The Best Republican Critique On The Internet

Republicans Want To Cut Useful Stimulus Programs

2009-02-12T08:52:00.000-08:00

Now, I would never legitimize pork. ATV trails and Frisbee golf courses need to be cut from the stiumulus. But public health, environmental, infrastructure, education, and art are not important considerations to Republicans. They just want more tax cuts for the wealthy and for corporations that have received incredible amounts of subsidies in the last couple years. They want us to keep driving 10mpg cars, destroy our air, drink unhealthy water(sanitation projects are "unworthy"), attend crumbling schools. All after pissing away over $800 Billion on two illegitimate wars. Republicans should be hanged. Heads should roll in 2009.

[1]http://www.progressive.org/node/125571

60% of Moderates Voted For Obama

2009-02-11T14:31:00.000-08:00

60% of Moderates Voted For Obama[1]

[1]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/politics/polls/?nid=roll_polls

Government Spending Is Probably More Effective Than Tax Cuts In Stimulating The Economy

2009-02-11T14:27:00.000-08:00

Government Spending Is Probably More Effective Than Tax Cuts In Stimulating The Economy[1]

[1]http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/02/the_republican_rankin_file.html

Response to a Critic

2008-11-20T10:52:00.000-08:00

Ben Walsh wrote:

"dude you waste so much energy on making these albums, and what happens mark? we all lose because you're wasting precious resources with your overuse, which by the way solely benefits your quazi-obsessive facebook album socialist propaganda. its outrageous and ignorant. good day sir!"

My response:

http://bestrepublicancritique.blogspot.com/2008/11/explanation-of-my-photo-album-slides.html
I agree that energy is utilized when I make photo albums. However, the amount of energy I use everyday is far less than the average American. I do not own a car or utilize cars, I bike to school, my school is only 1 mile from my house. In addition, I am spreading a very crucial awareness. We cannot continue to live this way! Lastly, I am planning on installing solar panels on my house in the next decade so I can live my dream of a house powered by renewable energy. I have a good deal of knowledge about of what I am discussing!

And, you can say all liberals are hypocrites. Conservatives have it easy. If you don't want to change anything, you can live your lifestyle in complete consistency with what you have said. When liberals critique things they believe are wrong, you can search for their inconsistencies or take a more constructive approach: realize no person can live 100% within the accord of their values. But certain visionaries will make the lifestyle changes(as I am willing to make) to realize their dreams.

Explanation Of My Photo Album: Slides One and Two

2008-11-20T10:16:00.000-08:00

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=69803&l=32795&id=537991561

Slide 1: "Perhaps textbook authors do not question the notion that bigger is better because the idea of progress conforms to the way Americans like to think about education:
ameliorative, leading step by step to opportunity for individuals and progress for the whole society. The ideology of progress also provides hope for the future. Certainly most Americans don't want to believe that their society has been on balance, a boon, and not a curse to mankind and the planet." from Lies My Teacher Told Me

Our culture's conception of progress as a constructive force is actually a delusion. For instance, my father's thirty year old bicycle that was produced in Canada of steel is of far superior quality to my Fuji Touring bicycle produced in 2006 in Taiwan. In addition, my family's Maytag washer from the 1950s lasted for over 35 years. Our current high-efficiency washer has a expected lifespan of 10-12 years. So, products were of superior quality between the '50s and the '70s than anything that is produced today. How is that progress? Manufacturing jobs should NEVER have been shipped to China!

Slide 2: "Our economy is not founded on principles of Sustainability. We've got 50 years worth of oil left."

Our economy is a "throw-away economy." Unlike the past when items were produced to a high standard of quality, and then fixed by technicians when they broke (Wait technicians actually took the time to repair items a few decades ago... Novel!), today's consumer goods are made to a low standard of quality in China, then sold for high prices-my $300 iPod has broke on multiple occasions. Consumers have to work extremely hard for many hours to afford the things they desire which aren't even very well made. Let's imagine I was a stock-broker on Wall-Street when times were good. Let's imagine I made $200,000 a year after taxes. That is around $50 per hour. $50 goes into $300 six times. So a stock-broker would have to work six hours to afford an iPod, which is made to a low standard of quality in China. Now let's imagine I was an non-unionized steel worker and made $300 a week after taxes, $11,000 a year total. I would have to work an entire week to afford a shoddily made iPod from China. Isn't that absurd in either case? Since I believed my iPod was likely to break at some point in time, I bought an protection plan in which Apple will replace my iPod if it breaks within the initial warranty + another 2 years, about 2 years, 3 months total. But then I got to thinking, why would I give my hard-earned money over to a company that made a product I knew would break. When my current iPod is through, I will NOT buy another.

In addition, about 0% of what we manufacture today is constructed in a sustainable way. Currently we are raping the earth, that is extracting too much oil to create the energy necessary for production as well as polluting our air and rivers. For the Beijing Olympics, attendees were instructed to bring face-masks. Consequently, many of the athletes performance was severely affected by the poor air quality. Now, how can we allow manufacturing to pollute to such an extent that citizens must wear gas masks in order to attend a sporting event? This is extremely perverse.

Subsequently, I am appalled that vehicles such as GM's Suburban which gets 15-16mpg. Back in the 1980s many vehicles got 40-50mpg. And here we are almost 30 years later driving vehicles with less than half of the efficiency of what was available in the 80's!

Continuation of the Conversation With My Republican friend Tyler

2008-11-19T17:56:00.000-08:00

Key: (*) No response from my Republican friend Tyler

(*)Mark:What redeeming claims can you make for Bush?

(*)Mark:Ever heard of the American Civil Liberties Union? They wish to protect our Constitutional Civil Rights. George Bush stepped, no pissed on our Civil Rights when he passed the Patriot Act:

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/resources/17343res20031114.html

Mark: The Congressional Bailout was suggested by the Bush Administration on Sept. 20th, 2008. It is an incredible abuse of tax-payer funds. My taxes should go to local schools, roads, police departments, not to bailing out huge financial houses!

Tyler: well, liberals have also bankrupted social security- abortion
do nothing democrat led congress has done nothing for the current state of the economy

Tyler: understand federal deficits and why they are good

(*)Mark: Social Security and abortion spending never amounted to the same amount as this incredibly huge bailout!

Tyler: along with nancy pelosi, dude. You have to get your facts straight.

Mark: The environmentally sound, sustainable economy liberals want will create jobs! For instance, windmills require 1) factories to create windmills, 2) individuals to ship windmills, 3) individuals to install windmills, 4) individuals to repair windmills. That is four new sectors to our economy just for windmills. Then solar power: 1) individuals to design solar panels, 2)factories to create solar panels, 3) individuals to ship solar panels, 4) individuals to install solar panels. That is another four sectors of industry created by the "green economy". Next, the electric car industry could be enormously profitable. So far I have suggested 9 new sectors of the economy that could be created.

Tyler: liberals don't create jobs. they offer a hand up, not a hand out. To suggest conservatives dont want clean air is ludicrous. You are thinking super microeconomics with your example. Sure, 1000 people may have a job. But that will not decrease unemployment. You libs offer a hand out not a hand up. This is why you keep increasing min. wage. You tell people they don't have to learn a skill, that they can live on hand outs. If you knew about Investment spending you'd know that it's the business, not the individual who truly invests. Thus, by cutting corporate spending and using expansionist fiscal policy more corporations can hire more individuals through an increase in capital investment. This will be more widespread than your windmill theory. Which is funny because McCain was the one who pushed nuclear power. Not O man.

Mark: Conservative groups haven't fought for Clean-Air! Its the liberal NYPIRGs of the world fighting for the good of the people!

Conversation With My Republican Friend Tyler

2008-11-19T17:31:00.000-08:00

My Republican friend wrote "Are you a Socialist?" on my Facebook wall. I replied: "Yes, I am a Socialist." He then said: "So you have gone to the dark-side?" I replied:

Let's consider this further:
-I support clean air. Liberals(+)
-Social Security, (a good thing) was created by Liberals (+)
-Medicare, (a good thing for the elderly) was created by Liberals (+)
-A federal surplus under Clinton, Liberals (+)
-Lack of environmental regulation under Bush, Conservatives(-)
-The passing of the Patriot Act, a clear infringement of Constitutionally protected Civil Liberties under Bush, Conservatives(-)
-Deregulation and collapse of world financial markets under Bush, Conservatives(-)
-Bush trying to privatize Social Security which would have been disastrous, Conservatives(-)
-Abstinence only education when the US has highest rate of teenage pregnancy in the industrialized world, Conservatives (-)
-Largest federal deficit in US History under George Bush, Conservatives(-)
-Largest publicly funded bailout for corporations by US Taxpayers under Bush, Conservatives(-)

I then asked: "What redeeming attributes of the Bush Administration can you come up with?" I am sure I will be awaiting a reply um, indefinitely.

A reasoned rebuttal to "Impeach Obama, 1,000,000 strong"

2008-11-18T11:01:00.000-08:00

A Facebook group entitled: "Impeach Obama, 1,000,000 strong" said:

"LETS GET THAT IDIOT OUT FROM THE WHITE HOUSE!!! WE ARE SCREWED IF HE WILL BE THE LEADER OF THIS COUNTRY!!!!!! EVERYTHING WE HAVE EVER FOUGHT FOR WILL BE FOR NOTHING. THE WAR IN IRAQ WILL BE IN VAIN, GUN RIGHTS WILL BE JACKED UP! TAXES WILL SKY ROCKET! WE WILL HAVE A WEAK MILITARY! HE WILL WANT TO DONATE EVEN MORE MONEY TO HIS ACORN TERRORIST GROUPS!!!!!! STOP HIM!!!!!! I KNOW THAT THIS GROUP WILL NOT PUT MCCAIN AND PALIN IN THE WHITE HOUSE BUT AT LEAST WE CAN PROTEST AGAINST HIM! ALSO I DON'T KNOW ABOUT ANYONE ELSE BUT I AM ALSO SICK OF BEING CALL RACIEST FOR NOT LIKING HIM JUST BECAUSE HE IS BLACK! NO ONE CALLED PEOPLE RACIEST WHEN BUSH WAS PRESIDENT BECAUSE HE WAS WHITE! NOW WHY THE HECK ARE THEY DOING IT NOW???? EVERYONE IS NOW CONSIDERED A RACIEST IF THEY DON'T LIKE OBAMA! GET OVER IT AND QUIT GETTING ALL DEFENSIVE ABOUT US BEING RACIEST!!!!"

