The President of the United States is an American citizen. The man who ran against him in 2008 is also an American citizen. Can people quit saying otherwise?
The President of the United States has nothing to do with how high gas prices are, no matter if he's been involved with oil companies or not. Can people quit saying otherwise?
Past Presidents of the United States are not "borderline [mentally challenged]". Can people quit saying otherwise?
The following are quotes taken from "loose acquaintances" of mine:
-"Governor of Arizona Jan Brewer, is a murderer. She loves to watch people die because of lack of organ implants. Greedy [censored] politicians."
-"Unsurmountable proof that the education system in [America] is lacking. The city of [redacted] where i live was purchasing land to build parks. The combined total of all this land was appraised at $29.4 million. You know what [redacted] paid for it that came out of the taxpayers pockets? $49 million dollars. Now i'm no mathematician, but it seems [redacted] payed double what it needed."
-"Took Obama all this time to make a suitable forgery for his birth certificate."
After some minor edits and censorship, I managed to clean that up, and all grammar and spelling errors are not mine. But really? Shall we progress through the accusations, starting from the ones I wrote at the top of the page and proceeding down?
1. No candidate could even get into the primaries without a valid birth certificate. That SHOULD be the end of this, right? No siree. People still think that a candidate made it through a vast majority of states, and almost a year of campaigning without having a birth certificate. Yeah right. John McCain's citizenship is also being questioned. American Government, eleventh grade: US military bases are American soil. John McCain was born on a US military base. Thus, John McCain is an American citizen. Myth: busted.
2. The president doesn't have a dial from $0 to $10 sitting in the Oval Office that controls gas prices. He doesn't lower it when he has a good day or raise it when his Cheerios are soggy in the morning. It's all international commodity trading and futures trading. Whatever the price is in the international market, gas prices will reflect that after a delay period of a week or so. This rule applies to George W. Bush as well. Just because he had ties to oil companies doesn't mean he's magically allowed to influence a global commodity market. Not that simple.
3. Apparently, George W. Bush, aside from being able to control every country in the world with a wave of his hand, is also borderline "mentally challenged". The only reason he became president was because his father was a powerful figure in politics. To that, my friends, I respond "bullhonkey". Plenty of people who have powerful fathers never become president. Lacking skills in the public speaking department does not mean your IQ is sub-80. I heard a quote saying he was a "mass murderer" recently. Completely asinine accusation. You don't get to be president of the United States if your IQ is sub-80. Say what you want about GWB, when you look at the facts, the seeds of the financial collapse go back to the Carter Administration, Reagan Administration, and Clinton Administration. Masterminds of deregulation are still high-ranking officials within the Obama Administration today. I could go into more detail in another post in the future, let me know if this interests you.
4. Ah, yes. Apparently Governor Jan Brewer has a favorite pastime that involves watching people die because she withholds their organ transplants. Definitely, because she has all the control in the world over organ donations. She was recently elected "Supreme Empress over Bodily Organs". I'm sure that's exactly how that went down. I honestly don't even know what this is referring to, but one look tells me that it's completely false.
5. On to the education system, and how that made the park that costs $29 million actually cost "double" at $49 million. Maybe the education system really IS lacking, if 49 is 29 x 2. I was completely unaware of that. Again, not sure what this is referring to, but my main question here is "how does this have anything at all to do with America's education system"?
6. See #1.
I'm getting sick and tired of hearing the absolute garbage that I outlined in "my" posts, the first three. The last three were one-time examples of radical political ignorance, and how misguided a person can be.
Stay in school, kids, and for the love of David J. Matthews, please think before you open your mouth.
PS: I'm going to TRY posting more often, so apologies for the one month hiatus.
PPS: What do you want to read next, the plight of independent candidates in America, or something about the financial recession and how the blame is unfairly placed on George W. Bush?
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Commentary 2 - Democracy
To set the tone in a passage about democracy and human rights, Sernau opens with a trip he took to Myanmar (Burma). This corporate police state features a destitute lower class plagued by currency confusion, economic restrictions, religious tracking, government-controlled houses, apartments, markets, and communication lines, and vague laws that only exist so semi-legitimate arrests can be made if someone crosses the government. He then follows with a voyage into South Africa, and a visit to the prison that held Nelson Mandela and so many other inmates. This was a byproduct of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and the entire nation's move towards forgiveness and healing. South Africans were rallying around past injustices and the leader that had emerged from them, and are a proud nation. He then launches into a debate with himself about which term is more appropriate: nation, state, or nation-state. The root of the argument comes from nationalism, or the theory that the nation one lives in is at the top of the world as far as worth, rightness, and glory. He argues that nationalism is more common nowadays than patriotism, which is a love for one's country despite flaws. Patriotism is often seen as the healthier of the two; as nationalism is blamed for many a war. But as Sernau points out, nationalism prompts an almost primal urge to defend one's nation. Stalin was unable to find many supporters for the unpopular international socialism in Soviet Russia, due to destitution, brutality, and misery, but the reason Russians fought the Germanic invasion was because they were defending the Motherland, their home, their land, not the ideals one man held. This innate sense of responsibility and pride in one's nation, culture, and ideals puts a wrench in the idea of transnational union. How can people that so fiercely desire to remain culturally unique subscribe to new laws and policies enacted by a higher power? I believe that if it leads to better living standards and economic prosperity, people will be resigned to putting aside their differences to better themselves and their fellow countrymen.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Commentary 1 - Globalization & Progressivism
These will be fairly lengthy posts, as they meet length requirements set forth by my instructor. Hopefully people enjoy these, as always, leave me some feedback. Thanks!
