"I just don't see the world as you do."
Isn't it the truth...? We ALL look upon the world through OUR own eyes and experiences. It is difficult to remove us from any judgement we make about something we see. However, it should be our goal, if only a lofty one. We should try to see past ourselves, and see things for what they are, and not as we would have them be. It is not our experiences, but rather the pure quality of attributes presented that matter.
Introspection is how you understand you, and what you want for you. This is of great import in deciding which direction you will head next in your life, but when analyzing the world- exterior, you need to take off the blinders of your bias.
Politically speaking, this means, ceasing to see candidates through the letter next to their name. It is their record that needs to be directly addressed, and only their record. Rhetoric too should be shunned as a source campaign bias. Neither party affiliation nor empty campaign promises can tell anyone how someone will govern. Their record however, is the direct effect of their leadership style and decisions on 'We the People'. It is the only thing that matters.
Votesmart.org
It should be required reading before voting.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
WE Have to Build Tomorrow
"The Democrats just don't have a plan."
Herein, I have to agree with the Republicans. Democrats, we aren't pushing bigger better ideas. Why aren't we fighting right now for a single payer health care system? Why aren't we pushing paying down the debt, as a way of making the money in your pocket more valuable? Why aren't we suggesting we build bigger wider roads, as a way to reduce travel costs for businesses? Where are our big ideas for tomorrow?
For YEARS, I have been pushing high speed rail, that carries both passengers and their vehicles, powered by only renewable resources. Look around, isn't it nice?
Where is our 'tomorrow'? We've got great gadgets and media devices, but where's our infrastructure of a new age, where are the new means and ways? Tonight is the third debate, and I likely will not hear any more about bigger and better ideas there either.
Clearly, conservatives are stuck in the past, absolutely unwilling to let go of the old ways, and accept that there are better days ahead, if only WE accept better ways. So, why aren't progressives out there pushing for a bigger better tomorrow?
What is holding us back?
Herein, I have to agree with the Republicans. Democrats, we aren't pushing bigger better ideas. Why aren't we fighting right now for a single payer health care system? Why aren't we pushing paying down the debt, as a way of making the money in your pocket more valuable? Why aren't we suggesting we build bigger wider roads, as a way to reduce travel costs for businesses? Where are our big ideas for tomorrow?
For YEARS, I have been pushing high speed rail, that carries both passengers and their vehicles, powered by only renewable resources. Look around, isn't it nice?
Where is our 'tomorrow'? We've got great gadgets and media devices, but where's our infrastructure of a new age, where are the new means and ways? Tonight is the third debate, and I likely will not hear any more about bigger and better ideas there either.
Clearly, conservatives are stuck in the past, absolutely unwilling to let go of the old ways, and accept that there are better days ahead, if only WE accept better ways. So, why aren't progressives out there pushing for a bigger better tomorrow?
What is holding us back?
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Drug Testing Welfare Recipients
"Prove you aren't on drugs, or we won't help you."
Conservatives are filled with good intentions that are put forth with ill-conceived notions that have not been fully thought out, and that lack any foundation in fact. Thinking that you can save money by eliminating drug users from the welfare rolls is a great talking point, when addressing republicans. However, following through with such a plan requires you to ignore what happens when such a plan is actually implemented. It also requires you to ignore why we provide aid to begin with.
First, it is important to understand why aid is so important. When we give someone food stamps or welfare, we aren't paying them to do nothing. We are providing minimal assistance to those who can't afford basic life sustaining resources, to keep them from stealing what they need. We provide minimal sustenance so that we can be safe from them. Believe it or not, people won't just sit around and wait to starve to death. They can and will take part in some criminal action, to see to it that their basic needs are met. Those on welfare or other aid packages are there because they lack options. Oftentimes they are felons who can't find a job, single mothers without viable transportation or accessible childcare, or they are mentally or physically challenged. Removing aid from them, simply because you don't approve of their lifestyle choices, isn't going to magically make them employable. It will simply send them into criminal enterprises.
Second, it is of the utmost importance to see actual results of implementing such measures, like the state of Florida did. Since the beginning of July, Florida has been testing welfare recipients with a $30 test, wherein, a whopping 2% came back positive. So 98% of Florida welfare recipients received a test, that there was ZERO reason to administer. Over 40 million Americans receive welfare or food stamps. Drug testing each one would cost $1.2 billion, and at a 2% failure rate, such a program would COST the nation money, not save it.
Lastly, these tests are not fool-proof. Passing a drug test is as easy as drinking a cleansing tea, and failing one is as easy as eating a poppy seed muffin. Imagine now being a single mother of three, who's husband was killed without life insurance, who relies solely on welfare and food stamps to feed her kids and keep a roof over their head, who's just been told that she won't receive any government aid for 12 months...all because she ate a lemon poppy seed muffin and tested positive for opiate consumption? How much of an appeal process is she entitled to? How much will that cost?
The only conclusion that a rational person can reach is that stunts like this are a waste of time and resources trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist, with money we don't have, all to save money that we won't. Slogan-isms make lousy legislation.
