doing, and offered no apology to Congresswoman Giffords for the targeting she felt or the actual shooting that occurred.

The real victim in this whole thing is civility. The Republicans see and have spoken about Democrats as their literal enemy, and an actual attacker of America, Freedom, and Liberty. When you tell your constituents that the other party is the enemy that is currently attacking your America, they diminish their ability to compromise with them, without looking like a turncoat to voters.

When Republicans or Democrats refer to the other side as the enemy, America loses.

Aflockalypse

2011-01-13T11:13:00.000-08:00

"Mass bird and fish deaths occur regularly."

So, to you people who've just witness thousands of birds fall from the sky, hundreds of thousand of fish wash up on your river bank, or hundreds of tons of fish or crabs wash ashore...ignore it. This stuff happens all the time, we are just so connected and aware thanks to the Internet, that all this seems abnormal. While that statement seems palatable, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth upon consumption.

I have never heard of 150 tons of fish washing ashore in my lifetime. Nor have I heard of an event where 5,000 birds fall dead out of the sky, due to fireworks, but that is what the experts claim caused the initial mass bird death. So far this year almost 1,000 buzzards have died, in Florida. Do you have any idea what it takes to kill a turkey vulture? They eat every manner of road kill imaginable, for a living. These it would seem took a wrong turn over water.

40,000 crabs washed ashore in Britain, possibly from colder than expected water. 2 million fish washed ashore in the Chesapeake Bay. 4,300 ducks died in Minnesota. 2,000 bats died in Texas. So far there have been around 30 such mass death events, click here for the Google map, showing each event and its location. There's a good message board discussion here.

I think it possible that our planet's magnetic field is beginning to weaken, as all of these animals use the Earth's magnetic field to navigate. Fluctuations in this field lead to disorientation, fish running aground, birds falling to the ground, or dolphins beaching themselves. Sadly, I fear that more of these events are coming, followed by food shortage related deaths as these loses represent very large holes in the food chain, now. Whatever feeds off of these things is or will be missing several meals soon.

This is to say nothing about the recent disappearance of honey bees, nature's little pollinators, whom our agricultural livelihood depends upon. Some states have seen as much as 90% bee loss.

Less food being produced by plants, and fewer critters to munch on, means lean times are right around the corner for everyone.

Building Green

2011-01-05T16:31:00.000-08:00

"We need to create incentive for the private sector to invest in the economy."

I am not sure we can do such a thing, nothing we have tried has worked yet. What we can do is chart a path to a new future, one less dependent upon fossil fuels, with a focus on sustainability as its mainstay virtue. We can say that the status quo is simply unacceptable, and that we need to build a better system. This too will spur economic growth.

Our country's current rail system is operating on 100 year old technology. Most railways now are designed to handle traffic not to exceed 90 mph. Current high speed rail systems operate at rates more than double our fastest rail capabilities.

Imagine a rail system that could get you and your car across the country in a day. The railway itself is covered with solar panels and wind turbines, so that the entire system is fueled by renewable energy. Once built, it would offer inexpensive fast travel of both you and your vehicle to anywhere in the U.S.

I think this would spur all kinds of economic growth. We'd need to hire people to build the structure here, and if we used an American company, we could put our citizens to work building the railcars and tracks.

Let's build a high speed rail system, by and for the American economy, in a completely green manner.

The hitch is that you can't pay for this with tax cuts.

Hopes for the New Year

2010-12-31T08:13:00.000-08:00

"Government is the problem."

On the contrary, government is the only thing keeping us from reverting to tribal warfare, where the richest and best armed among us rule with lead and fire. The absence of government in our lives would not be a good thing, regardless of how rosy Republicans paint it. We left the State of Nature in order to form this more perfect Union. We are all in this together, and this a divided we fall endeavor.

I hope that this year will see Democrats stand up and explain that Constitutionally limited government, doesn't mean less government in your life. Our Constitution simple divides which are state obligations, and where the federal government presides. A 'more' Constitutionally limited government would simply shift the burden to state or county municipalities.

My hope for the new year is that an argument will rise in favor of fully funding government, so that it can meet or accomplish 100% of its stated goals. Tax cuts demean this effort, serving only individual needs, while driving our nation into debt. Someone somewhere has to stand up and say, "We MUST invest both time and increased taxes in our country, our Union, and especially our infrastructure."

It does not matter where these taxes are allocated or collected. We have roads and bridges in disrepair, and it is going to take the raising of taxes to properly fix them. Whether counties raise property tax, or the federal government sets a national gas tax, we have to raise revenues. We are in debt and our crumbling roads cause more damage to persons and property than drunk drivers do.

I hope that Democrats will stand up and state with certainty that meaningless platitudes like, "We are in favor of Constitutionally limited government." aren't a hinderance to our goals nor does it mean 'less government' or lower taxes. Simply stated, We the People have basic needs, that must be met by the collection of taxes, be they by the federal government, states, counties, or cities. We are in debt and our nation's infrastructure needs refurbished.

"I pay taxes because roads don't pave themselves." (*A sign from the Rally to Restore Sanity.)

The Dead Dream

2010-12-23T16:21:00.000-08:00

"No amnesty for law breakers, not now, not ever."

In this case, the law breakers are the children of illegal immigrants, and the 'amnesty' is the exchange for service in our nation's military for citizenship. So, had the Dream Act passed, if you were a child of an illegal immigrant willing to put your life on the line to protect our nation, then you would be granted citizenship. That the GOP managed to successfully filibuster this legislation is truly amazing to me.

Democrats failed to successfully argue that your willingness to fight and die for this country meant you deserved citizenship. How is that? Who really believes that your willingness to fight and die for the United States doesn't qualify you to legally pay taxes and vote? The arguments presented against it were that it might encourage children to move here, and that it rewards illegal behavior. The winning argument here was that it is bad to encourage young people to come here and fight for our country.