Firstly, use capital letters for[1] 1)The first words of a sentence, 2) the pronoun "I", 3) Proper nouns (the names of specific people, places, organizations, and sometimes things), 4) Family relationships (when used as proper names), 5)Family relationships (when used as proper names), 6)Titles preceding names, but not titles that follow names, 7)Directions that are names (North, South, East, and West when used as sections of the country, but not as compass directions), 8)The days of the week, the months of the year, and holidays (but not the seasons used generally), 9)The names of countries, nationalities, and specific languages, 10)The first word in a sentence that is a direct quote, 11)The major words in the titles of books, articles, and songs (but not short prepositions or the articles "the," "a," or "an," if they are not the first word of the title), 12)Members of national, political, racial, social, civic, and athletic groups, 13)Periods and events (but not century numbers), 14)Trademarks, 15)Words and abbreviations of specific names (but not names of things that came from specific things but are now general types).

Secondly, you may not agree with Obama's policies but he is certainly not an idiot. Neither Obama nor Bush are idiots. George Bush attended Phillips Andover, one of the finest boarding schools in America. He then received a bachelors)BA) degree from Yale University and later received a Master's of Business Administration(MBA) at Harvard University[2]. Barack Obama[3] attended Columbia University and Harvard Law School where he was President of Harvard Law Review[4], one of the most prestigious legal journals in America. If anything, Obama is highly intelligent!

Thirdly, the War in Iraq will not be in vain. Obama's position[5]:

"Senator Obama has called for a responsible redeployment of our combat troops that pushes Iraq's leaders toward a political solution, rebuilds our military capability, and refocuses our resources on Afghanistan and our broader security interests. A residual force would remain in Iraq to target international terrorists, protect our service members and diplomats, and train and support Iraq's security forces as long as the Iraqis make political progress.

In January 2007, Senator Obama introduced the Iraq War De-escalation Act, which would have begun a redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007, with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008, a date that was consistent with the expectation of the Iraq Study Group. Since this legislation was introduced, Senator Obama has continued to be a strong advocate for legislative actions that could bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end.

Senator Obama has also stressed the importance of holding private security contractors like Blackwater Worldwide accountable to ensure that their conduct is not jeopardizing our military's efforts to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end. In February 2007, he introduced the Transparency and Accountability in Military and Security Contracting Act to require accountability and enhanced congressional oversight for personnel performing private security functions under federal contracts. Components of this bill that require new reporting on the role of contractors operating in Iraq and new regulations on selection, training, and equipping of security contractors were signed into law as part of the FY08 National Defense Authorization Act. Senator Obama is working to pass other components of the bill to increase accountability of security contractors operating in war zones by subjecting them to U.S. criminal law."

Point Six, Gun rights will not be affected much whatsoever. Barack Obama taught at the University of Chicago's law school for 12 years[6]. It is extremely unlikely that a constitutional law professor would work to repeal the Second Amendment![7]

Point Seven, taxes may or may not sky-rocket. Taxes were higher under Bill Clinton[8], a Democrat but the federal budget was balanced[9]. If taxes do get increased under the Democrats, and the federal deficit is decreased, our dollar will actually be worth more because inflation will be curbed.

Point Eight, ACORN is not a terrorist group by any means. The mission statement for ACORN is as follows:

"ACORN is the nation’s largest grassroots community organization of low- and moderate-income people with over 400,000 member families organized into more than 1,200 neighborhood chapters in 110 cities across the country. Since 1970, ACORN has been building community organizations that are committed to social and economic justice, and won victories on thousands of issues of concern to our members, through direct action, negotiation, legislative advocacy and voter participation. ACORN helps those who have historically been locked out become powerful players in our democratic system. "[10]

Acorn is an organization aimed at democratic reform, not a terrorist group. If you are not convinced, look at the description for ACORN on Wikipedia[11].

Point Nine, I agree that individuals that are not supportive of President Elect Obama's policy should not be called racist.

Point Ten, racist is spelled R-A-C-I-S-T.

[1]http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/592/01/
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Education
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama
[4]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Law_Review
[5]http://obama.senate.gov/issues/iraq/
[6]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/politics/30law.html
[7]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms
[8] http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D04E2DB1630F932A35754C0A961958260
[9]http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/
[10]http://www.acorn.org/index.php?id=12342
[11]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now

A Conversation with a Conservative

2008-11-15T20:06:00.000-08:00

Wes

who did u vote for!

Mark: I voted for Obama. It's nice to be behind the winner.

The last Jim Crow sign has been taken down!

If McCain had chosen Romney or Giuliani as a running mate, I might have considered him. But Palin was such a joke!

11:03pmWes

get outa here

go to hell

u screweed ys

and you dont even reakize it

go awqsy

11:03pmMark

Oh, America is screwed no matter who won.

11:03pmWes

away

democratic majority?

go to hell

11:03pmMark

Bush created the greatest deficit in our nation's history!

11:03pmWes

go away

11:04pmWes

i dont want to se u ever again

jesus

11:04pm Mark

So much for the "conservatives" They have run an incredibly Huge deficit!

11:04pmWes

christ

stopit

stop it

stop itr

stop it

STOP

11:04pmMark

Gonna filabuster me?

11:04pmWes

WHY?????????

franken?
OBAMA>

wow

I LOST RESPECT FOR U

11:04pmMark

No politics. How's your weekend?

11:04pmWes

i lost respect for u

11:04pmMark

All politicians are creeps.

11:05pmWes

i lostr so much respect for u

GET OUT HERE

GET OUTA HERE

11:05pmMark

I voted for someone in the top 10th percentile at Harvard Law! Not some street bum!

11:05pmWes

GET OUTA HERE

GET OUTa her

get outa here

11:05pmMark

McCain didn't even have a Masters!

11:05pmWes

get outa here

11:06pmMark

We have an intelligent, articulate person in the White House again!

Europeans are starting to have respect for the U.S. again!

11:06pmWes

SHUT UP MARK

WHO THE FUCK CARES

THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IS WHAT WE THINK

you dont get it

11:08pmMark

Oh, I'll admit. Capitalism is a sham. Politics is a shame. Any way it happens, wealthy men have a voice while the voice of the people is stifled.

Highlights of T.D. Jakes Commentary from p. 60 of TIME from Nov. 17, 2008

2008-11-10T11:11:00.001-08:00

"Even the dreamer himself, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., might not have imagined that 40 short years after his murder, we would be planning an Inauguration of the first man of African descent to ascend to the presidency. No minority of any ethnicity had ever looked beyond the scarce representation of a few Senators and seen anything that suggested that the doorknob of the Oval Office could be opened by anything other than the hand of a middle-aged white male."

"Senator Barack Obama has proved to be a biracial icon who can mobilize blacks and whites alike. Perhaps his mixed parentage gave him the multicultural background needed to be culturally bilingual, creating the dialogue that may bridge our divide."

"Our national demographic has metamorphosed into a darker-hued population, which is changing how America plans for the future. The cultural dialogue and language are changing. Political parties, churches and corporations must rethink how we go forward and with whose needs in mind."

"To think that this election was a shoo-in for him among blacks because of our affinity for our own people is disingenuous at best and at worst insults intelligence. And it ignores the fact that many other blacks have run for President and walked away without winning a primary, much less the presidency. Neither Shirley Chisholm, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Alan Keyes nor any other black candidate amassed black support the way Obama did."

"He cannot acquiesce to the liberals who support him nor vilify the conservatives who don't. He must remain a philosophical centrist who garners our best and brightest from both sides of the aisle. He must transcend all of that and rise to the global perspective of his calling and through it to serve his God, his country and the rainbow coalition of the people of this great nation."

"We can hope he can re-establish the international respect we have lost and gradually convince the watching, waiting world that change for us is good for them."

"The war of the long primaries is finally over; the crazed bickering of the campaign is finally gone. What remains is the strong survival instinct that made us reconstructive after the Civil War, resilient through the Depression and tenaciously united after the atrocities of 9/11."

"If we are to succeed from here on out, black, white and brown must melt into a brilliant depiction of red, white, and blue."

"One thing is sure: President elect Obama was right when he said, Together we can!"

"Without question, Obama's Administration will reshape the good-ole-boys' club we have seen for centuries, altering the political terrain, and it may very well spawn new hope for the disenfranchised."

"But before we light our candles and sing "Kumbaya," it may be wise to adjust our expectation to a realistic depiction of attainable goals."

We don't live in a real democracy

2008-11-09T20:09:00.000-08:00

"By the end, some lessons were already clear. Obama's sheer brute financial force, outspending McCain nearly 2 to 1, guarantees that the way we pay for our politics will never be the same-and money and power tend to flow as one."

Time Magazine, Election 2008 President-Elect Obama, p. 38

Rant: Republicans are More Represented in Mt. Rushmore

2008-11-09T10:38:00.000-08:00

George Washington(no Party), Thomas Jefferson(a Democrat), Theodore Roosevelt(a Republican), and Abraham Lincoln(a Republican) are featured in Mt. Roosevelt. In that case, there is a 2:1 ratio of Republicans to Democrats.