Conservatives are filled with good intentions that are put forth with ill-conceived notions that have not been fully thought out, and that lack any foundation in fact. Thinking that you can save money by eliminating drug users from the welfare rolls is a great talking point, when addressing republicans. However, following through with such a plan requires you to ignore what happens when such a plan is actually implemented. It also requires you to ignore why we provide aid to begin with.
First, it is important to understand why aid is so important. When we give someone food stamps or welfare, we aren't paying them to do nothing. We are providing minimal assistance to those who can't afford basic life sustaining resources, to keep them from stealing what they need. We provide minimal sustenance so that we can be safe from them. Believe it or not, people won't just sit around and wait to starve to death. They can and will take part in some criminal action, to see to it that their basic needs are met. Those on welfare or other aid packages are there because they lack options. Oftentimes they are felons who can't find a job, single mothers without viable transportation or accessible childcare, or they are mentally or physically challenged. Removing aid from them, simply because you don't approve of their lifestyle choices, isn't going to magically make them employable. It will simply send them into criminal enterprises.
Second, it is of the utmost importance to see actual results of implementing such measures, like the state of Florida did. Since the beginning of July, Florida has been testing welfare recipients with a $30 test, wherein, a whopping 2% came back positive. So 98% of Florida welfare recipients received a test, that there was ZERO reason to administer. Over 40 million Americans receive welfare or food stamps. Drug testing each one would cost $1.2 billion, and at a 2% failure rate, such a program would COST the nation money, not save it.
Lastly, these tests are not fool-proof. Passing a drug test is as easy as drinking a cleansing tea, and failing one is as easy as eating a poppy seed muffin. Imagine now being a single mother of three, who's husband was killed without life insurance, who relies solely on welfare and food stamps to feed her kids and keep a roof over their head, who's just been told that she won't receive any government aid for 12 months...all because she ate a lemon poppy seed muffin and tested positive for opiate consumption? How much of an appeal process is she entitled to? How much will that cost?
The only conclusion that a rational person can reach is that stunts like this are a waste of time and resources trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist, with money we don't have, all to save money that we won't. Slogan-isms make lousy legislation.
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Jobs, Jobs, Jobs
"The President hasn't presented a jobs plan."
Constitutionally speaking, it is not the executive's job to write laws that would stimulate the economy. If such a job exists, I would argue that the power to regulate the economy rests with the Legislature. They would be responsible for writing or presenting a jobs initiative, and the President would then sign it into law or veto it.
Job growth has slowed and a GOP led Congress is blaming the President? When last I checked, our Constitution laid out a system of checks and balances, wherein no one body was given complete control over anything. For anyone to point the finger at the executive and claim specifically that jobs are not being created fast enough to keep up with market growth, is giving far too much credit to the office. If a President alone did take steps to personally fix what ails the economy, he'd be a dictator.
That said, there is no jobs plan. The President has not stated one, the Senate has not put one forward, and the Congress has also failed to produce any jobs legislation. Wall Street too, although reaping huge profits in this time of want and woe, are also firmly seated on the bench in this jobs creation game. No one has or is doing anything to create more jobs in America.
If any group is responsible for the lack of jobs being created, it's business owners, large and small. The second group responsible is our legislators, those actually responsible for writing laws that run our country. The President would only be responsible, if he were to veto a jobs bill that was passed by both houses.
All this said, our country lacks a cohesive goal for the future of humanity and the marketplace of tomorrow. Jobs would be plentiful, if we just decided become a progressive people.
Constitutionally speaking, it is not the executive's job to write laws that would stimulate the economy. If such a job exists, I would argue that the power to regulate the economy rests with the Legislature. They would be responsible for writing or presenting a jobs initiative, and the President would then sign it into law or veto it.
Job growth has slowed and a GOP led Congress is blaming the President? When last I checked, our Constitution laid out a system of checks and balances, wherein no one body was given complete control over anything. For anyone to point the finger at the executive and claim specifically that jobs are not being created fast enough to keep up with market growth, is giving far too much credit to the office. If a President alone did take steps to personally fix what ails the economy, he'd be a dictator.
That said, there is no jobs plan. The President has not stated one, the Senate has not put one forward, and the Congress has also failed to produce any jobs legislation. Wall Street too, although reaping huge profits in this time of want and woe, are also firmly seated on the bench in this jobs creation game. No one has or is doing anything to create more jobs in America.
If any group is responsible for the lack of jobs being created, it's business owners, large and small. The second group responsible is our legislators, those actually responsible for writing laws that run our country. The President would only be responsible, if he were to veto a jobs bill that was passed by both houses.
All this said, our country lacks a cohesive goal for the future of humanity and the marketplace of tomorrow. Jobs would be plentiful, if we just decided become a progressive people.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Fire Consumes 146 Young Women, 7 Remain Unidentified
On March 25th, in the year 1911 a fire consumed 3 floors of a New York sewing factory in a mere 30 minutes. Even though fire rescue arrived within minutes, limited resources, elevators, and minimal fire escapes insured nothing could be done to keep scores of girls from leaping to their death to fall some 80 feet, attempting to escape the fire.