Being born here, is a passive act. No one chooses where or when they will be born. Well, I guess I'll say only that I don't recall having the option. But this is the sole factor the Republicans are willing to consider, when deciding if someone deserves citizenship or not. That someone is willing to join our military and defend you, me, and our Constitution didn't matter to Republicans. The only thing at issue for them is the illegal nature of their arrival. Republicans deem this to be an unforgivable federal crime. Once you've arrived illegally, any process pointed toward citizenship has been successfully defeated as another "amnesty for illegals".

I too have a dream. It is that, one day Democrats will stand up and make an argument good enough to convince not only other Democrats that it is a good idea, but half of the reasonable Republican voters, if not their Representatives. Sadly, it is but a dream, because it seems these days strong convincing liberal arguments are a rarity at best.

How exactly does one fail to convince Americans that those who serve in our armed forces deserve citizenship?

Attacking Christmas

2010-12-16T13:31:00.000-08:00

"Liberals are attacking Christmas, again."

According to Fox News, you'd think liberals were out stealing manger scenes and beating down anyone dressed like Santa in stores and on the streets. The truth is the Pagans are the ones who got the raw deal out of Christianity co-opting their season and all of the things we know to be symbols of Christmas. According to Biblical researchers, the Christ-child "Yeshua" (NOT "Jesus") was born around June 3rd.

It was the Catholic Church and its creation that borrowed all the symbols from the world's oldest and largest religion- Paganism, and then married them with gospel writings to arrive at "Christmas Trees." The Pagans burned candles during all of their rituals, as Catholic do in all their ceremonies. Pagans worshiped the female form, as Catholics still do the Virgin Mary. During the winter solstice Pagans would bring evergreen trees, wreathes, or sprigs inside to decorate their home, as a sign of life's resilience over winter's icy grip. Catholics just adopted all these things and stuck a Christian label on them and today we still kiss under mistletoe, and cut down 34 million trees every year to celebrate "Christmas."

That the vast majority of Christians have no clue as to what a Christmas tree has to do with the birth of Yeshua, isn't surprising. They hide colored Easter eggs, and celebrate the Easter Bunny, completely unaware that the tale originated as the pagan goddess Ostara raising a dead bird back to life and then turning it into an egg laying hare. Growing up my CCD teachers were always hard pressed to answer my questions about what Santa, the Easter Bunny, evergreen trees and colored eggs had to do with Christ. Which is why I always say that I left the Church when I reached the age of reason.

The truth of the matter is that I enjoy the holidays. I love the decorations, the music, the general cheerful mood most find themselves in, and of course the sales. What I don't appreciate is that Christians claim sole ownership to this holiday, and tout "Keep Christ in Christmas!" To which the historian in me just wants to shout back, "Christ's real name was 'Yeshua', not 'Jesus', and he was born in June!" Then again, it's the holidays, and I don't want to yell at anyone. I just want to smile and wish you season's greetings, a Merry Christmas, a Happy Hanukkah, or if you are a Pagan where all this started, I'll wish you life and good health in this time of want and woe. Regardless, know that this isn't any one group's season to guard, but rather all of ours to share.

Sarah Palin

2010-12-10T16:08:00.000-08:00

"Sarah Palin is qualified to be President."

She may well have been born, and always resided in the U.S. and be over the age of 35, but that doesn't mean she is truly qualified to hold the Presidency. I think that position should be filled by someone willing to lead us into better days through better ways. I want someone with ideas, enhanced perspective, and a desire to succeed by our nation.

Sarah just does not seem full of new ideas. She's great at turning out conservative voters, but that doesn't mean she is capable of speaking upon any topic with any real depth. I can't say I've ever heard her wax poetic upon anything, besides how the media is attacking her. The longest single topic speech I've heard her give was her resignation speech, wherein she went on and on about her leaving was the best thing for Alaska because people were attacking her legally.

So, apparently she is half of America's favorite target, and the other half's most adored darling. Riding a media wave, she has recently written a book and is starring on her own reality TV show. One thing certain, is that she can draw a crowd, but I don't think that in-and-of-itself qualifies someone to hold our nation's highest elected office. Before someone claims this is another attack piece on her, I'd like to argue that claiming someone isn't qualified, isn't attacking them. I can't fly a helicopter. If someone points this out, they aren't attacking me. They are simply stating as fact, that 'I' should NOT be given the keys to a Blackhawk.

Hunter S. Palin recently took and missed "5" shots at a caribou from around a hundred yards away with a scoped rifle and the animal never moved. That's not "hunting" as I know it here in Texas. If you rustle in your stand or blind, the game will hear you and bolt, let alone shooting at it multiple times with a rifle. That said, what I take issue with her here is her completely missing the animal "5" times. A hunter in our group would have been disqualified from shooting after missing a live target 3 times. They'd have been sent back to the range until they could group together a pattern the size of the game animal's kill zone (heart & lungs). Hitting an animal in the legs or stomach could ruin a lot of good meat, so one wouldn't be allowed to go on a live hunt, until they could prove proficiency with their weapon.

Like so many moments before this, she seemed unprepared for the task at hand. We never saw the actual wound, but I am almost certain the animal suffered and there was meat lost or destroyed, simply because she hadn't done due diligence at the range. Sarah Palin is not one to go into things totally prepared, so it would seem these past years.

Socializing Medicine

2010-12-01T13:19:00.000-08:00

"There shouldn't be a federal take-over of the health care system."

On this I must say that I can find some agreement. A huge, one size fits all, single payer system may well turn into the biggest government boondoggle of all time. So, let's just localize medicine. Local or County Hospital Districts should set a tax rate that fully funds their operations, and then they should use those facilities to offer residents in that area the care they need. Simply cut out the federal middleman and keep 100% of those tax dollars right where they are collected.

Then have locally elected Hospital Boards be the deciders as to what gets covered, and which tests or procedures are offered. If your district isn't fulfilling your needs, then you can vote out those whom you disagree with, run yourself, or re-locate to a district more aligned to your medical needs.

This said, I do think the federal government has a role to play in setting basic standards, as to the level of care all health care facilities have to provide citizens. This should come in the form of an 'unfunded mandate'. Now I know that phrase scares a lot of people, but it isn't the same as a 'federal mandate', which is the government telling you what you are going to do. This 'unfunded mandate' is merely the government telling you what you need to do, and not telling you how you are to go about doing it. This will literally be the difference of having a faceless disconnected Senate or Congress decide your health care and its costs, and having your local monthly Hospital Board hold public meetings deciding these issues, right in front of you.