Obama, not going to be the change we need

2008-11-08T21:16:00.001-08:00

We've made great strides in race relations since the 60s. However, the last 8 years of Republicans have screwed things up so bad. I believe many people voted Democrat by default not because they are truly tolerant. If one party fails, the other party is elected in.

How progressive is Obama? He drives a 330HP V8 Chrysler 300. Do you expect this man to force GM and Ford to make more fuel efficient vehicles?

Also, Obama withstanding, we are a nation of pigs. I went to the mall today and I must say I was extremely disgusted with the shear obesity around! When I left the movie theater, I saw a 90oz Coca-Cola cup in the trash. Not only is that an obscene amount of Coca-Cola to consume, a ridiculous amount of calories but also a disposable plastic cup was used. I am absolutely appalled.

Furthermore, Obama has not mentioned repealling the Patriot Act.

Genesis 18-31 Commentary

2008-11-08T20:24:00.000-08:00

a. Genesis 18:20-21[1] God destroys settlements in which there is incredible immorality. So God will probably destroy America very soon.

b. Genesis 19:2[2], and Gen 19: 4,5[3] may imply that the ancient Hebrew's conception of homosexuality was close to that of a gang-rape. The Ancient Hebrews did not consider the possibility that a man and a man or a woman and a woman could have a consensual, loving sexual relationship. The Sodomy of sodom was gang-rape, not the culmination of consensual homosexual sex.

At that time in history, and as is the case today, individuals needed a safe place to sleep. If they did not find a haven in which to sleep, they were subject to the abuse of the delinquints out in the street. Lot wanted to bring individuals into his home to protect them from abusive sexual relations that would inevitably occur if he left these individuals out in the street.

c. Genesis 22:17-18[4] suggests that nations will only prosper with God's blessing. Thus, America will only be prosperous with God's blessing so we'd better return to righteousness.

d. Genesis 26:4-5[5] suggests that nations must adhere to God's commandments in order to prosper.

e. Genesis 28:6[6] appears to discourage the mixing of races. Abraham is bent on preserving the purity of his tribe so he does not want his son to marry a woman of another race. I find this appalling but this occurs today. Many white fathers are bent against their daughters marrying an African American individual even if he is an accomplished professional.

f. Genesis 28:20[7] suggests that God will meet the needs of the righteous.

g. I can imagine major corporations that under-pay their employees misusing Gen. 31-6-7[8]

[1]Then the LORD said, "Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomor'rah is great and their sin is very grave, ²¹ I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry which has come to me; and if not, I will know."

[2] Lot (and) said, "My lords, turn aside, I pray you, to your servant's house and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise up early and go on your way." They said, "No; we will spend the night in the street."

[3] ⁴ But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; ⁵ and they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them."

[4]¹⁷ I will indeed bless you, and I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore. And your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies, ¹⁸ and by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves, because you have obeyed my voice."

[5]⁴ I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and will give to your descendants all these lands; and by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall bless themselves: ⁵ because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws." ⁶[6]Now Esau saw that Isaac had blessed Jacob and sent him away to Paddan-aram to take a wife from there, and that as he blessed him he charged him, "You shall not marry one of the Canaanite women," ⁷[7]Then Jacob made a vow, saying, "If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat and clothing to wear,

[8]⁶ You know that I have served your father with all my strength; ⁷ yet your father has cheated me and changed my wages ten times, but God did not permit him to harm me.

American Society and the Book of Genesis Ch. 1-9

2008-11-08T19:46:00.000-08:00

"From the mountains, to the prairies,
To the oceans, white with foam
God bless America, My home sweet home."
-from America the Beautiful

We have torn up our mountains with coal-mining, we have polluted our prairies with industrial pesticides, and have polluted our oceans.

Also, if there is indeed a God, and Thomas Aquinas' argument is true, He is probably displeased with our lifestyle in America:

a. Genesis 1:21 says Man is to be a steward of the earth[1]. But are Americans good stewards of the earth? Not by any means: Americans constitute 5%(305,610,543 citizens today[2]) of the world's population(6,858,403,978[3]) but consume 25% of the world's energy[4].

b. 1 Timothy 6:10 says "For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." But doesn't Capitalism encourage a love of money? After all, capital is defined as goods or money that are used to generate income.

c. Genesis 3:19[5] says that man shall perform physical labor in order to grow the crops that are needed for his sustainence. But how much "real" work do we do in the U.S.? Powerpoint is not physical. Email is not physical. Conference calls are not physical. I will concede-that is merely the literal interpretation.

d. Genesis 4: 3-5[6] could suggest that herders of animals-a nomadic culture is preferable to an agrarian culture with permanent settlements. It can also suggest that God wishes man to sacrifice a portion of the best of his talents, possessions, and work to God and is not satisfied with mediocrity. In the 1st case however, why do we live in permanent settlements? God might not want that for us. Permanent settlements do in a sense drive us crazy.

e. Genesis 6:19-20[7] suggests that God wants us to preserve his magnificent creation. So why have we allowed hundreds of thousands of species to be driven to extinction?

f. Genesis 9:3[8] may suggest that God does not want us to eat meat. So Gen. 9:3 may be encouraging us to eat Vegetarian.

[1]Genesis 1:28
²⁸ And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."

To subdue means to bring land under cultivation. Genesis 1:28 instructs man to farm the earth. God also instructs man to

[2]http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

[3]http://www.ibiblio.org/lunarbin/worldpop

[4]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_consumption

[5]⁹ In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return."

[6] ³ In the course of time Cain brought to the LORD an offering of the fruit of the ground, ⁴ and Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. And the LORD had regard for Abel and his offering, ⁵ but for Cain and his offering he had no regard. So Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell.

[7]¹⁹ And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. ²⁰ Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground according to its kind, two of every sort shall come in to you, to keep them alive.

[8] ³ Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. ⁴ Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. ⁵

Protect Freedom of Speech!

2008-11-08T19:31:00.000-08:00

"While the storm clouds gather far across the sea,
Let us swear allegiance to a land that's free,
Let us all be grateful for a land so fair,
As we raise our voices in a solemn prayer. "

God Bless America,
Land that I love.
Stand beside her, and guide her
Thru the night with a light from above.
From the mountains, to the prairies,
To the oceans, white with foam
God bless America, My home sweet home.

Firstly, we no longer possess a "land that's free." We haven't had a land that resembles one of great freedom for many years. For instance, the Sedition Act of 1918 banned anti-war rhetoric and propaganda. But the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights says: "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." So, Congress cannot restrict freedom of speech, the right to believe religious philosophy, restrict the right for the people to assemble, or restrict what may be mentioned in the press. When Eugene Debs tried to protest the Sedition Act which was completely unconstitutional according to the 1st Amendment previously stated, he was jailed.

The destructive nature of Eastman Kodak in 1989

2008-11-06T16:19:00.000-08:00

I live in Buffalo, NY, one hour from Rochester, NY. I just read an article by LISA W. FODERARO from March 8, 1989, which was published in the New York Times.

A Synopsis of the Article:
-The Eastman Kodak Company employs 47,000 people, ten percent of the region's labor force[1].
- In 2008, Kodak has 26,900 employees [2]. A pipe broke near School 41 and spilled 30,000 gallons of methylene chloride - a solvent used to make film and a suspected carcinogen.

-Kodak then pledged $100 Million to investigate and clean up the site.

-Later tests at the school discovered that more chemicals had spilled than it Kodak had originally said. Other tests have also revealed 12 chemicals and five heavy metals present in ground water in and around the Kodak Park site in amounts that exceed state guidelines.

-The company "played dumb" and pretended that they did not know what pollution their facilities were spewing.

-Then, the school where the chemicals were spilled was reopened because the air was found to be clean. However, the school was not investigated on a day when the wind was blowing in the opposite direction that it typically blows. So the test may not have been valid.

-As a result of these scares, Kodak guaranteed the owners of the houses near the factory specific home values.

[1]http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DEEDB1F39F93BA35750C0A96F948260
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_Kodak

Nice world we live in.

Currently have not found Green, Ethical Computing

2008-11-06T15:38:00.000-08:00

So I live in Buffalo, NY. I live within miles of the third most dirty power-plant in America (for 2004), Huntley power plant[1]. The folks there however, have said they are cleaning up their act, but I don't believe them. The electricity my laptop is utilizing was created through the burning of coal which is contributing to air pollution, the destruction of mountains in coal mining, and is creating greenhouse gases which will contribute to global warming. Furthermore, I utilizing a a Hewlett Packard laptop which received a 4.7 out of 10 for sustainability [2]. Hewlett Packard is far from progressive regarding environmental issues. Hewlett Packard needs to develop a way in which to eliminate the use of toxic chemical in the production of their product, increase recycling, and work to stop climate change. Issue #2: I am running Microsoft's Windows Vista. Microsoft received a 2.2 out of 10 for sustainability[3]. Issue #3, I am utilizing Apple's Airport express to provide WIFI Access for my laptop. Apple received a 4.1 out of 10 for sustainability[4]. Also, I am fueling corporate profits for a major tele-communications company (my DSL line) In addition, I am utilizing Blogger. It was originally founded by Pyra Labs but is now owned by Google. Google though, made ETHISPHERE's list of most ethical companies for 2008[5].

