Ron Who?

If you haven't yet seen this clip from the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, then take a look.

In essence, after Ron Paul's second place finish at the Iowa Straw Poll just a few weeks back, the media shuns him. Coming in less than 200 votes behind winner Michele Bachman, Ron Paul received hardly any credit from the major media outlets nationwide. Even though Jon Stewart and Ron Paul reside on opposite ends of the political spectrum, Stewart still criticizes the media for not fairly educating the public and illuminating Ron Paul as a potential 2012 GOP contender for the nomination.

As the ABC anchor says, "We are in the business of making or breaking elections". And with that sort of responsibility, the media has to remain objective and unbiased, lest they seek to push their own agendas. Amirite??

Hmm. Ron Paul, a self-proclaimed libertarian and defender of individual rights is not your typical establishment Republican -- or politician, for that matter. He has voted against the Middle-Eastern wars since the very beginning. He wants to end the war on drugs, bring our troops home, and slowly phase out the Federal Reserve system. I can understand why liberal news outlets like CNN and MSNBC would benefit from censoring and obscuring Ron Paul: they are attempting to prevent democratic voters from switching their support to Paul. But why does Fox News ignore him? He's a republican. He's been in Congress for over a decade. He participates in all major televised debates. So what gives?

Is he too extremist for the Republican party to adopt  him? If you answered yes, then take a look at Michele Bachmann or Rick Perry. Still think Paul is the extremist one?

Unelectable, you say? With 4,000 votes and a stunning second-place finish, that is a claim without substance. If he is unelectable, then the media has nothing to lose. Who in their right mind thinks Herman Cain is going to win the nomination? But he still gets media attention.


What do YOU think? Why is the media shunning Ron Paul? What are their motives?

True Democracy

I want to talk a little bit about democracy in the modern age.

The United States of America is a representative democracy. In essence, we elect leaders to represent our views and interests in the House of Representatives and the Senate. No doubt, when the system was created in the 18th century it was an imperfect system -- naturally, not everyone would get what they wanted, and unfortunately, even the majority might not always get their way. But, what I don't understand is now that we are in the 21st century with our computers and our cyber databases, why do we not simply have a pure democracy?

In other words, why do we still elect leaders to represent us? What is the use in representation in this day and age? Almost everyone has a computer, and so why not empower citizens to vote directly on legislation? How about "vote.gov" (is that taken??). Each citizen could cast a virtual ballot and verify their identity with their social-security number or some of form of identification. I see no argument here -- the people get what the people vote for. Majority rules. Democracy!

Or, for a less extreme and more realistic solution, how about each Congressional representative allow each of their constituents to vote online on upcoming bills. This will help Congressmen and women know how to vote to properly represent their respective districts. And their voting record could be compared with that of their constituents' to gauge their responsiveness to their own people, come re-election time.

What do YOU think? Should citizens be able to vote directly on laws without the Congressional "middlemen"? Is this a realistic idea?

Progressives in American History

1.     In the view of progressives, what was wrong with American society? What solutions did they propose to address social problems?

In the view of the Progressives, American society needed more social and political programs as to best benefit its workers and citizens. The Progressives advocated for government services that would improve the lives of its inhabitants.

As far as social reform, they wanted health service that would include all government medical agencies, social insurance for unemployed, elderly, and disabled, farm relief, workman’s compensation, inheritance tax, and a constitutional amendment that would allow a federal income tax.

As for political reform, they wished to adopt women’s suffrage, primary elections for state and federal nominations, and the direction election of US Senators.

The Progressive platform also strongly recommended that states adopt certain measures for direct democracy. These measures included the recall election, allowing constituents to remove an elected official from office, the referendum, allowing citizens to vote on a law through pure popular vote, the initiative, allowing constituents to propose laws via petition and then decide on it by popular vote, and lastly the judicial recall, allowing citizens (via popular vote) to override a court who has declared a law unconstitutional.

2.     What were the major sources of the progressive movement? Which of those sources were most significant, and why?

The Progressive movement was a political melting pot containing people of many different political backgrounds. It began when Theodore Roosevelt decided to challenge President Taft for Taft’s re-election. Roosevelt did not approve of Taft’s increasingly conservative policy, and Roosevelt could not get the Republican party’s nomination for the next election. Thus, he had to create his own party: the Progressive Party of America.