At present a faceless for-profit insurance agency is deciding who lives and at what cost, and premium payers have no voice in those decisions, other than to buy insurance elsewhere. However, with no government non-profit option, affordability escapes over 30 million Americans.

We have a duty to help provide and protect individual life, it is right there in the Constitution. We all have the Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. The best most efficient way to deliver a health care system to protect 'Life', is to keep local taxes out of federal coffers, as locally elected officials work with citizens to deliver the desired level of care.

We should 'localize' socialized medicine.

Another Year in Afghanistan

2010-11-27T08:13:00.000-08:00

"We are spending money winning the war in Afghanistan."

On the contrary, we have now been in Afghanistan as long as Russia, and we are still not even close to defeating the Taliban, building a stabilized government, or rooting out corruption in the present government. We have spent some $300 billion so far, $80 billion of that in 2010, alone. These monies are spent on weapons, ammunition, vehicles, fuel, and the people to operate them. However, we have spent a tawdry $15 billion, rebuilding what we have bombed and turned into dust. How this is supposed to 'win hearts and minds' is beyond me.

So, while our own nation wallows in debt, its infrastructure crumbles, its citizens refuse to even consider tax increases on anyone, we are spending money we don't have bombing a sandbox, losing the confidence of the Afghan people, and we seem unable to realize that this behavior isn't sustainable.

My question is "Why?" Why are we so disconnected from the reality of taxes and what they pay for? Why can't we see that we are spending money we don't have on a war we can't win, while our own highways, bridges, and rail systems dilapidate right before our very eyes? When are we going to see that not only is the emperor naked, but he's emptying the treasury buying even more invisible clothes.

So, where is the young wide-eyed lad to proclaim the emperor's true state? Moreover, how do we get that kid a bullhorn?

Instead, what we have is an entire television network dedicated daily to saying how masterfully crafted the emperors clothes look. The truth is that we seem entirely unable or unwilling to accept that this story isn't going to end well for the emperor and his magical clothes, or the treasury that is funding this obscene fashion show.

Ideally, a charismatic leading liberal would step onto the stage and lay out what is actually occurring, then would provide a plan to get us out of the problems plaguing us, and the whole of the country would begin stepping up and forward to rite this ship. What we lack is responsible leadership, willing to tell it how it actually is...

The Patriot Act and the TSA

2010-11-19T09:29:00.000-08:00

"Obama has overseen the most intrusion by the federal government into people's personal lives, ever."

While President Obama is the acting President today, he isn't responsible for federal screeners being allowed to feel people up and molest some airline passengers. That was done by the previous administration, and the passing of the Patriot Act. That said, the current President seems disinterested in addressing or acknowledging that current pat-down standards are growing far more intrusive.

Americans lost big on 9-11. We lost because we abandoned that which makes America great- "Freedom". Our Constitution is supposed to safeguard certain rights of citizens as inalienable, such as the right to be free from government intrusion into or onto your person. The 4th Amendment was meant to protect citizens from 'unreasonable' searches and seizures, by the government or law enforcement officers. The Supreme Court has in recent decades allowed for government to more easily access people's persons and property. However, none of their decisions were as broad or as debilitating to citizen privacy as the Patriot Act and the creation of the Transportation Safety Administration.

The TSA is the FBI of the sky. If the TSA wants to fondle your genitals before you board an aircraft, you'd better pony up, or you could face a $10,000 civil suit. Recently, I've seen videos of parents being separated from their children, and some being forced to let a complete stranger physical molest their child, as the child screamed "Stop touching me!" The shoe bomber led to us taking off our shoes, the underwear bomber brought about the overly-familiar pat downs. What will come when one of these guys sticks a bomb up their bum?

It has been said that those who would sacrifice freedom for security would soon have and deserve neither. Well people, we are there. Your person is no longer 'free' from intensive searches, if you are going to board a plane. Now, I understand that we are in uncertain times, with terrorists hiding in every shampoo bottle over 3 oz., but does that make every 80 year old man with an artificial joint subject to a strip search?

These might all sound funny, if they weren't true. Except that these are not puns, or plays on words at all. When the very mention of Constitutional rights, can get you detained at an airport, one must wonder who are we fighting, with such tactics. And where is our elected leadership, among all this? Silent, as though anything 'they' said might be used against them, as them being weak on terrorism. My fellow Americans, I beg you stand up, and say enough is enough. We should all be willing to have our genitals left alone, without probable cause.

Terrorists can't make us less free, only we can do that to ourselves...

Re-building Rome Overnight

2010-11-11T11:05:00.000-08:00

"The economy isn't growing fast enough."

So, should it? Recent economic downtrends, are the result of overpriced goods on the market taking a big hit, 'houses' in this instance. Too many bought things they could only afford in times of plenty, then an extended period of not-so-plenty occurred triggering the tumble into another recession. Our recent economic tendencies seem to be that of bomb then bust, rather than mild to moderate sustained growth.

We seem hell-bent on growing the economy fast, rather than slowly building a sustainable economy, but why? Why not stop, and take a long term view on things, chart a reasonable course that leads us into a future we can all live in, and then do it? Our use of fossil fuels will end, either when we run out, or when our use finally causes undeniable global climate change, that forces us to abandon their use. So, why don't we pre-empt the move, and start building an eco-friendly economy now, based only on renewability?

Democrats should become much more progressive in their economic policies, focused on ending our addiction to foreign energy supplies. We have coal, natural gas, geothermal, and all the sun, wind, and tidal power you could want. So why in the world are we paying kings and dictators inflated prices for a resource that is killing the planet?

Instead, we should announce a new policy, immediate and mandatory reductions in foreign crude purchases. Followed shortly by the institution of a short step-down process, by which America begins buying less energy from non-domestic sources, with a goal of less than 5% by 2020. The goal being to get started in a positive direction, today. We should begin building, even if only slowly, a sustainable economy.

