Political Discussion: Part 2 + Rant

<< Political Discussion: Part 1

The primary reason we have to stress about terrorism here in the U.S. is because of our involvement policing the world. And because of our involvement, we are associated as being an enemy because we befriend and side with their enemies. Long before the Korean War, we often refrained from interfering/intervening, and we rarely ever worried about terrorism happening here in the U.S. If my memory serves me correctly, we didn't get involved in WW2 only until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, after Hitler had already taken control most of western Europe. Until then, we did nothing, and at that time, our international policy was to not interfere/intervene unless we were directly involved and our national security was compromised. Now, we can no longer afford to police the world when we can't even afford to police ourselves. Still worried about our borders? I've got a simple solution for that too that not only increases national security, but reduce military spending. Reallocate all of our military personnel from all over the world back to our country, and put them on guard duty to patrol our borders. Boom. Problem solved. We'll greatly increase our border protection, and reduce costs by not having to ship supplies to our military overseas. However, we still should make immigration as easy/simple as possible. Our ancestors were once immigrants here, and I never want to deny access to anyone who could become a contributing/prosperous citizen to our country. In my teens, I spent two weeks in Mexico (and no, not in the Americanized tourist areas, either) around Monterrey and Guadalajara, and personally witnessed why people strive to come to our country, both legally and illegally. Unfortunately, we've been involved policing and siding with other countries, factions, regimes, etc. for so long to make anything suggested in this paragraph feasible/plausible. We're in far too deep for far too long to get out now.

I also believe in fewer laws, but strictly/severely enforce the few laws that we do have. People may argue with me on this, but the War on Drugs is a disaster and a failure, both economically and poorly executed. I don't believe that all drugs should be made legal, but the punishment should never be jail/prison. I also believe that no one should be incarcerated for prostitution, either. Jail/prison should only be reserved for those who commit violent crimes (molestation, murder, rape, etc.). We lead second in the ENTIRE WORLD for incarceration rates per capita (see http://en.wikipedia.org/.../List_of_countries_by...

). Our tax dollars are paying to incarcerate these non-violent criminals, to build more jails/prisons, and spent for private prison lobbyists push legislation to incarcerate even more. If we have fewer people incarcerated, then those who are incarcerated will spend more time incarcerated since we'll have more room for prisoners, and without having to build more jails/prisons. Not to mention, we would minimize the possibility of “creating” (teaching) more future violent criminals when the non-violent criminals no longer serve time with violent criminals (make contacts, join gangs, learn behaviors, etc.). My mother was once a teacher in a juvenile prison, and she can personally attest that this happens. Isn't it time to break this cycle?

To conclude, I want Democrats to stay out of our wallets, and I want the Republicans to stay out of our bedrooms. I vote for third party candidates who still seem honest, genuine, and sincere about wanting REAL change, and not the same empty promises people want to hear. Most people argue that voting for third party candidates is throwing your vote away, but I retort that voting for the same failed policies, voting for the same old political games, and voting for the same two political parties that got us here in this mess in the first place is throwing your vote away. Albert Eisenstein defined insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”, yet we continuously vote for the same old political rhetoric and lies, expecting different results. Both the Democrat and Republican parties have become far too corrupt with personal interests funded by corporations, special interest groups, and lobbyists to actually care what's best for the country as a whole and for the average American citizen. He who has the most money influences legislature now, and only until you remove the corruption from our political system will you ever see any REAL change. You may find yourself voting for "the lesser of the two evils", but in the end, aren't you still just voting for evil?

Rant:

Crap, now I'm all riled up and angry...
Republicans say they want smaller government, yet they've increased our police and their powers to fight their war on drugs, they increased the size of our military to fight their war on terrorism, and they've increased the powers of the CIA/FBI/NSA to enforce their Patriot Act. How's that decreasing the size of the government?!
Democrats say they fight for the homeless, yet they create regulations and strict housing codes, driving up the cost of homes, and increasing property taxes. How's that helping the homeless?!
Parties of hypocrites and liars. Ugh, I'm fed up with the fed.

Political Discussion: Part 1

This started as a political discussion between two Democrat and Republican friends of mine on Facebook that turned into a rant.  It's long, but here it is in its entirety...