Roosevelt told his political delegates to help him form a new party for his presidential campaign. Governor of California, Hiram Johnson was the chairman of the new party, Frank A. Munsey funded much of the new platform, and George W. Perkins became the organization’s executive secretary.

Initially, only five of fifteen Progressive Republican Senators declared support for Roosevelt’s new party. Many Republicans were afraid of hopping onto the Progressive platform, as there did not seem to be much of a political future for them if they did. However, the Republican party offered a strong platform to loyal participants who eventually sought higher political office. But, the Progressive party did gain some support from Independents who did not desire to be a part of the Republicans or Democrats, but were willing to join the Progressive movement.

The Death of NASA

Thanks a lot, Barack. 

Our economy was already in the toilet, unemployment was through the roof, and you just had to go and crush American morale by ending the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and all the pride and glory with which it came. No, really -- thank you for doing that!

Sorry folks, but if history is here to instruct us, then we ought to be able to look into the past and realize that bureaucracy (government departments, administrations, and agencies) are rarely -- if ever -- more innovative and creative than their private sector counterparts. Consider the following image:

It's true. You can't deny it. If the government tried to create and regulate video game consoles, do you think we would have such remarkably fantastic gaming systems on which to spend our free time? Of course not. 

Why, you might ask, is that the case?

The answer is fairly simple. Incentives are the enzymes of innovation. And money is the human race's most basic form of incentive. In other words, money is what motivates and lays the foundation for cutting-edge new technological creations. 

Then it follows that bureaucrats are not the most fit group of individuals to develop new, breakthrough products. They get paid by the hour or the year at the same salary whether or not they create something marvelous. This is why the private sector has the obvious advantage. A private corporation's motives for innovation lie, as stated, in profit. Cold, hard, limitless cash. Private companies aren't paid set wages -- they reap what they sow. If their newly invented product revolutionizes the market, then they will certainly earn the incentive that motivated them from the start; the incentive that they so rightly deserve.

This, we can only hope, will boost American ingenuity and resolve to explore and travel into space. If competition within private industry can create a new space age for mankind, then perhaps the death of NASA is merely an intergalactic rebirth…

What do YOU think? Can the government innovate as effectively as private industry? How do you see the future of space travel in the US of A?

The "Land of the Free" is No More

What a surprise -- the United States is #1 at something, yet again! But unfortunately, this time we shouldn't be proud of it. No, I'm not talking about our obesity rates (though I think we might be world champions at that, too), I am talking about the national incarceration rate.

Yes, it's official -- we lead the world in locking up our own fellow citizens. We are a nation trademarked by freedom and liberty, and yet we have the highest percentage of inmates per 100,000 citizens on earth. Why is this? Is it that our citizens have no regard for the law; no respect for the principles of freedom and democracy? Not quite.

In 2004, 55% of prisoners, according to the US Department of Justice, were "serving time for drug offenses". It's been 25 years since the passage of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, and accordingly the United States prison population has grown from 300,000 to over 2 million in less than 20 years.

Taxpayers spend $60 billion a year on prisons. Each inmate costs tax-paying, law-abiding American citizens over $23,000 in federal tax revenue dollars per year. Talk about high-maintenence! And to top it all off, 67% of ex-prisons return to jail for re-offenses and 52% are re-incarcerated!

Now hang on a minute -- let us contemplate what purpose prisons serve. If someone is a danger to society, they must be quarantined and treated and fixed so they can become safe members of civilization once again. But that isn't how the system works. We punish people, costing tax-payers hard earned money, for drug crimes that do no harm to anyone but the arrestee! Laws are supposed to protect society, when in fact they often do not. And not because they are ineffective, but because the crime itself is not dangerous! Sounds a bit ridiculous, no?

Going off of what I said earlier, one of the purposes of jail is to reform criminals so they can once again participate legally and safely as members of society. But if over half of all inmates return to jail, doesn't that make the jail-reform process an enormous failure? Would you send a loved one to a rehab clinic with a 50% success rate?

And to top it all off, there exist such things as privatize prisons. Yep, people building prisons outside of the federal government but collecting government money to fund their services, and subsequently, turning a profit. Additionally, these private jail corporations have been known to lobby Congress for stricter laws and longer jail sentences to continue raking in cash. But that's a whole different issue. I'll have to contemplate the private prison-industrial-complex in another post sometime in the near future.

What do YOU think? Why are we the world leader in locking up our own people?