Let's start by providing tax cuts, subsidies, AND 'raising taxes' to do so, to put solar panels on every roof, and a wind generator on every lawn. While at the same time, we should raise taxes to renew our rail system. We should become that which we've been accused of, and take on the roll of "tax & spend". Both our economy and our nation NEEDS these services, and given our debt, we need to raise taxes to pay for it.

We spend $700 billion a year on foreign crude. Imagine if that money stayed in our economy, and enriched American businesses...

Mid-term Losses

2010-11-05T06:36:00.000-07:00

"Obama and the Democrats over-reached..."

The problem was that both the Universal Coverage-butter and the Public Option-gravy were placed well beyond the Democrats' dinner table. Then they ran as if they were ashamed of even asking for such.

As a Democratic voter I found myself dragging-ass, to the polls. I was not impressed, energized, or mildly interested in half-measures, compromises, and giving up on actual goal realization. The current attitude of Liberal leadership is lacking a stiff backbone, in my opinion. They simply aren't standing up for progressive values with any kind of authority, passion, or enthusiasm.

We lost because our voters stayed home, while the GOP road Tea Party vigor all the way to victory. A mere 15 million Democrats made it to the primary election process, while the Conservatives saw almost 20 show up. That is an enthusiasm gap, and is the first lesson of politics. Voter turnout wins elections.

People follow strong leadership, to the polls. They will not follow those who appear to be weak, ineffectual, lacking in confidence, and unwilling or unable to justify their votes or actions. The Tea Party didn't win any debate, and none of them offered any specific solutions to our current problems, yet they won. What they did have were impassioned people standing up and making an argument, at every opportunity. They took every opportunity to attack Democratic efforts, while Liberals fell silent and hung their heads with dis-pride.

We will win, when we take unashamed progressive positions, that Liberal voters can get excited about supporting. We showed up and voted for change, in huge numbers. What we got was something less than impressive. We abandon our base and left voters with little to be excited about. Democrats will win, when they act like leaders with the better ideas.

Call to Action

2010-10-28T07:22:00.000-07:00

We the People are not presently well represented by our elected officials. Our basic needs are often times left to what we can muster between ourselves. Government at all levels fails us daily. Redresses for these outright crimes against civility are met with courts and bureaucracy that are impenetrable to appeal or petition. From state and federal down to our county and city levels, government suffers shortcomings. Our government has become the hindrance upon our pursuit of happiness, basic freedom, and even equality under the law. People, this is not what government was intended to be. Government is merely People realizing that problems can best be handled by people working together, rather than against one another. You are not alone. We the People left the State of Nature, in order to form a more Perfect Union. We levied claims that We would work together to see to it that certain Rights were inalienable. Moreover, We claimed that when government failed, that it was Our Duty to fix it. The problem is that We have become complacent, and unaware of our governments’ actions. We don’t see, or hear reported their everyday doings, dealings, decisions, or deliberations. More often than not, these meetings take place in executive session, behind closed doors, and well beyond the eyes and ears of the public. Local governments fare no better holding meetings, courts, and councils in rooms not large enough to accommodate a score of public attendees. And those charged with reporting on these events, that Free Press, being necessary to secure a Free State is woefully inadequate. They are as bought and paid for by these officials, as can be expected. We the People simply don’t see, or know about the shortcomings of our elected officials. More sad, is the fact that We just don’t care. Only about two-thirds of us are even registered to vote whom qualify, only half actually show up to vote on election day. If there is no federal election, local and state elections' turnouts fare far worse. The point being that, most of us are staying out of and or are completely unaware of the election process, and this is why government is so unresponsive to our daily needs. There are no checks and thus no balances. We have to know more about those we elect. We have to know how they vote each and every day, on each and every issue. We have to be the watchdogs upon our own government, lest they stray from their true purpose, to serve the Will and Needs of the People.

This is a Call to Action. I entreat you, reach out and lend an ear to the movements and daily actions of those whom you have and are to vote for, see for your own eyes if they represent your values and ideas, or those listed in the Constitution of the United States. Show up at these public hearings, meetings, or councils and witness the utter and complete incompetence, as I have. You have to see, to know and understand the depth of this problem I am calling attention to. I have met a water board President, who couldn’t tell me and or didn’t know the Environmental Protection Agency’s safety level for lead contamination in drinking water. I have encountered a library board President who had never heard of the Library Bill of Rights, or the American Library Association. I have seen judges and courts ignore their own sanctioned Policies to limit the rights of citizens, merely because they had to cover for one of the officials they appointed. Almost every time I have attended a board or counsel meeting, I have seen or heard arguments for or in favor of limiting public access to government services, the very things our tax dollars fund. These elected officials forgot, or never initially understood, that it is their first duty to protect the individual’s right to public services, and to indeed help us gain access to these resources. It has become far too often that I have seen the opposite. I call on you now, to see and bear witness to the same. Then I call on you to VOTE for those who would act in line with standards you care about. Bear true witness to these things, and hold elected or appointed officials accountable for their shortcomings. Governments’ failure to act, is merely our failure to oversee their actions as voters. Politicians are re-elected most of the time, so either We don’t know or We don’t care. Regardless, We have only ourselves to blame. That said every passing moment is an opportunity to turn it all around. Help me, help us, to elect a government responsive to the needs of it’s citizenry. Let’s re-make government what it was intended to be, a State not of competitors, but teammates, intended to help and look out for one another. We are a Community, and when We act together there is nothing We can’t achieve. It is only when We act as individuals, that We separate ourselves from the communal goods and services that We’ve already paid for through taxes. We are that more perfect Union, or We are merely individuals acting as competitors stuck in the State of Nature, where the one with the strongest arm and biggest stick, makes all the rules. We Left that State, in order to form this more Perfect Union. American Democracy may very well be the best of what Government has to offer, but today that’s like being valedictorian of summer school. Our inaction, inattention, and general unawareness and ignorance has given us our government induced problems. As a Democracy, We get the government we deserve.