So:

Huntley power-plant: 3rd dirtiest in America
HP:4.7/10 for sustainability
Microsoft: 2.2/10 for sustainability
Apple: 4.1/10 for sustainability
Google: one of the World's Most Ethical Companies for 2008

[1]http://www.tonawanda-news.com/homepage/local_story_225020506.html
[2]http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/toxics/electronics/how-the-companies-line-up
[3]http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/toxics/electronics/how-the-companies-line-up
[4]http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/toxics/electronics/how-the-companies-line-up
[5]http://ethisphere.com/wme2008/

New York Congress Candidates: The Really Good Ones Haven't been Approved!

2008-10-25T09:55:00.000-07:00

Martin Koppel (NY), Socialist Workers Party, Status is Pending!

Craig Schley (NY), Vote People Change, Pending!

Howie Hawkins, Green Party, Pending!

New York Congress Candidates-2008 Won't Anyone vote NO on ANWR

2008-10-25T09:18:00.000-07:00

(NO!) Timothy Bishop Democratic, Independence, Working Families, Independent:
(-)Voted Yes on Oil Exploration in the National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska on 07/17/2008

(+)Voted Yes on Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2007

(-)Places limits on court hearings to environmental protection rules.

(No Info available) Lee M. Zeldin,Republican, Conservative

(NO!) Representative Steve J. Israel, Democratic
(-) Voted Yes on Oil Exploration in the National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska

(No Info Available) Frank J. Stalzer, Republican

(NO!)Peter King, Republican, Conservative, Independence
(+) Voted No on Oil Exploration in the National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska
(+) Voted Yes on HR 1108: FDA Regulation of Tobacco
(-) Voted No on HR 6049: Alternative Energy Tax Incentives

(No Info Available) Graham E. Long, Democratic, Working Families

(No Info Available) Jack M. Martins, Republican, Conservative

(NO!)Representative Carolyn McCarthy,Democratic
(-) Voted Yes on Oil Exploration in the National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska
HR 6515
(+) Voted Yes on Alternative Energy Tax Incentives
HR 6049

(NO!)Representative Gary L. Ackerman, Democratic
(-) Voted Yes on Oil Exploration in the National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska
HR 6515
(+) Voted Yes on Alternative Energy Tax Incentives
HR 6049

(No Info Available) Elizabeth 'Liz' Berney, Republican

(No Info Available) Gonzalo M. 'Jun' Policarpio Jr., Conservative

(NO!)Representative Gregory W. Meeks, Democratic
(-) Voted Yes on Oil Exploration in the National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska
HR 6515
(+) Voted Yes on Alternative Energy Tax Incentives
HR 6049

(No Info Available) William E. Britt Jr. (NY) Republican, Conservative

(NO!)Representative Joseph 'Joe' Crowley (NY) , Democratic
(-) Voted Yes on Oil Exploration in the National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska
HR 6515

(No Info Available) Grace Lin (NY) , Republican, Conservative

(NO!)Representative Jerrold L. Nadler (NY) , Democratic, Working Families
(-) Voted Yes on Oil Exploration in the National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska
HR 6515

(No Info Available) Alfred F. Donohue (NY), Conservative

(NO!)Representative Anthony David Weiner (NY), Democratic
(-) Voted Yes on Oil Exploration in the National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska

(No Info Available) Salvatore 'Sal' Grupico (NY), Conservative

Representative Edolphus 'Ed' Towns (NY), Democratic
(-) Voted Yes on Oil Exploration in the National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska
HR 6515

(No Info Available) Hugh C. Carr (NY), Republican

(NO!)Representative Yvette D. Clarke (NY), Democratic, Working Families
(-) Voted Yes on Oil Exploration in the National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska
HR 6515

(No Info Available) Cartrell Gore (NY), Conservative

(No Info Available) Allan E. 'Al' Romaguera (NY), Republican, Conservative

(NO!)Representative Nydia M. Velázquez (NY), Democratic
(-) Voted Yes on Oil Exploration in the National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska
HR 6515

2008 Presidential General Election, New York: Endorsements by Mark Abell

2008-10-25T09:13:00.000-07:00

2008 Presidential General Election, New York
1. Ralph Nader:

No Party Affiliation, Independent, Write-In, Natural Law Party, Alaskan Independence, Ecology Party of Florida, New Mexico Independent Party, Nominated by Petition, Nomination by other than Primary, Peace, Populist

Why America Disgusts Me

2008-10-04T22:00:00.000-07:00

1) America produces the greatest amount of carbon dioxide per capita of any country
from [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_pol_car_dio_per_cap-pollution-carbon-dioxide-per-capita] and [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html]
2) The United States has the greatest amount of cars per capita-765 vehicles per 1,000 people. In contrast Australia has 619/1000, Italy: 566/100, Canada:563/1000, Norway: 494/1000, Spain:471/1000, the UK: 426/1000, Denmark: 408/1000, Ireland:359/1000, Greece: 329/1000, Israel 263/1000, Poland 261/1000, Oman 150/1000.
[http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/tra_mot_veh-transportation-motor-vehicles]
3) The United States is one of the only nations in the world in which the majority of citizens consume 3,500 calories per day
[http://www.mapsofworld.com/thematic-maps/world-food-consumption-map.htm]
4) C-student business men make almost all administrative decisions(as opposed to the public intellectuals of Europe)
5) Intellectuals are despised. Smart people are considered "uppity" and are not respected as superior individuals.
6)Our economy is not founded on the principle of ensuring every person's dietary, educational, and medical needs are met. It is founded on the principle that everyone should strive for financial success because only financially successful people deserve healthful food, strong educational institutions, and access to good doctors. If you are not financially successful in America, you are a second class citizen. In Europe however, a larger percentage of the citizenry has access to high quality food, education, and health-care than in the United States.
7) America was founded as a republic, not an egalitarian democracy. In a republic, wealthy old men make the majority of decisions which cater to a small minority of the population's interests and not for the greater good. In an egalitarian democracy such as Sweden however, every individual's vote is counted equally and regular citizens actually have a voice in the election of government leaders.
8) America is dominated by a corporate monarchy which silences the voice of reason on a regular basis to ensure the reaping of further profits. Automobile lobbyists worked to ensure that America's transportation would be completely automobile-centric and squashed alternative means of transit. In the early 1900s, electric-streetcars were utilized in many cities, a highly fuel and cost efficient means of transport. Thanks to the auto-lobbyists however, the majority of these electric streetcars were dis-sassembled, as were the majority of railroads in the U.S. Thanks to the Auto-lobbyists, the electric-trolley and the train, two fantastically efficient and environmentally conscious forms of transport have been eliminated as options for regular citizens.
9) America is #5 in the world for coal use after Australia, Greece, North Korea, and South Africa
[http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_coa_con_percap-energy-coal-consumption-per-capita]
10) In 1999, the US consumed 1,942,807 thousand metric tons of fossil fuel. 2,127,336 thousand metric tons were consumed in N. America and 7,689,047 thousand metric tons were consumed in the world. So the US consumed 91% of North America's oil supply and 25% of the world's oil supply for that year. We have 300 Million in America in a world of 6 Billion people. Thus, 5% of the world's population consumes 25% of the world's resources.

An Encouraging Letter To Libertarians

2008-10-04T10:11:00.000-07:00

Keep fighting the good anti-Big government fight. We've got to shrink the size of our government considerably, boot out the anti-constitutional Democrats, cut-welfare, and stop the affirmative-action garbage-I was an A student at Nichols school with an 1820-92nd percentile combined on the SAT(out of 2400) and had a black friend who was a B student with a 1400-1st percentile(out of 2400). I ended up at the 55th best college in America-St. Olaf. She ended up Columbia University, the 10th best college in America. As a white student however, Columbia University wouldn't even consider me with great grades and above-average test-scores. They did however, admit a seriously under-qualified student into their institution. So much for meritocracy. Also, since I'm middle-class, I can get about $5,000 in financial aid. Private institutions cost about $40,000 per year. As a result, I attend an academically inferior SUNY school. She as a low income student however, attends a $40,000 institution for free. So affirmative action creates discrimination against smart, hard-working, well-educated white males. Isn't that who America was founded by?

-Mark Abell

I'm a Libertarian, not a Conservative or a Liberal

2008-09-30T09:34:00.000-07:00

I'm a Libertarian, not a "Conservative" or a "Liberal". That is problematic because it paints me as a a "Liberal" much of the time because I take the same positions as "liberals" on many issues but do so for very different reasons. Take the issue of the mandatory draft. I would oppose a mandatory-draft for any war, including Iraq, because it would be an affront on my personal liberty. Many "liberals" would also oppose a mandatory draft by the U.S. military for operations in Iraq and/or other wars. Liberals have developed many good reasons against this current war that I could concede to be correct: The War in Iraq was waged without adequate intelligence information. That is probably valid but how can an individual of average citizenry know? Secondly, many liberals hate corporations and suggested that we shouldn't let U.S. Corporations expand their businesses in Iraq. I believe that is also reasonable and good. Isn't that be a violation of laissez faire economics, which is traditionally championed by Libertarians? Well, Corporations are not valid in my estimation because their legal-identity represents a violation of a "strict construction" of the Constitution. That is, the Constitution has a clear meaning which should be adhered to closely, as with amendments. A corporation's legal status is a major violation of this principle. A corporation is defined as an individual, and is thus conceded the rights pertinent and reasonable for an individual, under a loose reading of the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment was supposed to provide greater protection under the law for African American individuals, who had been persecuted frequently for trying to exercise their rights.
Consequently, I would also agree with liberals who are conscientious-objectors. No man should be forced to kill, especially when he is morally opposed to the principle of killing. To bludgeon somebody to perform a cruel action against their will is torture.