I commend you both for having this discussion, however, here's my rebuttal for both arguments. If my comments seem all over the place, it's only because I'm attempting to reference both your arguments, starting from top to bottom.

History bears witness that both major parties, Democrats and Republicans, have shown to be too incompetent and greedy to actually resolve many of the issues we are facing, and it seems the situation is slowly getting worse, with a continual rise of our national debt, extreme fluctuations in our economy and market, jobs loss overseas, government dependency/inefficiency/intervention, crime, wars, gradual tax increases, more restrictions/regulations, and the list goes on and on. Both parties have had their chances. For brief moments of the past few decades, both parties have had majority control over at least two out of three federal legislative branches, and yet, we continue on this overall steady decline. Taxes have risen under control of both parties, these tax dollars are wasted, and our elected officials accomplish very little or nothing positive.

To start, although I believe in fewer regulations, we should still protect ourselves and the environment. Sensible regulation that promote both economical growth, yet healthy living conditions for our kids and grand kids. For example, reducing or even removing regulations that regulate cost/prices, geographical location, etc. that we often see in the healthcare system will also lower taxes (fewer laws mean fewer government officials needed to regulate these laws), promote a free market, reduce costs for everyone (due to competition), promotes efficiency, etc. However, specific markets (such as the healthcare system), spend millions to lobby against such legislature, creating monopolies and market dominance, higher costs due to lack of competition, inefficiencies, etc. Even Bill Clinton once agreed with Republicans that private health insurance companies shouldn't be confined within state lines, and should compete nationally. Watch http://www.foxnews.com/.../bill-clinton-enters-no-spin-zone/

...and if you like, skip to about 4:30 into the interview. And while on this topic, fewer officials to regulate fewer laws will help resolve issues with the “over-policing” of citizens, unlawful seize of private property, higher taxes, etc. But small businesses fail, and mega-corporations thrive not in spite of, but because of government regulations (http://youtu.be/7bLcja6Qe0I)

The majority of our tax dollars spent for public education is wasted in administrative costs. It's estimated that somewhere between that 50% to 75% of our tax dollars allotted to public education never makes it to the classroom (depending upon your sources). Our teachers who make $30k/year have to spend money out of their own pockets for their classrooms, while the average school superintendent makes $146k/year (http://www1.salary.com/School-Superintendent-Salary.html

). I don't mind spending money into public education, as long as it's spent wisely.

The free market system (capitalism) has proven time and time again that true socialism (such as communism) is a failure. Even China has adapted a minor form of capitalism, changing some of their economic policies to include private business/ownership in their country to survive and grow. I highly recommend watching this 2 hour 41 minute video by PBS titled “Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism” at http://youtu.be/c_uCqAHW0bw
A truly free market works in everyone's best interest only if the government interferes/intervenes in the free market as little as possible.

Political Discussion: Part2 + Rant >>

BCPS Voting

If you have our BCPS (Burke County Public Schools) best interests at heart for either your kids, grand kids, nieces, or nephews, I've made a list of whom to vote for:


Please Vote For:

• Randy Burns
• Dom Hemstreet
• R.L. Icard
• Edna B. Weller

New Posts On The Burke County Forums

I have posted a few articles on the Burke County Forums at http://bcps.forumotion.org/ in hopes of sparking a little more interest...

House GOP Leaders Press NC Gay Marriage Amendment

http://bcps.forumotion.org/t45-house-gop-leaders-press-nc-gay-marriage-amendment

Are Members Of Congress Paid Enough?

http://bcps.forumotion.org/t46-are-members-of-congress-paid-enough

CSM Saves $0 From Closing Schools In First Year

http://bcps.forumotion.org/t47-cms-saves-0-from-closing-schools-in-first-year

Burke County Forum

I expanded my currently dead BCPS (Burke County Public Schools) Forum to just the Burke County Forum, so that anyone can ask questions or discuss ANY topic related to Burke County, North Carolina.  This could include local politics, events, and, of course, our schools, as well.  I'm hoping this may spark some interest in what's going on in our county, our state, and even in our country that affects us citizens here in Burke County. I encourage anyone and everyone to take an interest and participate!  Forums are only as helpful and useful by the contributions (posts) made by its members.

http://bcps.forumotion.org/

Is it a right or a privilege?