Today, our best is just not good enough. Yet, all that is needed is that those who vote, to do so in an informed manner. With that, I ask you to now, to Vote Smart, or don't at all. Know not just the names of those who you would vote for, or what party they represent, but be able to boast of the actual votes they’ve made in line with your own beliefs. Stop voting for incumbents who haven’t done their job, and don’t represent you or your stances.

Juan Williams

2010-10-22T07:18:00.000-07:00

"Muslims on airplanes scare me, and make me nervous."

My wife is the same way, about spiders. At some point in her past, she 'had a bad experience', with a spider. Now she has an irrational fear of all spiders, even though the vast majority of all the spiders are completely harmless. The spider she encountered didn't even bite her, it just wouldn't 'get off of her'. If she encountered a spider today, she'd freak out. And the bigger the spider the bigger her reaction would or will be, even to a point of completely disabling her. She can't even look at a picture of a big hairy tarantula without getting creeped out.

In my head, this is a weakness of hers. She's allowing one bad interaction, to affect all future encounters with arachnids, even though most of them are there to help rid her world of unwanted insects.

Juan Williams is also suffering from an irrational fear, and the closer to Fox News he gets, the more this irrational fear will be enforced. O'Reilly himself has crowed that "Muslims attacked us on 9-11!", as does the rest of Fox News. And then they herald, 'Williams is free to express his opinion here', as they just gave him a big fat contract. Which also means that about 40% of the country is leaning in this direction, because it would seem you don't have to drink the kool-aid, to be affected by its fumes.

The problem here is 'generalizing' based on a stereotype. "Rag-heads attacked us on 9-11." While Juan didn't say this directly, that's what he's thinking. We were attacked by terrorists, who seek to expel our military from their homeland. The Muslim religion didn't attack us. There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. If Americas' 380 million were indeed at war with them, I'd say the odds are against us.

It is wrong to fear an entire group, based upon the sins of a few within that group. It would be not be acceptable to treat every Catholic Priest like he was a pedophile. Yet, Juan is now being welcomed with open arms into the Fox News family. "Fox News, We accept broad generalizations and irrational fears!"

While I was indeed a Juan Williams supporter, I think he needs some mental health care, maybe some direct exposure therapy. Feed him his favorite food while meeting and speaking to kind and happy Muslims. This behavior can be overcome, but if I were to daily toss rubber spiders at my wife, while someone poked her with a sharp needle, I doubt she'd ever get over her arachnophobia. In fact, those actions would probably make it worse. So, Juan heading to Fox News to a full-time position may well see him bombing a mosque, in the end.

Legalizing Pot

2010-10-15T11:18:00.000-07:00

"Why would we want to make it easier for our children to access marijuana?"

Because we are losing tax revenue now, while making a bunch of gangsters rich, and at the same time wasting law enforcement officers' time and resources by chasing, prosecuting, and then feeding, clothing, and housing non-violent offenders. We are wasting valuable resources trying to tell other people what they can and can't consume.

Children with parents who lack the time and energy to provide adequate supervision, are those who find themselves getting into things they shouldn't. What is or isn't legal has little to do with it.

Rather than trying to tell adults how to live their lives, we should focus our law enforcements' energies apprehending actual criminals- those who have infringed upon another's life, liberty, property, or pursuit of happiness. Liberty and freedom are supposed to extend to everyone, so long as they aren't hurting anyone during their pursuits.

California spends over $8 billion, prosecuting and housing marijuana offenders. While estimates are that legalizing and taxing cannabis could generate close to $10 billion in revenues. Then there's the added resources that will be available to law enforcement, allowing them to focus much more time to catching real criminals. Fewer criminals on the street mean fewer crimes. Fewer crimes mean fewer home insurance claims, leading to even more savings for everyone.

Proposition 19, even if passed, won't stop federal officers from enforcing federal law. So, while the Administration threatens to veto the will of the people, we lose tax revenue, waste resources, and jail Americans seeking solace in a harmless herb. No one in the history of the world has died from THC overdose, and doctors are prescribing it as medicine. Yet the federal government resists any and all efforts to use sound reasoning or judgement of any kind.

When will this reefer madness end???

Health Care Reform

2010-10-07T11:31:00.000-07:00

"Over 60% of Americans are not happy with Obama Care."

I, for one, am one of them. However, the reason I am displeased is that we didn't get Universal Health Care or even a strong Public Option. What we got instead was a bill watered down by health insurance lobbyists and their conservative cohorts, that lacked serious reform. While Republicans claimed, "No one reached out to us."

This is the oldest of plays ran by conservatives, since the legislation began. The Democrats want to enact a project and say that it will cost $1 million dollars. Then the notion enters the process, where Republicans say they will only fund the project at $500,000, and needing their votes, Democrats relent. The result is legislation that is ineffectual and not supported by the public because it doesn't do the job the originators said it would. This is exactly what happened to the Health Care bill.

The issue isn't that we shouldn't fight the notion of Universal Health Care. We already have it, except that the current problem is that it is the most expensive care one can purchase. People without health insurance don't just stay home and die. They wait until they are in pain, and then they show up at the E.R., where Doctors provide them care, as their oath dictates. The two problems with this system are first, that E.R. care is super-expensive, and second, that it is oftentimes too late to affect positive results. So, patients don't pay their huge bill, and they don't get the results they could have with an earlier diagnosis. In the end, taxpayers and insurance holders get the bill, anyway.

What we should have done was allow everyone access to clinical care, where illnesses can be treated both inexpensively yet effectively.

The Democrats' problem is that they can't or won't make the argument that "We" have a duty to our fellow citizens, and that when one of us falls to injury or illness, "We" are supposed to be there to help one another. That Republicans were able to successfully argue that: "Money = Medical Care" & "Rich = Head of the line.", is just loony, to me. Where in the world of medicine, other than America, do you get to demand that you get to move to the head of the line, because you have more money??? In the medical world, there's a term called "triage", meaning literally 'sorting of patients'. If you come in with a gunshot wound, you get to go ahead of someone with an ingrown toenail. The worse off you are, the more immediate your care becomes. Your ability to pay isn't part of the medical equation, nor should it be.