Furthermore, I will not concede to censorship. Individuals should be able to express themselves as openly and actively as they would like. The possibility to discuss a situation or position honestly and truthfully should always exist. It is our 1st Amendment right to do so, and this right should be treasured. I sometimes construe myself as an anarchist because I want to overthrow the current press: I am highly dissatisfied with our current press. It provides an incredible amount of bias and a minimum amount of useful content. Of the useful content that is provided by the contemporary American press, the content is so over-shadowed by a corporate-centric bias that the possibility of a factually-accurate, objective account of world-events is commonly rendered impossible.

Keep Republicans Out Of The White House November 2008

2008-09-28T18:00:00.000-07:00

Wow, let's hope the Republicans don't win. We will be faced with a blundering idiot for a V.P., a senile-old Vietnam Veteran as President, a failing-economy, a never-ending war in Iraq, no revisions of health-care policy, environmentally-degrading actions in Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, and no proactive environmental legislation. We will give even more corporate handouts out of OUR tax-dollars and the government will continue to perpetrate a slew of terrible policies.

Greater Amount of Voter Partipation in 1876 than 2008

2008-09-28T14:29:00.000-07:00

Between 1876 and 1900, 80% of eligible voters(only men) voted in Presidential elections in the U.S. There was a 62% voter turnout rate for the 2004 Presidential Election[http://elections.gmu.edu/turnout_rates_graph.htm] Why is it that people were more able to get to the polls over a century ago than today?

Little Change In Political Campaigns Since 1892

2008-09-28T14:18:00.000-07:00

A description of politics in 1892 from The American Journey, an American History textbook(p.577): "The pageantry and hoopla made politics a major source of popular entertainment for Republicans and Democrats alike. But the extreme campaign rhetoric and outright misrepresentation of opponents indicated the intensity of partisan emotions. [forward to later paragraph]"Only a national crisis in the 1890s would finally cause some Americans to demand more of their political leaders and institutions."

Sounds a lot like today: The pageantry and hoopla are still continued. Barack Obama and John McCain continually misrepresent one-another. There is an extreme disdain for the other party. If you are affiliated with the Democrats, you hate the Republicans, and vice versa. Now, in the midst of the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression, the American public is beginning to ask more of its leaders.

Don't vote for Obamanations or Mc-Cain/Mc-Same

2008-09-27T09:43:00.000-07:00

Don't vote for Obaminations of Mc-Cain-Mc-Same.
I don't understand why there is a single Democrat or Republican standing anymore. Both parties have failed us so miserably that we should storm off. Clinton's blow-job hyjinx was an embarassment to this nation. The man has no integrity whatsoever. Liberals are valueless to defend a man who commits adultery-for you liberals out there in the audience, that means he had sex outside of marriage. Welfare is also an embarassment. We can thank FDR for that bullshit. Why should hard-working men and women be taxed heavily to support families that are not their own?(the question of why even support a government should be brought up) I'm not responsible for anybody but my own family-that is the only reasoned proposition. Welfare doesn't even work, and yet liberals defend it. It creates a new generation of leaches that turn into crack-whores, hoodlums, and dead-beat dads. Social Security is also an abomination: it is not constitutional, neglects personal responsibility in the civilian management of finances. It should be cut entirely after today's elderly receive their benefits. Social Security refunds should then be issued to all prior generations. Why not tell people to save their money instead of the government saving it for them? John Adams wouldn't have proposed S.S. Thomas Jefferson wouldn't have proposed S.S. Andrew Jackson wouldn't have proposed S.S. So why the hell do we have S.S? So people can relegate the responsibility to save, away from individuals and their families to the government! Furthermore, why do intelligent people support Dems and Republicans? Most people don't want BIG government. But by voting Democratic or Republican, they are conceding to BIG government.

The Death Penalty: arguments and counter-arguments

2008-09-23T13:15:00.000-07:00

Pro: (A)The Death Penalty will reduce violent crime. (B)There is much less violent crime in China and other strict Asian nations than in the United States because criminals are regularly executed.

Counter Argument to (A) How do we know the Death Penalty will reduce crime? (B) Correlation does not imply causation.

Counter argument: (A) Murder is a crime. If murder is defined as the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered under the law. Under certain conditions, the Death Penalty may be a crime. If the Death Penalty is a crime, a crime will be committed after every murder which may result in a greater number of crimes.

Counter argument: Innocent people can be sentenced to death.
Counter-counter argument: Innocent people can be killed if a murderer is kept alive.

Counter argument: Allowing the Death Penalty creates a police-state
Counter-counter argument: Allowing the Death Penalty prevents a police-state because individuals that commit violent crimes are killed and do not need to be monitored thereafter.

Counter argument: The Death Penalty is inconsistent with the commandment "Thou Shall not kill."
Counter-counter argument: If violent crime is a sin, and "the wages of sin are death," the Death Penalty is legitimate.
Counter-counter-counter argument: According to "All men have sinned, [and deserve hell]." and "judge not lest ye be judged yourself," the Death Penalty is illigitimate.
Counter-counter-counter-counter argument: "All men shall be judged by their deeds." A murderer should be judged for his deed of murder and should be put to death.

Counter argument: "Two wrongs don't make a right."
Counter-counter argument: If killing a murderer is wrong than yes. If killing a murderer is a right, than the Death Penalty is legitimate.

Pro: (A)It costs $40,000 to keep a prisoner in jail and only $1 for a bullet. Killing all perpetrators of violent crime would save Billions of dollars. Most criminals cannot be reformed.
Counter argument: (A)Human potential is enormous, what if the next Van Gough was killed under the Death Penalty? Furthermore, jail might bring reform. Would that money be saved or spent elsewhere? (B) There is always the possibility that a murderer could reform.

Pro: Personal Safety: killing known violent offenders would ensure others aren't killed by them in the future.
Counter argument: What about self-defense? Don't we have a right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"? If a robber comes onto your property, and you tell them to leave, and they won't, shouldn't you be allowed to kill them? Or, if someone shoots at you on the street, can't you shoot back at them to protect your own life? You could be sentenced to death for defending yourself.
Counter counter argument: Can you ever actually own property? If property is an illusion, you could not kill somebody for intruding on something you could not metaphysically own.

Political Considerations: If The Death Penalty is enacted, it gives the Federal govenment even greater power. Do we trust the state to execute individuals fairly? Can individuals ever be executed fairly? It is prudent to cede power to the Federal Government that is powerful already?

Anarchism: Incompatible with the Destructive Nature of Human Behavior

2008-09-22T09:15:00.000-07:00

"Anarchism is the political belief that society should have no government, laws, police, or other authority, but should be a free association of all its members. William Godwin, an important anarchist philosopher in Britain during the late 18th century, believed that the "euthanasia of government" would be achieved through "individual moral reformation"."

There is very little truth in the statement above. At first glance, it appears to represent an ideal situation. However, Anarchism is a ludicrous concept because by my estimation, mankind is not inherently good. Furthermore Anarchism can seldomly be applied effectively because it first requires a populace in which everyone is more moral than average, which is statistically impossible. Common sense asserts that on the whole, people make terrible decisions, and do the "wrong-thing" the majority of the time-a Hobbesian model of human behavior. Human behavior is then, mostly destructive, primarily because most men act to meet the expectations of other men, which are usually evil. The reason young men join gangs is because they wish to belong, and be respected by others. These same men are willing to murder rival gang members, not in pursuit of food, or necessities, but for "street-cred", to gain the admiration of other men in the community, and to secure a territory in which to peddle drugs. The outcome of this behavior is astounding: young men are shot for reasons of arrogance and commercial enterprise. War for food or the protection of one's shelter, or offspring might be reasonable, but this is certainly not. Aristotle once remarked: "No man ever became a dictator in order to procure the food and warmth necessary to his survival."
Furthermore, people are coerced by so-called "friends" into many other destructive actions: 1)Voting for individuals they know to be evil to gain acceptance from those with a party affiliation, 2)purchasing Nike's and other clothing articles which are made in abusive child-labor camps because their friends think them "cool", 3) drinking excessively in order to become a member of a fraternity or a gang, or a social group. This commonly affects the health of the participants negatively but also results in fights, vandalism, rape, unwanted-pregnancies, venereal disease, and many other societal ills, 4) Driving an automobile because you would not feel "accepted" if you walked to school, even though you are ruining everyone's air.

I acknowledge that a need for admiration from others and for a sense of belonging, are legitimate human desires. However, it requires far more courage to pursue the right course of action, 1)to vote for an independent that is not bound by "corporate shackles" as the major parties in America are, 2) To buy used clothing or clothing produced in socially conscious ways, 3) to drink in moderation or not at all when there is peer pressure to do so, 4) to bicycle, walk, or take public transportation to get to school or work. Those previous actions are more difficult, and even more frightening actions to take because many social groups will not approve of them. From a rational perspective however, those actions are probably most right. But the pursuit of the right thing is looked down upon in the world, and is regularly repressed by authoritarian measures. Most men then, will not pursue the right course of action.
Anarchism then, can only be effective, when the following conditionals are met- when: 1) everyone in the world regularly strives for excellence, 2) considers the moral ramifications of their actions and lifestyle, 3) functions as individuals, outside of "group-think". When those conditionals are met, an authoritarian structure is rendered unnecessary.

Abandon blanket Statements, Know the facts before taking a stand, Be a Progressive Liberal

2008-09-21T15:58:00.001-07:00

A friend of mine wrote: "I hope Obama taxes the $%&#@ out of Wall-Street." I told her that we should be wary of blanket-statements-I use them frequently but am trying to cut them out of my existence.
The important thing to be aware of, is that Economics is a terribly complex field, so it is difficult to come to accurate conclusions about many things. For instance, California is #6 in the country for its local and state tax burden, has a GDP of $44,867 per capita. Montana is #40 in the country for its tax burden, and a GDP of $31,972. Someone that is not seasoned in economics, might conclude that California's high tax burden is not an obstacle to its high GDP per capita and that Montana ought to raise its taxes in order to create a higher GDP per capita. But that conclusion is very wrong: the states have completely different populations, geographies, values, cultures, weather, etc. There are a ton of external factors to consider. Anyhow, I created a very arbitrary example merely to illustrate that Economic conclusions are difficult to create in the absence of much consideration.