Is it a right or a privilege?

http://www.volconvo.com/forums/society-rights/36881-right-privilege.html#post827961

Volconvo

Volconvo Debate Forums - Political, religious and news-based topics

http://www.volconvo.com/

A Debate Forum featuring political, news, religious and other relevant debate forum topics.

Advertisement/Poster

Volconvo: A combination of the words "volcano" and "conversation" meant to imply heated discussion.

Forum Rules

Please Sign This If You Support Our NC Teachers!

Please sign this below if you support our North Carolina teachers!

http://signon.org/sign/tell-the-party-of-five.fb3?source=s.fb&r_by=289449

Consultant warns of hidden costs in consolidation

During the Burke County Board of Education meeting May 17, consultant Hank Hurd from Rives & Associates LLC said the savings from consolidating schools aren't nearly as good as you'd expect due to hidden costs. I would like to point out that he mentioned he had been involved with five to six previous school consolidations; thus he has previous experience.In fact, the Charlotte Observer has a May 14 article on www.CharlotteObserver.com about additional costs to renovate Charlotte-Mecklenburg consolidated schools. The costs were much higher than projected, about a million dollars higher, which is "eating into projected CMS savings."I believe the hidden costs in Burke County weren't fully accounted for in Superintendent Art Stellar's consolidation report. Yes, Finance Officer Keith Lawson's numbers were accurate, but the "savings" from consolidating schools were not. Since we have already consolidated Hillcrest and Mountain View schools, we should carefully observe all savings and costs - especially hidden costs, such as transportation - for at least a year before shutting down six schools at once.
Most "savings" are not from closing a building, but from losing staff positions. I heard maintenance and utilities savings from shutting a school are roughly $80,000 per year, which is about 16 percent of the estimated $500,000 "savings" per consolidated school. Much of the "savings" we will not see for at least a year or two, since we are required by law to pay for health insurance and unemployment for many of these laid-off employees.
Hank Hurd also supported the school board's decisions not to consolidate six schools, and said that more research needs to be done.
When we incur deficits within our personal budgets, giving up our homes is usually the last resort and not the first. We make sacrifices by reducing our debts, and increase our revenue and efficiencies. Why aren't we doing the same with our Burke County Public Schools?
One way for us to increase our revenue is for the county commissioners to fully fund our public schools according to state recommendations. We cannot afford to lose our children's schools, or over 230 faculty and staff positions. Not only would our children suffer academically, but our local economy would suffer as well. People would move away to find jobs elsewhere, reducing local income, thus affecting the current businesses we have, and deterring other businesses from coming here.
There is a plaque hanging in the county commissioners' board room that says, "The public school is the greatest discovery made by man." That seems hypocritical considering how little we actually fund our Burke County Public Schools versus other counties and states. If our children's' education is actually important to us, then it's time we start putting our money into it!
Citizens of Burke County, we are in a financial crisis. The only way we will be able to work through this is to work together instead of against each other. If we are going to fix the deficit we are in, we cannot be divided, but stand united. I encourage everyone to get involved by attending both board of education and county commissioners' meetings, offering suggestions instead of criticism and asking them what you can do to help. If you are unable to attend the board of education meetings, then please watch them at http://www.ustream.tv/user/angieblalock/videos. Be a part of the solution!

Original Article - http://www2.morganton.com/news/2011/may/25/buchanan-consultant-warns-hidden-costs-consolidati-ar-1121524/

In whom should we invest?

North Carolina will spend $27,134 this year to keep one inmate in prison, but only $5,655 for a student. In whom should we invest?



The Impact of Budget Cuts in Education from WNDR News on Vimeo.


Attention: Burke County, North Carolina Parents

There is a vast amount of misleading information infiltrating the schools and many parents think that school closings are a done deal.  The board of education has NOT voted on closing ANY schools to date.  It is their decision, not the superintendent.  Please come to the Board of Education meeting on Thursday, March 24th to Patton High School at 5:30 PM.  Come prepared to offer the board options or proposals to keep the schools open.  The board members have publicly expressed they will listen to the voices of the stakeholders.  They stressed how important it is for everyone in all the communities come to this meeting and voice their concerns.  They NEED to hear from the community on how consolidations will effect their children and communities.  Please let your voice be heard on Thursday, March 24th at 5:30 PM.  Come early to ensure yourself a seat.  Be a proactive parent and citizen of this community and come let your voice be heard.  If you prefer not to speak, just your presence will speak volumes in standing strong for our school, children, and communities.