The notion that the poor don't deserve basic health care is inhuman, not compassionate, and is the very definition of incivility. That Republicans successfully defeated both Universal Health Care and the Public Option baffles me, especially when Democrats control both the House and the Senate, as well as the Executive Branch.

What else can be said, other than Democrats are weak, ineffectual, and lacking in an ability to construct and deliver good arguments.

The Deficit Timeline

2010-09-30T07:04:00.000-07:00

"Tax cuts pay for themselves."

The problem is simply, they haven't and they won't. The failed notion is that if taxes are low, this will spur long-term economic growth, because more people will have more money to invest with. So, why are we running deficits, now? Taxes are lower now than they were in the 90's, a period of economic growth and stability, not to mention budget surpluses. In fact, when you look back over the past century, you'd see that the top tax rate is currently less than a third of its highest peak.

The point I'd like to make is that lowering tax rates doesn't raise tax revenue. They simply don't, "pay for themselves". When you cut taxes, you are going to have less money to operate government services. President G.W. Bush offered tax cuts while at the same time going to war in two theaters. His instructions to Americans were, "Keep shopping." So, while U.S. soldiers were fighting and dying, American citizens were told it's better that you buy that new flat-screen TV, rather than pay for wheelchairs for returning veterans.

Taxes are gathered to pay for the stuff government does, all of it. When "We" go to war, "We" have to pay for it, or "We" go into debt. When you reduce the tax rate, you must reduce spending. If you don't, you will go into debt. This was true yesterday, it is true today, and it will be true tomorrow.

The economy is not going to solve or otherwise fix the deficit. It simply doesn't work that way. We must raise taxes to pay for our debt.

OR

We must cut spending.

As Americans, we now have a decision to make, "Do we want to fund our current activities, or not?" After which, we will be tasked with doing without for a while. We have lived beyond our tax income, and there's a bill due now. We have to do with less income or less government. Now before you leap to the later, I'd ask you not to weakening our Union. Taxes are gathered for all of us, and they fund the infrastructure upon which we exist. So should we allow our roads, bridges, and social safety nets to collapse, or should we raise the revenues to fully fund their restoration?

In whichever case, there must be a reckoning with the direct correlation between the tax rate, tax revenues, and spending.

An Abortion Compromise

2010-09-23T14:01:00.000-07:00

"An abortion is killing a human life."

On the contrary, an abortion is terminating a pregnancy, and thus not allowing human life to further develop. Please note that the absence of the word "a". My finger is a form of human life, as are my organs, or the overgrown scar tissue atop an old wound. However none of those things is "a human", entitled to individual rights. If any of these things offend me, I can cut them off, without fear of them suing me or someone else doing so in the name of my excised appendages.

Our Constitution affords rights to individual humans. It makes no mention of groups of people, animals, body parts, or parasitic life having the rights to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. Individuals alone are deserving of these protections. So, the question is, 'When do we become individuals?'

Rather than make an emotional or religious argument, I think we should allow our best technology to decide when the point of external viability is. Current medical technology puts that state of development at around 6 months. At which point, if born pre-maturely, the not yet fully formed still has a strong chance of surviving, given we have developed sufficient incubation chambers that can provide further support in place of a specific host. This, I believe is the moment you become an individual, and is amendable with better technologies. It is the moment you are no longer dependent on 'one' specific host, for all of your life functions.

That said, at present, after 6 months of development, you are. So whatever the host agent does to her body, she is also inflicting this upon the unborn individual. Just like we would prosecute a parent for issuing drugs or tobacco to a 1 year old, so should we hold a would-be-mother accountable for any harmful agent they consume that would otherwise have a detrimental effect on the growth and development of a pregnancy they intended to carry to term.

The compromise is never prohibiting an abortion before external viability, while holding expecting mothers after that point, criminally responsible for actual child abuse.

The flaw with with the pro-choice side is the blind eye they turn to such behavior. The flaw with the pro-life's side is that they elevate the life of the unborn above that of the host mother. They even go as far as to say that a woman who is raped or molested shouldn't have the opportunity to seek an abortion. Herein lies their crime against civility. Making all abortions illegal, even in the case of rape and incest, would give rapists the legal authority to force any woman they choose to carry and have their baby. In what world is it alright for someone to have legal backing to force their will upon another? No one has the right to force their will upon another. Each of us are endowed with an individual right to pursue our own happiness.

In the end, both sides are wrong on this issue, and ignoring that their stance infringes upon another's freedom.

Progress Through Progressive-ism

2010-09-16T10:36:00.000-07:00

"Progressives, Liberals, Democrats, they're all the same, screaming about hope and change."

All the while traditional conservative republicans reply, "I want my country back." So, how is it that 'backwards' is winning? Hey look, we just turned the Gulf into a dead zone, why do we need to subsidize electric cars again? How is it that "progress" became a bad word, or a notion to be dismissed rather than embraced? Progress is how we got this far.

It was progress that got us to throw off the chains of King George and begin our Democratic Republic. It was progressive to do away with slavery, the steam engine, and typewriters. It will be progress when we finally get around to developing high speed rail for shipping and travel, and it will be progress when we stop using gasoline powered vehicles. It was a good step forward when we developed heart and organ transplants, and yet there were conservative traditionalists that believed putting one man's heart into another would change the receiver for the worse! We must employ science over beliefs, and use our best technology to solve our worst problems.

My point here is that conservative-ism and or traditionalism is holding us back, I'd just like to know how and why!? What has status quo ever delivered us, but more of the same, literally???

We are more than we were yesterday, and our environment presents bigger and more complicated challenges every day. Because this is true, we have to embrace change, or we will parish. We need to evolve, we need to become something better, more capable, and more united, in order to face all of what tomorrow might bring. It is "united we stand and divided we fall", not this to each his own tax cut to spend on what what his wants- garbage.

We need to progress, as humans, and we need to do so dramatically. We need to leave behind us: old dogmas, religious grievances, physical differences, and truly accept that there is only one standard for everyone. I beg for progress, and hope dearly for it. Moreover I decry that those who would rail against "Progressive-ism", are Obstructionists, plain and simple.