I hate the concentration of wealth in America-50 families control something like 50% of the nation's wealth. But maybe, instead of being idealistic liberals (and I am guilty of this too), we should start better, more socially and environmentally conscious businesses and take on these bad-boys. I'll admit Walmart is very shitty. Why couldn't we come up with something better? I am being theoretical. The point is, if you, or we don't like something, we should create something better-because bitching isn't progressive.
We need to be PROGRESSIVE liberals and take things on ourselves. For instance 1) I am living without a car this year, 2) I am buying almost all of my clothing used, 3) I am recycling everything, 4) I am composting at my local CO-OP, 5)I am using a backpack to bring home my groceries and am cutting down the amount of my plastic consumption, 6) I have gone mostly Vegetarian(and the girl I am going out with tonight is a Vegan!), 7)I am helping my parents to consolidate their driving trips and encouraging them to buy local-BUY LOCAL! KEEP MONEY IN YOUR LOCAL COMMUNITY, 8) I use Freecycle and Craigslist to unload things I no longer want, 9) I use biodegradable soap:Dr. Bronner's, and organic Deodorant: JASON, 10) I am writing a blog about how to live a more eco-conscious existance: http://howtoliveanecofriendlylifestyle.blogspot.com/

11) I am writing a blog criticizing "Politics as Usual": http://bestrepublicancritique.blogspot.com/

Democrats will be upset by my Obama post. I am a member of the Green Party-I'm definitely not voting McCain but don't know if I can in good conscience vote a Democrat-Obama doesn't meet the League of Conservation voters standards.

Sources for Economic Example:
http://www.retirementliving.com/RLtaxburdens.html

http://www.economics-charts.com/gdp/GDP-Per-Capita-by-gpc-growth.html

Obama Doesn't Really Represent Change, Another Latte Liberal

2008-09-17T08:17:00.000-07:00

A lot of people have rightfully criticized Barack Obama's campaign of "Change." That judgment call is fairly accurate for the following reasons: 1)A lot of politicians make promises that they never fulfill, so why should Barack be any different?, 2) Obama is affiliated with a major political party, the Democrats, a party that has historical associations to some of the most notorious individuals in our nation's history(remember Boss Tweed?). 3) The party also maintains the same ties to Big Business as the Republicans. 4) Corruption under Obama's administration is likely will be just as widespread as the amount of corruption under Bush(but HOPEfully not), 5) The Democrats, in recent years, have shifted farther and farther to the right, and can not legitimately called "liberals." They are just slightly less "Right-Wing" than the Bush, War-hawk Republicans-Democrats voted for the War in Iraq in great numbers! 6) Obama does not incorporate his values into his everyday living: Obama chose to drive a 300 horsepower Chrysler V8, cross-country for his campaign instead of driving his 36mpg Ford Escape Hybrid, a significantly more efficient vehicle, with a substantially cleaner tail-pipe. He also lives in a colossal home that must use a substantial amount of heat. He doesn't care about "global-warming", "air-pollution", "reducing our dependence on fossil fuels.". He is a "latte liberal", a pathetic excuse for an Environmental candidate. I looked at the chart of political candidates for the League of Conservation Voters. The only person on their list that fulfills all of the LCV's proposals was Dennis Kucinich.

Criticism of Toby Harshaw's "Feminism's Party Lines"

2008-09-15T17:10:00.001-07:00

In Tobin Harshaw's "Feminism's Party Lines", from the New York Times Opinion Section, she suggests that Feminism is a movement that should extend to all successful women, and not exclusively to successful "liberal" women such as Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi. She cites that Margaret Thatcher, a conservative, is just as worthy an affiliate of the feminist movement as the aforementioned female politicians. Even though Margaret Thatcher 1) attained a degree in Chemistry from Oxford in 1947 which was uncommon for females in the late Forties, 2)pursued an incredibly successful political career in which she was the first female Prime Minister, and 3)served to shape the British economic policy, she doesn't meet the criteria for a member of the feminist movement. A member of the feminist movement is an individual that is largely concerned with the promotion of equal opportunities and rights for women. Margaret Thatcher, however, was more concerned with the promotion of "free-market" capitalist policies than the enactment of initiatives to empower women. It is arguable however, that Thatcher's mere presence as a female Prime Minister, could have embedded a seed from which the woman's liberation movement could grow in England. If that did transpire, however, it occurred outside of a direct cause and effect relationship, in a non-linear fashion. Margaret Thatcher then, functioned outside of the ideological structures of feminism. Margaret Thatcher cannot be legitimately labeled as a "feminist". She was a successful woman but not a feminist. Harshaw should realize that a successful woman is not transitively a leader or associate of the feminist movement. She should also realize that the "feminist movement" is not a conservative movement because it wishes to grant woman greater equality and opportunity than the status quo allows. Consequently, Thatcher, a conservative did not actually support such said goals. Furthermore, Harshaw then said: "Sarah Palin brings feminism to a lot of people who’ve been scorning feminism — because feminism has seemed like a strand of Democratic Party politics." I'm sorry Harshaw, but firstly, your reference point Margaret Thatcher was not a feminist. Secondly, comparing non-feminist Thatcher, a much more accomplished woman than Palin, to non-feminist Palin, only accomplishes the goal of painting Sarah Palin as a non-feminist who is also highly inexperienced.

McCain and Obama's Idiotic Economic Policy Initiatives

2008-09-14T11:46:00.000-07:00

McCain wants to drive in the Alaska wild-life refuge. Let us consider the word refuge. A refuge signifies a place of shelter or place of protection from danger. Next, let us consider why ANWR was created: to protect the habitat of animals so they could live safe, happy lives. Would we allow commercial interests into an orphanage? We probably wouldn't. We wouldn't allow drilling in Yellowstone National Park either.It is then unreasonable to allow drilling in ANWR. From an economic standpoint, the action won't fulfill McCain's promise of "immediate economic-relief at the pump" because it takes almost a decade to install the equipment. McCain's promise is very much a fallacy because drilling in ANWR will not bring down fuel prices until the project is completed in another eight years. Why is McCain so intent on drilling there, if it will not depress gas-prices to better help regular working Americans get to work? McCain realizes permission to drill in a protected nature preserve, means permission to drill anywhere. If this objective is carried out, the oil companies will gain absolute license to drill anywhere they would like.

Obama's economic proposals are also foolish. He has proposed a rate of 28% on capital gains. Currently the capital gains rate is 15%(decreased from Clinton's 20% under Bush, one of the few great things he did ) That means, everytime a stock is profitable, investors will pay 13% more in taxes on their profits. Not a great proposal!

We the American voting public, are then involved in an unfortunate situation in the event McCain or Obama are elected President. The environment will be destroyed while the stock-market is preserved under McCain and vice-versa under Obama.

However, even with Obama's new tax policies, there may be the opportunity for economic growth under Obama in industries involving clean energy production such as hydroelectric facilities, wind-mill development, and the installation of solar-panels on houses in the Southwest.

The Republican economic agenda however, is at it's breaking point. It really has not worked well in the last 8 years: 1) We have shipped well-paid manufacturing abroad under NAFTA, 2) Deflated the national currency with a $15 Trillion deficit under Bush's Iraq War (the budget was balanced in 1999 under Clinton), 3) The Republicans have not pushed for equal wages for women even when a) equal work for equal pay is perfectly reasonable and b) women are the biggest spenders in our economy which would fuel corporate revenue and stock-growth Big-Time. Furthermore, 4) The Republicans have not regulated the auto-makers enough. This free-market business is nonsense-every car on the road should be at least 60mpg. Just because America has an abundant supply of natural resources does not mean the nation should operate complacently: it should aspire to overcome it's wasteful ways regarding energy policy. Warren Buffet's lifestyle is a fine example of this principle. Although he is a Billionaire, he lives in a 4,000 square foot house because that is all he needs. He could live in a 200,000 square foot house but he chooses not to, because that would be superfluous. America needs to adopt Buffet's utiliarian attitude and apply it towards energy-policy: to utilize only the energy that is needed and conserve the rest.
Consequently, American consumers should be annoyed with Ford and GM's poor attempts at product development, in this case-their failed attempt at creating fuel-efficient cars.Why is it that American companies can innovate so well regarding almost every other product besides cars, but not cars? If American companies can invent Intel Processors, iPods, and GPS systems, which are some of the best products in the world, Ford and GM should be capable of stepping up to the plate and crushing companies like Toyota and Honda with superior products. Then we would not have to drill in a Nat'l Wildlife Refuge!