Thursday, March 24th, 2011
(Thu, 3/24/11 )

Patton High School - 5:30 PM

701 Enola Road, Morganton, NC

View Larger Map


Innovative Ink is selling T-shirts with the slogan "SAVE OUR SCHOOLS" on the front.  On the back, the shirt says, "Say NO to consolidation, Say YES to community!"  The shirts are $5.00 and all proceeds will be donated to a non-profit group dedicated to saving Burke County schools.
E-Mail: james@innovativeink.net
Phone: (828) 874-7183

Jon Stewart Interview On Rachel Maddows Show

The Maddow/Stewart interview uncut

The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart sits down for a lengthy interview with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow. This is the full, uncut interview including some footage that was not included in the 11/11 TRMS.

I feel that this is a video everyone should watch, both conservatives and liberals alike.  Jon Stewart hammers on how our news media and politics have become so polarized, along with some interesting points on a few different political topics!  It's almost 50 minutes long, but is a must-see.







During the interview, Rachel Maddow remarks of what Bill Maher said recently on his show, Real Time with Bill Maher.  In case anyone is interested, here's that video...

Best Online Political Quiz

Best Online Political Quiz

With elections just around the corner, there's many political quizzes you can take on the internet to find out what political party best suites you.  However, which one is the most accurate?  Most people prefer to take small quizzes such as http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz, but I find that a majority of people who take this quiz says that they are moderate Libertarians.  Although I know that I definitely fall into this "category", surely everyone can't be!  So, it seems to me that the more detailed questions you answer, the more accurate the quiz is.  So, I came across the political spectrum quiz below, that not only does the following quiz have 53 questions, but each question contains five degrees of how you feel about the questions, (instead of only two or three) and also how important these topics are to you.  It's highly detailed, but it requires a lot of patience to finish:

http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/political-spectrum-quiz.html

General Related Wikipedia Articles:

• List of U.S. Political Parties at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States
• Political Philosophy at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_philosophy
• U.S. Federal Goverment at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States
• U.S. Politics at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_the_United_States

Forms of Government Related Wikipedia Articles:

• Anarchy at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy
• Authoritarianism at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism
• Centrism at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrism
• Conservatism at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism
• Liberalism at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
• Libertarianism at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

U.S. Political Parties Related Wikipedia Articles:

• Constitution Party at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Party_(United_States)
• Democratic Party at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)
• Green Party at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_(United_States)
• Libertarian Party at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_(United_States)
• Republican Party at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)

Economics

Economics

First of all, I want to make it known that I am no economist in any shape or form.  I'm using what little “common sense” and knowledge that I've picked-up along the way.  So, if I make an incorrect statement somewhere, please excuse my ignorance!  A lot of this is simply from personal observation.

I'm sure many people reading this have heard of “Reagan Economics”, which basically gives tax incentives to the rich and raise taxes on mostly the middle class.  This is suppose to help create jobs, and “share the wealth” from the top-down.  However, all I've noticed that it has done is create more wealth in the upper class, and furthering the distance of the upper class from the middle and lower-income classes.  To me, it's scary, because the technical definition of a 3rd world country is that there is no middle class.  You only have an upper and lower-income classes.  I know from personal experience, because I have visited a 3rd world country.  There is no middle class.

What makes me ponder our current economics is that the average worker's wages has changed very little compared to that of the average CEO of a fortune 500 company.  Let's go back in history a little...

In 1965, the average CEO was paid 24 times more than their average worker.  In 1980, the average CEO was paid 42 times more than the average worker. In 2008, the average CEO was paid 319 times more than the average worker.  Last year, in 2009, the average worker made about $30k/year ($30,000 per year), while the average CEO of a fortune 500 company made about $11 million per year.  How accurate are these numbers?  I tried using several websites, both “conservative” and “liberal”, and used the average of these.