Progress is far too rare a thing these days, and we are all the worse for it.

Entitlement Spending

2010-09-09T07:21:00.000-07:00

"We shouldn't be paying people to do nothing, everyone should have to work for what they get."

I guess the best place to start this is to say that people don't starve to death, when there are people with food around. I mean to say that the drive to stay alive will force the starving to lie, cheat, and steal if need be, in order to procure a meal. So, providing for a minimal existence to those who can't or won't work is self preservation, or rather an effort to keep them from becoming criminals.

The problem with every entitlement program I have ever reviewed, is that none of them are designed to get people off of them. They are hand-outs, rather than hand-ups. They merely provide these needy folk only enough to barely scrape an existence out, which insures they will continue to need help, forever. I only ask Conservatives to be aware of the fact that there is no one 'thriving' with or on Food Stamps, Welfare, Social Security, or Medicare.

Republicans can't or won't accept higher taxes, even when we are faced with a huge deficit. Their solution is to cut spending, and their first priority is to do so to entitlements. Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare are over a third of our budget. We pay this price because we decided as a society that we should provide for those who are not able to care for themselves. While I have no problem with attempting to identify waste and abuse within these areas, cutting spending here, won't do that. You'd have to raise revenue to fund such an endeavor, which may or may not pay for itself. Cutting spend here is only going to squeeze those who can least afford to be taken from.

I don't understand what is compassionate about suggesting that we should provide the old and disabled with an even worse lifestyle, as though they are living high on the hog now. In my mind, this is an area impossible to cut spending without endangering actual lives. We are all going to grow old, and eventually we will all need to be cared for and looked after. Do we all deserve to live off of hotdogs and mac & cheese, during this time, or are the old and disabled entitled to even less?

These safety nets are designed to catch those in need from hitting rock-bottom, and at present the nets are suffering gaping holes, that aren't catching their intended game. Cutting spending to these programs will only see more financial pain among those who already suffer the most.

Patriotism Through Taxes

2010-09-02T10:34:00.000-07:00

"We believe individuals know better than the government, when it comes to how to spend money."

I couldn't disagree more. Individuals are usually selfish, single-minded, and not at all interested in a greater good. This is why we left the State of Nature to form government, in the first place. We gave up the individual need for immediate self-gratification, so that we could all sacrifice a little to provide for the basic needs of everyone. Individuals don't build interstate highway systems, nor do they fund armies or societal safety nets. They buy houses, boats, cars, TV's, fast food, and XBOX 360's.

What has happened is individuals have been brainwashed into thinking that fully-funding the state is somehow a bad or unpatriotic act. Conservatives rail against taxes, of any kind, even when we are running deficits.

People volunteer their time and energy to all kinds of endeavors, from local community groups to national organizations. They do so, because there's a known sense of reward for sacrificing one's self to help those in need. In fact, we even give awards to those who devote a lifetime to volunteering. People are both honored and proud to volunteer to help others, and no one would crow about getting out of volunteering. No one talks poorly about volunteer work.

Taxes on the other hand, are seen as something to get out of, sheltered from, and are dealt with as a burden to be avoided, rather than the honored duty to your fellow citizens, that they are. Tune into any cable station and it will only be a matter of minutes before you see a commercial wherein someone is bragging that they owed the IRS $20,000, but only had to pay a fraction of that, thanks to "Tax Masters". There is an entire industry dedicated to finding legal loopholes in our tax code.

Our nation is in debt, and massively so. We are hurting each other, our nation, and our future by dodging our financial duty to one another. There would be no need to ever 'raise' taxes, if everyone was just willing to pay their fair share. Taxes aren't exactly volunteer, but they fund a system that serves all of us. At present, our system is underfunded.

Pay your taxes, it'll do far more for your fellow man and yourself than any volunteer job you could ever do.

Can NASCAR Lead

2010-08-26T18:09:00.000-07:00

"The private sector, not Government or bigger Government, is what spurs innovation."

The problem is that the private sector doesn't, won't, and isn't. But can it, will it, and should it? I think so, and that's why I drafted this letter to NASCAR's customer feedback link: fanfeedback@nascar.com

To Whom it May Concern,

I have been a fair weather fan of NASCAR for years, and a fan and participant of racing in general for as long as I can remember. I think that the very best innovation in engineering happens in and around the spirit of 'competition'. And today, we have a gasoline engine capable of maximum horsepower while still delivering efficiency. The advances that have occurred 'under shade trees' is truly astonishing...

I ask now, when is racing going to go 'green'...?

Why can't we turn this massive tool of innovation into delivering unto us super-fast, super-efficient cars and motorcycles???

The government can't, won't, or isn't spurring the market into more affluent actions, but the private sector could. In fact, an entity like NASCAR, could change everything in a single race season. Simply create a division that offers more prestige with much higher purses. However, it would only be successful if the incentives for gasoline racing were drastically reduced or eliminated.

I can't imagine how different so many people would view racing, if next season every official NASCAR race track was powered by 100% renewable energies, each one outfitted with solar arrays and wind turbines, selling building-it-yourself home kits in the gift shop that allow kids to build and learn about these technologies first hand. NASCAR could lead the American marketplace into a sustainable way of life, rather than being the well painted dirty stepchild of the industrial industry.

With that, I'll thank you for taking the time to read this, and ask that you please pass this 'request/suggestion' onto someone who might make this lofty notion an actual reality. I would love to receive a response or take part in an ongoing exchange with NASCAR upon these matters.

-Race Fan
---

To date, I've received no response, nor do I expect to, which is the problem. There is nothing as 'conservative', traditional, or unchanging as Southern culture. NASCAR's is set in stone, and gasoline racing will likely live long through "Peak Oil". Half of the current sponsors are Gas and Oil Companies.

The chances of progressive change coming out of this private sector are slim to none. But imagine if this weren't true. Imagine if NASCAR went whole-hog into creating renewable racing, who's sole purpose is to make advancements in electric motors and battery technology. The American racing world could save the planet, rather than slowly destroying it at 200 mph, and $75 per spectator.