The concept of globalization is a complex one. The governments (or parent governments) of hundreds of countries are at play, learning to peacefully coexist with one another. Scott Sernau asserts that this is possible through a cycle of dominance, with the major powers each having a period of great success: with the Portugese flourishing in the 1400's, to the Spanish, to the Dutch, to the French, to the British, culminating with the Americans in the 1900's. His theory is that the American period of dominance has ended, and that the 21st century is up for grabs.
The concept of globalization is a complex one. The governments (or parent governments) of hundreds of countries are at play, learning to peacefully coexist with one another. Scott Sernau asserts that this is possible through a cycle of dominance, with the major powers each having a period of great success: with the Portugese flourishing in the 1400's, to the Spanish, to the Dutch, to the French, to the British, culminating with the Americans in the 1900's. His theory is that the American period of dominance has ended, and that the 21st century is up for grabs.
Class Warfare?
"Logistical issues" have been sorted out, thanks to Google for the response, and now I've got some filler content on Wisconsin. I shall start posting the heavy, theoretical content tonight, so prepare yourselves. Thanks for your patience!
The United States has by far the largest economy in the world. We're the world's wealthiest nation. The closest country in terms of total economy is China (formerly Japan), and they're only about a third of our total wealth. We're the wealthiest nation in the world, and yet we're ridiculed around the globe for our enormous disparity of wealth.
There is no doubt that our middle class is shrinking. More and more people are being forced towards the upper or lower class, and more and more often, it's the lower end that is seeing most of these displaced folk. A lot of people were hurt by the recession. However, plenty of people made plenty of money: for example, the gentleman that bet against the subprime loan business. He's set for life. Unfortunately, the recession bumped hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people down to that 11 grand poverty line for an individual.
These people living on $11,000 and some-odd dollars per year are considered unable to survive on their own by the federal government. $11,000 US Dollars. Unsettling statistic: 50% of the world's population lives on less than $1 a day. The poorest of the poor in this country cannot even fathom that. It's beyond the realm of comprehension.
That's not to say that someone who lives on $11,000 dollars a year is living the life. They're lucky if they can get by in this country. I'm going somewhere with this, bear with me. The shrinking middle class is what has kept our country running for decades. The middle class has borne the brunt of the taxes, sustained the economy, and generally kept everything running. Some theorists today would assert that there is an all-out class war on the middle class.
Let's focus in on a single state: Wisconsin. This has been the site of protests, rage, and character insults with one man at the center - Gov. Scott Walker. Governor Walker is asking the public sector workers in Wisconsin (who make an average of $50,000 per year) to take a pay cut and start contributing more towards their own health care premiums and also taxing their pensions.
I commend Ed Schultz from MSNBC's The Ed Show for really plugging the urgency of the situation, no matter how much I disagree with his views. Whether or not it's "all-out class warfare by a young hotshot Republican power monger", I think it's concerning. Don't get me wrong, I think Walker is stepping in the right direction here. He doesn't have a choice. Wisconsin has one of the biggest budget shortfalls in the Union, and their public sector employees make more than their private sector counterparts. The reason it appears that this is an attack on the middle class is because this is Walker's only realistic option. People are clamoring for him to tax the rich. If the rich folk don't like the taxes in a particular state, they can up and leave the state without any serious trouble. People in the middle class can't reasonably uproot themselves and their families and move to a state with a more favorable tax code. The mass exodus of the rich will greatly reduce the state's tax base for that bracket. Restricting welfare is not the answer either, as no one wants to cripple the lower class more than they already are.
No, where Ed is right is when he says this is concerning. I don't believe it's avoidable, but the middle class is going to be paying for this out of control spending by both sides of the aisle. The rich are essentially untaxable, as are the poor, so the folk in the middle have to drag the state up by it's bootstraps. Other states are following suit: Ohio and New Jersey, namely.