Of course, we've been conditioned to think that these CEOs should make a horrendous amount of money.  They are usually very smart, went to the best universities, had the best education, and should be paid a lot of money.  But where do you draw the line?  Did you know that the CEO of Walmart makes more money in ONE HOUR than most of his employees make in ONE YEAR?  His average employee makes less than $15k/year, whereas he makes about $16k/HOUR!  Is he really worth $16k/hour?!  I will admit that Walmart has really grown and provided a lot of jobs for a lot of people, but let's take a look at bottom-up economics a little...

Most people would argue that “poor people” don't provide jobs, but they do.  How is that?  They don't own any businesses to hire people, so how is it that they provide jobs?  When most very wealthy people turn a profit, they put it into other things that make them more money, such as investments.  They, in turn, make other rich people (such as banks and stock holders) richer.  However, when the money is used by “poor people”, it's often put directly back into the system.  They pay bills and they buy stuff.  They shop more at Walmart.  If the CEO of Walmart would reduce his yearly wages and raised his employee's wages, many of these people would buy more products from their own company and others, thus bringing in more revenue,  increasing profits, build more stores, create more jobs, etc.

I know many of you are probably thinking that I am a socialist, but I'm not.  I'm all for capitalism, however, socialism was originally designed to minimize the known greed factor that's often created from capitalism.  Because capitalism promotes greed, it can often lead to overworking employees with less pay, and even reducing the workforce to turn a better profit.  Because of this, our United States government had to pass a lot of legislature to prevent the growing abuse of workers.  But socialism promotes laziness, because there's no incentives to work harder or perform better, because you will always make the same wages no matter what you do.  And eventually, the highest branches of a socialistic government still abuses their workers in the end, with similar results to unregulated capitalism.  So, both forms of economy definitely has its “pros” and “cons”.  Where is the happy medium and how do you create it?

Although it would be very unethical and unconstitutional to enforce any form of “maximum wages” caps or limits on anyone, the only way to levy fairness via government is through taxation.  You could go about this two different ways.  Many people would argue that creating a flat-rate income tax system would be more fair.  However, I think we should do away with income taxes altogether.  “What?!  How is that possible?!” you may ask.  Income taxes does nothing more than put a burden on the working class, both poor and rich, and promotes welfare.  Why work harder when a lot of it is taken away from you from the government?  Instead of income tax, the federal and state government should only have a sales tax.  I believe that this would promote several things.

First of all, you can do away with the IRS.  If all taxes are handled at the cash register, then the only regulations and law enforcement you'd have are illegal “black market” products imported into the United States from other countries.  It would remove most tax legislation and greatly simplify our complex tax system.  It can also be easily adjusted only when needed, and could be customized.  For example, let's take food.  If you want to reduce hunger and starvation in our country, lower taxes on grocery items and raise all other non-food products.  If you want to promote health, lower produce taxes (fruits and vegetables) and raise the tax on junk food.  You could get very detailed and complex with a sales-based tax system, or you can keep it simple.

Secondly, it promotes work.  How's that?  Now imagine this: when you look at your paycheck, you actually made what you earned!  There are no federal or state income taxes.  You bring home everything that you worked hard for!  To me, I think this would offer a little incentive to work a little more, without worrying that the government taking more.  I think it's ridiculous that the government taxes more when you work overtime.  Personally, I think that heavier taxing on overtime only promotes laziness.

Thirdly, EVERYONE pays taxes, including illegal immigrants.  With our current income-based tax system, many people aren't taxed either because of their income levels (both rich and poor), or they work illegally.  However, with a sales-based tax system, if anyone buys anything, they're paying taxes.

And lastly, a sales-based tax system would be more fair.  The more you buy, the more taxes you pay.  Assuming that rich people would therefore would pay more in taxes than the middle and lower-income classes on any products or services they buy since they may typically spend more.  I also think there should be an additional luxury tax on anything $250k or more, but let's just start with the sales-based tax system first, and worry about any additional details later.