One onlooker describes the scene in utterly unimaginable phrases, "thud, dead, thud, dead, thud, dead, thud, dead...the first 10 shocking, but to look up and see scores more that too must somehow come down...the sound a body makes upon striking the concrete before becoming a pile of lifeless bone, flesh and clothes..." Worse still is the fact that some of them didn't even make it to the ground, and were instead impaled upon the metal fence that surrounded the building. All this because of cramped unsafe working conditions, and doors locked to keep union organizers out of the factory.
I only just learned of this event in a Human Rights class I am taking, and would like to begin a movement or process to possibly identify those 7 girls that yet remain unidentified. This incident is more commonly known as the "Triangle Waist Factory Fire":
This event was the beginning of of labor standards we have today. It would seem that enlightenment comes only from death and suffering.
One onlooker describes the scene in utterly unimaginable phrases, "thud, dead, thud, dead, thud, dead, thud, dead...the first 10 shocking, but to look up and see scores more that too must somehow come down...the sound a body makes upon striking the concrete before becoming a pile of lifeless bone, flesh and clothes..." Worse still is the fact that some of them didn't even make it to the ground, and were instead impaled upon the metal fence that surrounded the building. All this because of cramped unsafe working conditions, and doors locked to keep union organizers out of the factory.
I only just learned of this event in a Human Rights class I am taking, and would like to begin a movement or process to possibly identify those 7 girls that yet remain unidentified. This incident is more commonly known as the "Triangle Waist Factory Fire":
This event was the beginning of of labor standards we have today. It would seem that enlightenment comes only from death and suffering.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Texas Water Wrongs
"We decide in this case whether land ownership includes an interest in groundwater in place that cannot be taken for public use without adequate compensation guaranteed by article I, section 17(a) of the Texas Constitution. We hold that it does."
The Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association hailed the ruling, saying it means property owners will have a reliable source of water, ignoring the fact that ground water can at times be a finite resource, and that wells can and do get pumped dry. This decision literally turned water into oil, making it a private land owner's property, rather than a communal good. The problem with the decision as the conservationist in me sees it, is that water doesn't exist in pockets section off in relation to barbed-wire fencing. The water table exists at different levels in different areas, but is most often one large overlapping entity, called aquifers.
This ruling basically said that you get to use as much water as you always have, and that you can't be denied water directly under your land without proper compensation. The problem as I see it, is that the decision doesn't assist newly created water districts in 'conserving' the amount of water that can be captured in Texas. In fact, the decision exacerbates the problem Texas has now that you are allowed to capture as much water as you can get to the surface. Shallow wells have been going dry, as the recent droughts have forced farmers and ranchers to dig deep and drill more wells, just to keep water tanks from drying up.
Compound the problem with what corporations like Eron Oil and Gas are allowed to do with dozens of industrial depth wells within a few acres that supply their frack sand mining operations. The last operational numbers I saw for a single plant were 3,700 gallons per minute or about 2 billion gallons per year. That's about an average sized swimming pool every 7 seconds.
This decision was made by conservatives, for conservatives, who have no wish what so ever to 'conserve' anything. There are two truths herein that need to be addressed. One, we are using more water than wells can produce, forcing us to dig deeper, and two, Texas lawmakers seem bent on sending us even deeper, abandoning all notion of conserving our most valuable natural resource. Who knew the establishment of water rights could turn out so wrong.
The Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association hailed the ruling, saying it means property owners will have a reliable source of water, ignoring the fact that ground water can at times be a finite resource, and that wells can and do get pumped dry. This decision literally turned water into oil, making it a private land owner's property, rather than a communal good. The problem with the decision as the conservationist in me sees it, is that water doesn't exist in pockets section off in relation to barbed-wire fencing. The water table exists at different levels in different areas, but is most often one large overlapping entity, called aquifers.
This ruling basically said that you get to use as much water as you always have, and that you can't be denied water directly under your land without proper compensation. The problem as I see it, is that the decision doesn't assist newly created water districts in 'conserving' the amount of water that can be captured in Texas. In fact, the decision exacerbates the problem Texas has now that you are allowed to capture as much water as you can get to the surface. Shallow wells have been going dry, as the recent droughts have forced farmers and ranchers to dig deep and drill more wells, just to keep water tanks from drying up.
Compound the problem with what corporations like Eron Oil and Gas are allowed to do with dozens of industrial depth wells within a few acres that supply their frack sand mining operations. The last operational numbers I saw for a single plant were 3,700 gallons per minute or about 2 billion gallons per year. That's about an average sized swimming pool every 7 seconds.
This decision was made by conservatives, for conservatives, who have no wish what so ever to 'conserve' anything. There are two truths herein that need to be addressed. One, we are using more water than wells can produce, forcing us to dig deeper, and two, Texas lawmakers seem bent on sending us even deeper, abandoning all notion of conserving our most valuable natural resource. Who knew the establishment of water rights could turn out so wrong.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
The Days of Gold
"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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)