This is just a blog, and not a call to action. I hope only to move my readers to consider "what if"...

That said, feel 'free' to write NASCAR yourself, and also make this recommendation. :)

No Mosques in America

2010-08-19T07:13:00.000-07:00

"We Ought to be Done with the Building of Mosques in the United States of America."

So much for America being the Land of the Free...

That Democrats aren't flocking to the defense of American Muslims and their right to practice, freely associate with one another, and indeed even build their own houses of worship is well beyond appalling to me. That so many can so easily dismiss the notion of American religious tolerance is the biggest step backwards we've taken since the adoption of the Patriot Act. The problem is that far too many leaders have settled on doing what is popular, rather than what is right.

Faced with the potential of being labeled "Pro-Muslim", just months before an election, has turned principled leadership into impudent followers of the lowest common denominator. When the leading Democratic Senator Harry Reed sides with the likes of Pat Robertson, one must wonder where we can turn to for Liberal leadership, willing to stand up for actual Constitutional standards.

The only ones making any kind of sincere argument are liberal commentators, and comedians like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. My favorite retort was made by Stewart when he noted, "...no one is protesting the building of Catholic Churches next to daycare centers." While the comment is obviously a jab at the recent child molestation troubles the world's oldest and largest Christian religion has had, it makes a great point- "We don't punish a whole group for the sins of a few within that group." There are over a billion Muslims, and those who object to Mosques in America are willing to discriminate against an entire religion based on the acts of less than .01%.

This is America, where people are supposed to be FREE to worship when, where, and how they like. Our leaders are supposed to be willing and able to take principled stands against those who would discriminate based upon religious beliefs. At the very least, someone should be willing to say out loud, "We were attacked by Al Caeda, NOT Islam." Or, how about stating the simple fact that the latest protest about the "Ground Zero Mosque" are completely misplaced, as the proposed project is neither a Mosque nor at Ground Zero, and that its organizer has actually worked in conjunction with our F.B.I.

When the actual facts of the matter and Constitutional standards take a backseat to emotional statements and people's feelings then we're truly in a sad state of affairs.

Immigration Reformation

2010-08-12T07:46:00.000-07:00

"If you break the Law, you are a criminal. You shouldn't get to go to the head of the line, when some people did the right thing and waited their turn."

Let us begin by admitting that America, today, is still the biggest most opportunistic market place in the world. If you are hungry and eager to work, you can find a job here. The more talented you are the more money you can make. America is like a Super Wal-mart with only a single-lane driveway for customers to get in and out, with 'illegal customers' making their own way in using 4X4's, and creating their own roads into the marketplace.

Our 'legal' immigration offices are that single-lane driveway. It is simply not designed to handle the flow of present immigration demands being placed upon it by the current influx of people. Lady Liberty herself has opened her arms to the masses of the world:

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

The problem is that those charged with filing the paperwork, are way way behind, so much so that people simply aren't willing to wait any longer...

And for the 'crime' of wanting to work to feed and provide for themselves and their families, Conservatives want the "illegal immigrants" punished. Since some 'waited their turn', I guess it's only fair that those who didn't, be forced to pay a fine of some sort, not unlike a speeding ticket. But after that we should fast track them into full citizenship.

What we need is an immigration super-highway. We are losing tax revenue by our inability to process those who flow through our system, and we are turning the very people Lady Liberty invited here, into criminals.

I do not understand why these lawbreakers can't suffer a meaningful penalty, but then be offered amnesty and be made citizens. The system and its budget are only hurt by having undocumented or 'illegal' workers here, because they aren't paying their fair share of taxes, and they are still utilizing our roads and services.

We can fix immigration by raising the ability for immigration offices to handle the demands being placed upon it.

The Rich EARNED Higher Taxes

2010-08-05T14:14:00.000-07:00

"Why should I be punished for being successful?"

This is the conservative talking point or response, when the issue of graduated or higher tax brackets is raised. The notion that the more successful or rich you become, the more onerous your tax burden becomes, isn't a punishment at all. However, this is not the way conservatives see it...

So, the point I'd like to make here is: 'the more you benefit from something, the more you owe it'. There's a system of government in place that serves us all, and it must be paid for through taxes. If you aren't 'benefitting' from said system, then your duty to it isn't comparable to someone who has garnered great wealth from the same system. You see, alone one can accomplish very little, and hold even less. Wealth can't be created in a vacuum, and it can't be held as an individual.

If you were the richest man in the world, but there wasn't a stable system of government to protect and serve you and your wealth, you'd soon find yourself at the hands of marauders and or pirates better armed and or organized than you. Luckily we aren't truly 'individuals' anymore. We exist, as we do, as part of a community or government. We left the State of Nature, to form this "more perfect union". And as part of this union, we all have a duty to fund it, as it is the thing that safeguards all of us and the wealth we garner.

When the system benefits you 'more', you should feel more obligated to pay for it. Imagine a lemonade stand where an owner employs 2 squeezers. Out of each glass sold, the owner keeps .50, and pays the workers each .25. Then one day a tornado completely destroys the stand and all the inventory. Upon deciding who will pay to fix it, would it make sense to demand that everyone pay the same amount? Possibly, IF they were all going to be equal partners, but if the profit isn't going to be shared equally, if would be unfair to ask those not benefitting from the operation to pay the same as someone making twice as much.

With that said, I believe that we DO all deserve to pay the same 'rate' of taxes, on our earnings. If you make "0", you pay "0". If you make a $1, you pay .10. If you make $10, you pay $1. If you make $1,000,000, then you pay $100,000. This is what as known as the "Flat Tax", and is NOT what is being employed right now. Instead, we have a convoluted system of laws complete with loopholes, caps, and exemptions that allow those who can afford it- Tax Lawyers, who's sole purpose is to make it so that the rich DON'T pay their fair share. Worse yet, is the fact that people brag about legal tax evasion as though it isn't stealing from everyone.

Instead of viewing taxes as a patriotic duty, taxes are thought of as punishment. Friends, my fellow countrymen, nothing could be further from the truth. We owe each other a tax debt, and the more you benefit from this system, the more you owe to it, period.