I'm not condemning anyone for being rich.  It's the American dream, isn't it?  But you have better chances of winning the lottery than getting rich from nothing.  Enforcing wage caps isn't the right way to do it, either.  A flat-tax rate would be more fair, but I still don't think it would solve the problem.  The only ethical and constitutional way of fairness is through taxation.  Is a sales-based tax system the answer to all of our problems?  Probably not, but it would seem to be a better choice than the current income-based tax system we currently have.  So there's my two-cents worth.

Related Wikipedia Economics Article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics

Utopian Society

How To Create A Utopian Society

For my English class, we have been reading George Orwell's “Animal Farm”, and a brought back a question that's been plaguing me for years – How do you create a Utopian society, a government where everyone prospers... the government itself, it's citizens, and businesses alike?  A society where people are free to live, educate, work, and enjoy life; yet adhere to laws that are fair for everyone, no matter who you are, in an honest judicial system with good economics and a well-balanced defense against both domestic and foreign attacks.

Unfortunately, through much reading and thinking, I've came to the conclusion that, because of human nature itself, keep us all from obtaining this Utopian society.  The greatest intentions often lead to corruption, greed and power being the motivating forces.  No matter how civilized a nation may become, human nature cannot escape its barbaric roots of the powerful dominating the weak, the influential dominating the easily influenced.  It seems that the populous would rather give up their human rights of freedom for a government that takes care of their people, and almost embrace totalitarianism, whether it be commercial or governmental, to relieve themselves of the responsibility of having to care for themselves.

Thus, humans cannot effectively govern themselves without it leading to corruption within any form of government.  But people require a government to protect them from enemies from within and from abroad.  People need a government protect themselves from criminals and criminal acts.  So, how do you form a Utopian society governed by flawed people?  It's impossible, but you have to start somewhere...

I admire the Constitution our American forefathers wrote.  However, if our forefathers could see what our current American politics have turned into, I wonder what they would've changed when they wrote the Constitution?  I know if I had been one of them, I would be disgusted by the entire political circus.  Everything from the executive offices down to the judicial system and even society itself have turned into a ravenous joke of materialism.  And we're all guilty to a degree, including myself.

To have a Utopian society, I personally believe that everyone must be in agreement that nothing serves society better than for everyone to serve it with best efforts and honest intentions.  But to do so, with a purpose benefiting the whole, it seems you have to relinquish your autonomy.  So, how do you create and maintain a society that promotes both collectivism and individualism?  Everyone has their own unique talents, but how do you utilize these talents to better serve society as a whole, so that everyone benefits and yet, citizens are happy and proud to serve?

What type or form of government to choose?  There are so many different types and forms of government, and even many various combinations.  It seems to me that democracy is probably one of the best, elected leaders by the majority rule, and hopefully in the interests of the people who elected them.  However, as we see in the United States, democracy definitely has its flaws.  Who regulates who, who regulates them, and then who regulates them?  In a true democracy, the citizens, without fear of their own government, should have the final say in all critical matters.  I personally believe that polls should also collect citizens' opinions of important decisions, and not just for electing officials, and the elected officials should respect and adhere to the public.

How big or how small should the government be?  Should there be limits set into place?  If a government is too small, it cannot govern effectively, and other powerful, non-government entities may become the greater influence.  However, if a government becomes too big, then taxes may rise beyond the scope of what the average citizen can afford, and too powerful for citizens to moderate.  Where's the happy medium of a medium-sized government?

What laws do you set into place?  I personally would first start with that all people, no matter of their gender, race, or personal beliefs/religion, are to be treated equally and fairly.  But where to from there?  For every law you create is a freedom taken away, whether it's justifiable or not.  Do you create laws to protect people from themselves, or leave it up to natural selection?  Do you create laws to protect people from corporations, or hope that corporate administrators and officers value the same ethical and moral conscience as the Utopian society?  Do you create laws for non-violent crimes?  Do you create laws to promote economy and overall wealth, or to protect the environment and promote overall health?  For every law you create to promote one aspect, you will often demote its contrast.  How severe should the punishments be for disobeying these laws?  Do you enforce capital punishment?

How would you enforce these laws?  Locally or federally?  Would you create different departments to watch each other, to help reduce corruption?  Who would watch the people in these departments to ensure they, too, remain free of corruption?  And who would keep those guys in check?  Unfortunately, this could easily be a never-ending cycle.