A Conversation With A Clod

2008-09-12T10:00:00.000-07:00

A Conversation With a Clod, 09/12/2008
I am astounded to live in a world in which well-constructed, logical arguments that strive to promote the common-good are dismissed regularly as "too-radical", with distasteful condescension, while the preservation of traditions, customs, and lifestyles, which can easily be proven immoral, and are even called "immoral", are continually defended.
This morning I walked my dog to a local coffee shop in Buffalo, NY. I was approached by an older gentleman at a local coffee-shop. The transcript is as follows (Language is consistent with the material discussed during the actual event, but has also been dressed up. Accurate context has also been provided.
Older gentleman: "It that a King Charles Spaniel?"
Me: "Yes, that indeed my dog is of that particular breed."
A few minutes later, we began discussing politics.
Me: "I am a member of the Green Party, and will probably vote for Cynthia M. in November because I cannot in good conscience vote for The Democratic or The Republican Party because they are "the two heads of the corporate beast."
Context: "I would love to live in a world in which politics didn't exist. Parties would be non-existent and we would avoid the immoral consequences of the party. That said, we live in an imperfect world, and are given with the choice of a vote, which we must use to the best of our ability."
Me: "We cannot have authentic representative democracy when candidates must spend $200 Million on their campaigns to pursue the possibility of public office."
Context: I realize that elites have always maintained control of their respective societies, but also believe that ordinary people can have a minimal influence in choosing decently moral leaders.
Older Gentleman: "I will probably vote for John McCain because [supposedly] "His life experience is more pronounced than Barack Obama's."
Me: "But McCain graduated in the bottom quarter of his Naval Academy class. He was also an incapable soldier. Does an excellent soldier get captured by enemies? I don't think an excellent soldier would become imprisoned."
Context: "I am not in support of Barack Obama because he has spent $200 Million on his campaign, is part of the 'Corporate-Machine', and will most likely neglect to enact policies that are beneficial to the general populace."
Me: "Furthermore, Barack Obama graduated summa-magna cum-laude from Harvard Law School, was the 1st African American to write for the Harvard Law Review, one of America's most prestigious publications. He is also rumored to have an IQ of 140 points which, if true (let’s avoid the IQ testing debate) makes him more intelligent than more than 90% of all people(the average IQ is 100, and Obama would rank well on the bell-curve)
Older Gentleman: "Academic merit doesn't mean anything. I know the man that owns the marina that is a multi-millionaire."
Context: "I have read The Millionaire next door. The average Millionaire in the United States had an average SAT of 550 a section. The National Average for a section of the SAT is a 500 per section. Most most millionaires then, rank about 20% better than the average person in terms of academic merit."
Me: "I agree that it doesn't take incredible intelligence to become wealthy. It takes discipline, hard-work, inginuity,etc. That aside, public-policy decisions should be determined by intellectuals and/or academics because they [in my opinion] are best able to evaluate decisions affecting public policy. The air-quality, city-planning, quality of education, health-care, and public transportation are far better in France than the U.S. because intellectuals make such said public policy decisions.
Older Gentleman: “But Europe is a completely different story.”
Context: “Because of Populist nonsense, intellectuals in America have little control of public policy. Individuals such as Noam Chomsky, who has read six different newspapers every day for over 30 years, are dismissed as ‘liberal egg-head elitists.” But, America would function better if these individuals held public office.”
Me: “Yes, in America businessmen with IQ’s around 100 make all public-policy decisions, in favor of their potential profits as opposed to the public good. As a result, the quality of America’s air, city-planning (excluding New York City and a handful of others), public-education, Health-care (The US is 37 in the world for healthcare, France is #1) and public education, is inferior to France, Germany, and England’s standards.”
Older Gentleman: “But these ‘intellectual’ fellows you speak of, can’t fix a door-bell.”
Me: “They can however, in our increasingly co-dependent economy, make a phone-call to someone who can. As a result, their brilliant intellectual talent will not be wasted on projects unworthy of their intelligence.”
Older Gentleman: “I’m still voting for John McCain.”
Me: “But Palin promotes abstinence-only education. If we were to elect McCain/Palin we would lose 30 years of women’s liberation. Palin’s 17 year old daughter is pregnant. Is that progress? Is she now free to pursue an education? Consequently, didn’t she have sex before marriage? Isn’t that what the Christian right calls ‘fornication’? Isn’t that behavior contrary to ‘family values’? Even the valueless Democrats, with an exception to John Edwards, aren’t knocked up. I know Clinton’s daughter was never knocked up? Shouldn’t we elect a candidate who does not threaten to shut-down centers such as planned Parent-hood?
Older-Gentleman: “The world is not a perfect-place.”
Me: “I realize that we live in an imperfect world. However, we should strive to elect leaders that consider more sane decisions than Palin.”
Me: “If you had an 18 year old daughter, wouldn’t you want her to have access to birth-control?”
Older Man: “I would, because I would want her to be able to go to college, and focus on her school-work.”
Me: “Then how can you vote for Palin?”
Older Man: “The government should pay girls between the ages of 12 and 20 to stay in school, stay off cigarettes, alcohol, and drugs.”
Me: “Doesn’t the Republican Party advocate personal-responsibility?”
Older Man: “McCain is the lesser of two-evils.”
Me: “But McCain wants to stay in Iraq much longer than Obama. Every day U.S. troops occupy Iraq, the Federal Deficit sinks deeper. It is fiscally irresponsible to stay in Iraq. But wait, I shouldn’t be speaking out against fiscally irresponsible actions as a liberal! I’m supposed to advocate tax-and-spend policies. Doesn’t anyone remember that there was no federal deficit in 1999 under Clinton? Our budget was balanced.”
Me: “And aren’t Republicans responsive to the values of good and evil? When the ‘Family-Value’ Republicans are faced with a decision that is inherently evil, how can choose evil? If a vote for McCain is an evil, and a vote for Obama is evil, how can anyone justify voting for either.
Older gentleman: “I’m still voting for McCain.”
Me: [“Wow.”]

Dialogue to Libertarians from a Green

2008-09-12T06:58:00.001-07:00

Well, I am formerly a Libertarian. But my ideology has shifted towards the Green Party. It is rarely considered, but the Libertarian platform shares many similarities with the platform of the Green Party of America. Before we erect our ideological blinders, consider these points:
Firstly, Ron Paul just endorsed other Third Party Candidates, including the Green Party’s Cynthia McKinney.

Dear Libertarians,
Please consider these questions:

Q.1: Do you believe in Grassroots democracy, that all participants in the voting process should have an equal say in government?

Q. 2: Do you believe in promoting Social Justice and Equal Opportunity?

Q.3: Are you opposed to creating a society guided by Ecological Wisdom?

Q.4: Are you opposed to the Decentralization of our current government?

Q.5: Are you opposed to Community based economics?

Q.6: Are you opposed to Equal Wages for Women and the promotion of the ideal of Gender Equality?

Q.7: Are you opposed to greater emphasis on personal and global responsibility?

Q.8: Are you opposed to future-focused government planning and/or sustainable development?

Q.9: Have you considered the possibility that many of these tenants of the Green Party platform are very similar to the platform of the Libertarian Party?

Q.10: Have you questioned the motives of the Libertarian Party? (My analysis below...)
The U.S. Libertarian Party operates in the guise that individuals will have more personal freedoms. But, the primary purpose of the Libertarian party(not the Philosophy) is to de-regulate business. Consider this: If a major corporation can save $100,000 by dumping nuclear waste in a river, and there is no government regulation in place to force the corporation to spend $100,000 to dispose of the waste, safely and property, the corporation will most likely choose the former alternative. Private citizens will then be faced with the problem of a polluted river, which may be a detriment to public health.
The fallacy of Libertarianism is that Europe, a so-called Socialist state, extends greater personal freedoms to its citizens, than the U.S. Government which ignores the Constitution almost completely. How does the U.S. Government ignore the Constitution? Well, consider the recent-protest at the Republican convention in St. Paul, Minnesota. 800 people were jailed and beaten by the police-state, which we live in, for criticizing The War in Iraq, and the current Neo-Conservative regime, a violation of their 1st Amendment right to free-speech. Furthermore, the U.S. Patriot Act, enacted under the loathsome George W. Bush, is an indirect, though unfortunate, violation of the constitutional right of the U.S. Citizenry to privacy. Subsequently, both Republicans and Democrats approved the U.S. Patriot Act. Ron Paul and Cynthia M. of the Green Party were among the few politicians to criticize, and work to repeal the U.S. Patriot Act.

Q.11: Have you noticed that regulatory Europe has not enacted any form of "A Patriot Act." nor are protesters beaten by a police-state?