It's alarming. It's scary. This is fundamentally going to shrink the middle class and bump more people towards the bottom. Ed's correct in saying that it's worrisome, although I disagree that it's class warfare or union-smashing.
Everyone should focus on Wisconsin, in between following up on Libya and Egypt. This is a preview of what's to come. We're all going to have to make some painful cuts.
This is a message to the complainers in Wisconsin: if you're taking a 5-6% pay cut from the average of $50,000 (between $2,500 and $3,000) and you suddenly can't afford your house and car payments, you may have bought too much. If you're unable to survive on, say, $45,000 a year, I question your fiscal responsibility.
I commend Governor Walker for taking the unpopular steps to balancing Wisconsin's budget. I also commend Ed Schultz for understanding the magnitude of the situation, no matter how misguided his partisan sniping might be.
This is real, people. This is real stuff, and it's going to affect you eventually.
The United States has by far the largest economy in the world. We're the world's wealthiest nation. The closest country in terms of total economy is China (formerly Japan), and they're only about a third of our total wealth. We're the wealthiest nation in the world, and yet we're ridiculed around the globe for our enormous disparity of wealth.
There is no doubt that our middle class is shrinking. More and more people are being forced towards the upper or lower class, and more and more often, it's the lower end that is seeing most of these displaced folk. A lot of people were hurt by the recession. However, plenty of people made plenty of money: for example, the gentleman that bet against the subprime loan business. He's set for life. Unfortunately, the recession bumped hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people down to that 11 grand poverty line for an individual.
These people living on $11,000 and some-odd dollars per year are considered unable to survive on their own by the federal government. $11,000 US Dollars. Unsettling statistic: 50% of the world's population lives on less than $1 a day. The poorest of the poor in this country cannot even fathom that. It's beyond the realm of comprehension.
That's not to say that someone who lives on $11,000 dollars a year is living the life. They're lucky if they can get by in this country. I'm going somewhere with this, bear with me. The shrinking middle class is what has kept our country running for decades. The middle class has borne the brunt of the taxes, sustained the economy, and generally kept everything running. Some theorists today would assert that there is an all-out class war on the middle class.
Let's focus in on a single state: Wisconsin. This has been the site of protests, rage, and character insults with one man at the center - Gov. Scott Walker. Governor Walker is asking the public sector workers in Wisconsin (who make an average of $50,000 per year) to take a pay cut and start contributing more towards their own health care premiums and also taxing their pensions.
I commend Ed Schultz from MSNBC's The Ed Show for really plugging the urgency of the situation, no matter how much I disagree with his views. Whether or not it's "all-out class warfare by a young hotshot Republican power monger", I think it's concerning. Don't get me wrong, I think Walker is stepping in the right direction here. He doesn't have a choice. Wisconsin has one of the biggest budget shortfalls in the Union, and their public sector employees make more than their private sector counterparts. The reason it appears that this is an attack on the middle class is because this is Walker's only realistic option. People are clamoring for him to tax the rich. If the rich folk don't like the taxes in a particular state, they can up and leave the state without any serious trouble. People in the middle class can't reasonably uproot themselves and their families and move to a state with a more favorable tax code. The mass exodus of the rich will greatly reduce the state's tax base for that bracket. Restricting welfare is not the answer either, as no one wants to cripple the lower class more than they already are.
No, where Ed is right is when he says this is concerning. I don't believe it's avoidable, but the middle class is going to be paying for this out of control spending by both sides of the aisle. The rich are essentially untaxable, as are the poor, so the folk in the middle have to drag the state up by it's bootstraps. Other states are following suit: Ohio and New Jersey, namely.
It's alarming. It's scary. This is fundamentally going to shrink the middle class and bump more people towards the bottom. Ed's correct in saying that it's worrisome, although I disagree that it's class warfare or union-smashing.
Everyone should focus on Wisconsin, in between following up on Libya and Egypt. This is a preview of what's to come. We're all going to have to make some painful cuts.
This is a message to the complainers in Wisconsin: if you're taking a 5-6% pay cut from the average of $50,000 (between $2,500 and $3,000) and you suddenly can't afford your house and car payments, you may have bought too much. If you're unable to survive on, say, $45,000 a year, I question your fiscal responsibility.
I commend Governor Walker for taking the unpopular steps to balancing Wisconsin's budget. I also commend Ed Schultz for understanding the magnitude of the situation, no matter how misguided his partisan sniping might be.
This is real, people. This is real stuff, and it's going to affect you eventually.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Commentaries
Recently, I've had to write several lengthy commentaries for a college course. I received extremely high marks on all of them, and I'd like to post them, however, they're pretty heavy reading. I'm not sure if this would interest anyone. If you think you'd like me to post one or two, let me know either by e-mail, Facebook, or in the comments below and I'll post one up.
Thanks!
Thanks!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)