What are the foreign affair policies of a Utopian society?  Do you create a huge military and attempt to police the world, or keep to ourselves?  Should we align ourselves with other governments, even those who do not share our same Utopian views?  Should we develop an international group of law enforcement involving other countries?  If so, do we also intervene in circumstances and situations, even when our allies object?  How involved should we be with the affairs of other countries?  Should we force our Utopian ideology upon the countries that we aid?  Should we trade with other countries, or try to manufacture most of our own goods?  And how about immigration?  Do we feel compassion towards those trying to escape from oppression and poverty, or let them handle their own struggles?

How would you tax your people, and how much?  Would it be through income, sales, or some other means?  Would it be fair, or would you offer incentives to specific classes or income levels?  And how about a luxury tax for expensive items, and where does the limit start?

And lastly, how would you pass laws based specifically upon ethics and morals that are difficult to classify as “right” and “wrong”, “black” and “white”?  How about non-violent crimes?  Would you let the elected officials represent their people, or let the people vote for these laws (as mentioned earlier)?

A government should be firmly grounded, with a foundation built to last throughout the ages; yet adaptable to try new concepts and ideas, and able to make both permanent and temporary changes when needed, without all of the bureaucratic “red tape”.  I personally believe that by analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of our own and other governments, and incorporating the best aspects of these results, can you achieve a better, newer form of government.  With the cooperation of both businesses and civilians, a Utopian government is conceivable, but where would you even start?

Related Wikipedia Articles Of Interest:

• Political Philosophy
• Political Systems

Reading Material

Reading Material

Around Halloween, all sorts of bizarre, crazy, insane, odd, unbelievable, unusual, unworldly, outlandishness, strange, and weird stuff is on the media, so here's my little contribution.  Tons of material you could easily spend hours upon hours reading!  Just start clicking on any of the links below...

Conspiracy Theories - Wikipedia

• Government - Google Search
• Religious - Google Search

Cults

• Wikipedia
• Google Search

Rituals

• Wikipedia
• Google Search

Experiments - Wikipedia

• Government - Google Search
• Military - Google Search
• Mind Control - Google Search
• Scientific - Google Search

Enjoy!!!

Proud American also is proud to be a liberal

I found this article recently published in a local newspaper from a local here (of course, I suppose I'm more moderate with Liberal tendencies, but thought this article was good, none-the-less):

Hudson, N.C. - It's unfortunate that in our country, and especially in our community, being labeled "a liberal" is derogatory. I try to take pride in my beliefs and values, but I feel a slight pinch in my gut when I or someone of like mind is described as "just another liberal."
It's unfortunate not only for people like me, who proudly considers myself a liberal, but for the folks on the other side who see liberals as misguided enough to be labeled in a condescending manner.
We seem to forget that we are all Americans first and foremost. Those brave liberals and conservatives who fight side by side on our battlefields all bleed under the same Stars and Stripes, sworn to uphold the same constitution. Our churches are filled with God-fearing liberals who worship Christ with all their hearts and yet yearn for a more progressive and inclusive nation. Liberals believe in God and the idea that each individual should be allowed complete freedom to decide who God is for themselves without social or governmental pressures to fit a tradition or mold.
Liberals have been instrumental in crafting and defending our basic rights and philosophies since the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Paine's radical "liberal" views included a minimum wage, equal rights for all races and universal public education. All these ideas were considered radical for his time, yet it was his ideas that were instrumental in framing the constitution.
As a liberal, I believe we are a collection of individuals, guaranteed a wide scope of individual freedoms to be who we are. I also believe we are truly a "we" and not just a collection of "I's." We are commonly invested in each other's success and bound to every other person by the idea that founded this nation. We have a moral obligation to look seriously at the issues to ensure our fellow citizens are given opportunity, not just for their benefit, but for ours, too.
I'm proud to be a liberal and proud to believe in the first and 14th amendments' protections against government intervention in religious matters. I'm proud to believe in a fundamental right to privacy and a limitation to government intervention in our individual lives. I'm proud to believe that we should treat our enemies with the dignity and respect we treat each other, as I believe when we torture and deny civil rights to those who have acted against us we forsake our principles and embrace theirs.
I believe it's necessary to have a functional social security, Medicaid and Medicare, and low-income protections against need even if it is inevitable that a small percentage of people will take advantage of the system. I also believe it is many hundred times more egregious for a CEO to greedily take advantage of employees and stockholders than it is for a freeloader to be given unemployment, food stamps and health care even if he is not actively pursuing a better life. The events of the past few months have shown the irresponsible behavior of those with immense financial wealth hurt us all drastically more than the irresponsible behavior of those with little financial wealth.
Liberal does not mean radical; it doesn't mean elite or anti-American. It's a slightly different view on the goals and ideas we all share – a better day ahead for our children and our country.
So remember, the next time you call or get called a liberal, what that really means. And more importantly, remember the person behind the label is a proud American first.