Deceptive Republican Politics: The Alaska Oil Pipeline Is a Scam

2008-09-11T09:01:00.000-07:00

The Republican's so-called "Energy-Plan" is very much a scam. SERGE F. KOVALESKI and MIKE McINTIRE, wrote an article titled: "Palin's Pipeline Is Years From Being A Reality." for the New York Times, which proves this point. Basically the situation is as follows: Palin would like to complete a deal to install a natural gas pipeline that will stretch 1,700 miles: from The North Slope of Alaska to the lower 48 states. The project will cost U.S. tax-payers $500 million dollars although drivers will not experience relief at the pump for half a decade or more. The Republican promise that the project will bring immediate relief at the pump is then no more than a promise.
Consequently, Palin has publicly expressed distaste for Republican complacency towards Big Oil, but is about to undertake a project in cahoots with Big Oil. Republicans hail the project as "The largest private sector infrastructure project on the continent." This is outrageous: Republicans are suggesting that our tax-money should be directed into the projects of major oil conglomerates, albeit the project will reduce dependence on foreign oil, instead of thinking progressively and developing new technologies which will provide clean energy but will also fuel economic growth. Obviously, Republicans are more concerned with the preservation of the status quo than growing our economy. Clean power would create about 5 million new jobs (from http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_speech_080308.pdf) but hey the Republicans don't really sympathize with the American worker.
An extreme notion of mine is that America should boycott many of the major oil-companies such as Exxon-Mobil, Texaco, and Chevron, as the Green Party of the United States did in 2001 (see http://www.gp.org/position/oil_boycott.shtml) If nothing else however, the US should seek to curb its dependence on oil, not increase it, as under Palin.
Furthermore, we would be intelligent to embrace the ideals of the Green Party: 1)To build a grassroots democracy in which ordinary individuals in the United States can have a voice in creating public policy, as opposed to lobbyists running Washington which we have witnessed for many years under BOTH Republicans and Democrats. What is so radical about that? People having a say within a democracy! That's far too-"radical" for America! Secondly, we should strive to create an environment of Social Justice and Equal Opportunity. Now I'm not suggesting we stop shaving, form a commune, smoke-pot and sit in a circle and sing Kum-Bay-Yah(it's always a possibility...".We should however, aspire to create a nation in which everyone can benefit from America's incredible wealth. We have a GDP of $14 Trillion dollars, 5 times that of France's GDP England's GDP, and Japan's GDP (not combined) and yet, there is less homelessness,better health-care, better-education, and better environmental stewardship in France, England, and Japan. Go figure. Furthermore, this ideal of Social Justice and Equal Opportunity is not unattainable. Just look at Europe: Europeans have a council (www.coe.int) that is concerned with women gaining full equality: Europeans would like to see women gain an "voice in politics." See [http://www.coe.int/T/e/Com/about_coe/] Again, that's too "radical" for America. It's really sad to live in a "democracy" in which the fight for egalitarian standards is considered extremely left of center to the general population. Somehow, though, I'll fight on. Thirdly, we should embrace Ecological Wisdom. We have forgotten that the Earth has sustained us for centuries, and continues to sustain us today. After all, we must eat, and all of our food comes from the earth. We must drink, and all of our water comes from the Earth. In addition, we must breathe, and the Earth provides the air we need to survive. Shouldn't we then, respect the Earth, or attempt to live in harmony with that which sustains us? Advocates of Republican and Democrat Rule probably will be quick to throw out terms such as "hippie" or "treehugger." But the aspiration to live in harmony with the Earth is more reasonable than sitting idly by as the earth is destructed. Fourthly, we should develop a society in which Non-Violence is respected. My Republican and Democrat brethren will probably retort some lame Hobbsian quib about "man's evil nature." and the "necessity of war." No, war is rarely necessary. Almost everything can be smoothed out through good diplomacy. Actually, the primary reason, and I'll concede that this is very much a simplification of the complex world we live in: we fight wars because powerful, white men are greedy. They want more land, more power, more wealth. If we could create a society without dominating commercial interests, there would be fewer wars. Land could be shared communally and people would have their needs met! Next, we should aspire to Decentralize. Corporations should not be allowed to form. Businesses could be owned by small groups of individuals and could effectively produce quality goods and services meeting the needs of the local population. The federal government could be severely reduced in size and power, and states could regain control over local affairs. In addition, Community Based Economics and greater Economic Justice, could transpire because the monetary influence of societal elites would be diminished by decentralization. Local profits from local businesses would fund local schools, with less bureaucracy, again because of decentralization. Unfortunately, in our current society, individuals buy a burger at a McDonalds, and the profit is exported outside of their community. The profit than lines the pockets of America's richest few. That hurts communities. Keeping profits local is a much sounder approach! Furthermore, we should strive for a society in which women and minorities are treated as 1st class citizens. Even with Gender and Racial Discrimination laws in educational institutions and the work-place, women receive 3/4 of the wages men receive. Women should receive "equal wages for equal work." The idiotic aspect of it is that women are the primary consumers in most households. So, if our society were to pay women better, a greater amount of consumption would result, and stocks on Wall Street might perform better! Subsequently, "blacks" or "African Americans", whichever "description" is appropriate, still face considerable discrimination. We should aspire to treat all people well, because of our common humanity. Lastly, we should strive for greater personal and global responsibilty (funny how these are Republican buzz-words.) Ideally our actions should not work against the social harmony, environmental quality, or health, of those in our community, and in communities around the world.

Environmental Absurdity: Drilling In Alaska is Detrimental to America's Economic Future

2008-09-10T11:11:00.000-07:00

Many Republicans support Bush and Cheyney's/McCain and Palin's proposal to drive for more oil in Alaska in the guise of minimizing our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. A more accurate analysis of their rationale for drilling is that that they wish to secure cheap oil which minimizes manufacturing and shipping costs for corporations which produce goods abroad and to deflate the cost of gasoline at the pump (which has been artificially low for nearly three decades) so consumers will continue to purchase highly inefficient SUVs and pickup trucks, which constitute the highest profit margins of any of GM and Ford's vehicle divisions. The negative consequences however, are many. Firstly, drilling in Alaska will cheapen the cost of oil. When manufacturing costs are minimized through cheap oil, there is little incentive to produce goods domestically. But, without government intervention, a Libertarian ideal which Republicans are selectively choosing to ignore, the cost of oil will soar. As a result, shipping goods internationally will become prohibitively expensive and manufacturers will decide to produce goods domestically, bringing back the standards of quality consumers enjoyed decades ago as well as many well-paying manufacturing jobs here in the U.S. Consequently, if more goods are produced in the U.S., our trade deficit could be minimized substantially. Secondly, GM and Ford are incredibly short-sighted to continue producing inefficient vehicles as opposed to developing new technology, which is expensive to develop but over time, serves to create greater opportunities for engineers and other individuals educated in the sciences. As we experienced with N.A.S.A., technological innovation and financial support for scientific endeavors has invigorated our economy substantially, and continues to do so. Because of N.A.S.A.’s expertise in launching satellites into outer space, scientists were able to develop cell-phones, arguably one of the most useful inventions of the 21st Century. Furthermore, Al Gore’s support during the Clinton Administration for the laying of fiber-optic cables alongside national high-ways bolstered the growth of the Internet. As a result, the way in which business is conducted has been radically altered. The Internet has cut the costs of communication, inventory, among other business-related expenses substantially, and has greatly added to corporate success, within the last decade, and continues to minimize expenses businesses incur. So, technological innovation, which contemporary Republicans and GM and Ford’s executives frequently avoid, is generally a positive force in our economy.
In addition, if GM and Ford were to develop new vehicles with the same standards of quality and level of innovation as Honda and Toyota, they would surely succeed domestically because most Americans prefer to buy vehicles that are produced by American companies over imports. If GM and Ford were wise, they would abandon their regressive agenda to drill in Alaska, and stop the production of inefficient cars and SUVs in favor of the pursuit of innovation over the tried and true deflation of oil prices through government intervention (i.e. drilling in Alaska). Through such suggested model, they can easily emerge as victors in the marketplace over companies such as Toyota because Americans want both the best vehicle as well as one that is manufactured by an American company. There is even an added benefit for America: If American companies produce the best cars, they will be desired globally and could serve to decrease America’s colossal trade deficit. Lastly, the Tree-huggers will be pleased.

The Futility and Absurdity of the Minimum Wage

2008-09-10T09:11:00.000-07:00

Contemporary Republican Economic Philosophy, refers to the Economic Philosophy of the current Bush Administration but also coincides with the economic philosophy of John McCain. It maintains many economic principles which serve to deconstuct it's aspirations. Firstly, many Republicans believe individuals should stive for self-sufficiency, and disdain the concept of welfare because it signifies dependence on the government, instead of dependence on "the fruits of one's labor." Curiously enough, Republicans also support the concept of a minimum wage. But the current minimum wage is much lower than the wages required to sustain oneself, and most certainly too minimal to support a family of four, or even larger. The most recent minimum wage, as of July 24, 2008 is $6.55 an hour (from http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/wages/minimumwage.htm) An individual that works 40 hours a week makes $262 before taxes [6.55 per hour x 40 hours]. In the U.S., the average amount of vacation days is 13 days per year (from http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922052.html) 13 days is approximately 2 weeks. If an individual worked 40 hours a week, averaging 8 hours a day, for 50 weeks, they would receive an income of $13,100 per year. Any income between $8025 and $32, 550 is taxed at 15%. 15% of $13,100 is $1965. $13,100-$1965= $11,135 in income for the year. Now, $11,135 into 50 weeks leaves the individual with approximately $222.7 dollars per week, or about $890.8 per month in income. Consequently, an apartment in Buffalo, NY, a moderately inexpensive city, is about $300 a month for an extremely shoddy place to about $700 a month for an extremely well-maintained apartment. So, let's say this individual on min. wage selects the $300 a month apartment. That is $890.8 for the month minus $300, which leaves the individual with $590.8 left to spend for the month, and that doesn't even include utilities. Furthermore, the cost of groceries even when purchased on a budget is about $50 per individual. So, groceries for a month will be at least $200 for one individual. So after apartment and food, the min. wage individual has $390.8 left to spend for the month [890.8 - 300(rent) - 200(food) ] The final $390.8 must last 30 days if the individual is going to avoid hand-outs from welfare. $390.8 per 30 days translates into about $13.02 dollars a day to live on. We have not yet factored in transportation. A monthly bus pass for Buffalo, NY is $33 per month for those that are Senior Citizens, Disabled, or on Medicare. For a regular individual it is $66.00 per month (from http://www.nfta.com/metro/routes.asp#fares) $390.8-$66=$324.8 left for the month after paying the rent, for groceries, and for the bus pass. $324.8 into 30 days is $10.82 a day to live on. That may be possible for an extremely disciplined individual that buys only used clothes, does not eat out, lives only on Peanut butter and Jelly
(from http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm) or on rice, and a few simple fruits. But, we must not forget the great probability that incidental expenses will be incurred, or that the individual will not attend work on every scheduled work-day. In that case, they will have less than $324.8 to live on for the month. $10.82 a day after rent, groceries, bus-pass-does not stretch very far. In the event that the individual incurs no sick-days, and can be sated with an ascetic lifestyle, the minimum wage could be enough. But this is America. People want nice shoes, clothes, cars, watches, televisions, etc. And who can really blame them? The minimum wage is then, unrealistic for even the most responsible individuals. In your face, Libertarians!