Corporate Welfare

Between the financial institutions and now the "Big 3" (General Motors, Chrysler, and Ford) are threatening to file bankruptcy or get a $25 billion of this bail-out pie. I just want to know what anyone reading this feels about this. And remember, you can post ANONYMOUSLY.

Ok, now for my take. If it weren't for the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of American jobs on the line (both manufactoring and retailers/dealerships), then I would say screw them, let them fall. Between the lack of innovation to keep up with countries like Japan for the last 25 years, the arrogance and the greed, I wouldn't mind the government not only let them fall, but taking everything from their executives just for the hell of it. I don't know how much of this is true, but I read that last year, GM’s CEO Rick Wagoner’s total compensation was $14.4 million, or about $40,000 per day! However, on the other side of the coin, you also have UAW (the union) requiring these companies to pay their employees up to $75 an hour, to paying them up to 96% of their salaries for years after they've been layed-off. Also, retirees receive at least 68% higher benefits than workers for other types of manufactoring jobs. Give me a break! How could any corporation keep-up with those demands?! So, I find both at fault.

Being a Libertarian, I'm not really big into government regulations, but if my tax dollars along with my kids and my great-grandkids are going to these greedy people, I WANT STRICT REGULATIONS!!! I want these CEOs, executives, UAW workers stripped-down to what the rest of us makes and gets! I want these companies to trade-in their damn lobbyists for engineers! No more ridiculous crap!!! If these people want a bail-out, then by God, they're gonna freakin' earn it!

After I heard about the $440,000 retreat AIG's execs took (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/08/politicians.meltdown.aig.ap/), I'll be damned if I ever do business with them again! I once had an account with them a while back, but I'll never consider doing business with them ever again! Screw `em, I want our $440,000 back!

So, to me, the bail-out is an unfortunate evil, but doing so without harsh and strict demands would be a huge waste... a $25 billion waste! Wanna see someone else like AIG spending our money "wisely"? Now please post!

How Are You Excited, Worried, Or Angry About Obama?

What are you excited, worried, or angry about Obama being our new president? Be detailed about any positive or negative changes. I'll start off...

I'm very excited that the war in Iraq may come to and end, but I'm worried what may happen if we do leave, not so much that "terrorists" will be knocking on our door, but about the civil war brewing within Iraq itself. It would be nice if we could leave peacefully, but I know that's asking for too much.

I'm very excited to see the other options we may see with our healthcare. Will it be too little or too much? I don't know, but we'll see. If I can receive similar benefits paying into Medicare as I do my current provider at cheaper costs, you'll see me switching! I'm getting tired of my current insurance raising my costs every year, my co-pays getting higher, and my benefits keep going down. It's getting to the point I can't hardly afford it any longer.

I'm very excited to see how our tax system may change to be more fair, but I'd much rather just switch to the fair tax system (a straight percentage for everyone), if we're sticking to an income tax system. However, I'd much rather prefer to remove the IRS altogether, remove income taxes, and simply raise and rely-upon a sales tax system, but I went into detail about that in a previous blog.

So, I'd like to invite anyone to post their opinions on here as well!!!

GO VOTE PEOPLE!!!

GO VOTE EVERYONE!!!
Exercise your right as an American, even if you don't vote for any of the candidates!!!

Why Are You Voting For Whom You Are Voting For?

I'd like to try to get a discussion going on here right before the 2008 presidential elections of the presidential candidate you are voting for and why? This also applies to anyone who's already early-voted.

And why didn't you vote for the other presidential candidate(s)?