Stephen Colbert - I Am America (And So Can You!)

I've said this before and I'll say it again -- what's great about Stephen Colbert is that he's actually going to make history with his arrogance as an emerging, revolutionary, 21st century political satirist.

Look around -- people love him. And to be honest, I can understand why. He pulls off his "character" almost flawlessly. He pretends to be arrogant, idealistic, and conservative -- but ends up making a fool of himself, and in turn, the GOP. It really is satire at its finest.

The following is my own analysis of Colbert's 2006 book, I Am America (And So Can You!). What follows is a quote from each chapter of the book. The chosen quotes were my favorites throughout the novel, so hopefully you guys enjoy them as well.

I Am America (And So Can You!)

By Stephen Colbert

I Am America (And So Can You!) is a political satire and a parody of books by Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Ann Coulter. Author Stephen Colbert uses oversimplification, false dichotomy, hyperbole, slippery slope, and irony to ridicule and critique contemporary American ideology and society as a whole.

Stephen Colbert plays the role of an egocentric, dogmatic, overly-patriotic faux-conservative pundit who has generously given the American public the priceless gift of criticism in “convenient book form”.

Quotes by Chapter

The Family

“No, my problem is not the children themselves. They may be cute, but they are here to replace us. Need proof? Ever catch one walking around in your shoes? That’s a chilling moment, like finding an empty body snatcher pod in the basement. ‘But children are our future!’ Yes, but does that not also mean that we are their past? I don’t understand why we’re helping them. You don’t see union factory workers throwing a benefit for robots.”

Old People

“I’m not doing to win any awards for saying this, but the elderly are like rude party guests. They came early, they’re always in the bathroom, and now they just won’t leave. I say we do the same thing to them that I do with stragglers at my shin-digs. Put them to work cleaning the place up. Only this time, the place is called America. Let’s use ‘em to shut down our porous Southern Border. One thing Old People have a knack for is keeping kids of their lawn….I say, let’s build a 2000-mile-long front porch along our border with Mexico and line it with the angry aged. When the Mexicans try to cross, they’ll be turned into Mexican’ts when a million Grampas bellow: ‘Get off my country! I just seeded!’”

Animals

“Some would have our children believe that animals are cute and cuddly. IT starts the day we bring baby Kyle or Kylie or Kayla or Katilyn or Kelsie home from the hospital to a room wallpapered in adorable little yellow ducks. Why aren’t these ducks being pursued by adorable little yellow hunters? I don’t know, but I’m willing to bet that it has something to do with the Far Left media’s control of the wallpaper industry. (Yesm I consider the wallpaper industry part of the media. IT has the word “paper” in it.)”

Religion

“Imagine a time in the not-too-distant future – December 24th, but instead of festive lights and glowing Santas, the streets are illuminated by police helicopters. Meanwhile, in the streets, roving gangs of children terrorize the city. They have zero respect for authority because whether a child is naughty or nice, everyone gets the same thing for Christmas: Jack Squat. So they’ve gone wild. It’s like Devil’s Night in Detroit, only there’s still stuff worth burning. As the fires rage, bands of depressed alcoholic derelicts, once jolly carolers, shuffle aimlessly, no longer sharing their cheerful seasonal hymns, but instead searching for a death that will never come. God rest ye, merry Gentlemen. And of course, now that there’s no Christmas, insects have grown to enormous size. So everyone has to doge to ants and beetles that are crushing buses in their powerful mandibles. Does my vision of a world without Christmas sound far-fetched? This is exactly the future the Secul-azis want for your children and grandchildren. Big Secularism’s plan is to keep eroding our holiday. Little by little, they’re taking away a manger here, a “Come All Ye Faithful” there, until pretty soon there’s nothing left. That’s why we’ve got to dig in our heels and celebrate the holiday bigger than ever. If you usually get one tree, this year get two. If you usually do two, have five. The BSists need to understand that there is no number of trees we are unwilling to cut down to prove our point.”

Sports

“So, if I’m no cheerleader of sports, why write a chapter about it? Sports do have some positive impact on society. They solve problems, such as how to get inner-city kids to spend $175 on shoes. They serve as a backdrop for some of our most memorable commercials. And they remain the one and only relevant application of math.”

Homosexuals

“Now I’ve got nothing against gay people. I just don’t like how they flaunt it. I’m perfectly fine with someone choosing to be gay, as long as he marries a woman and has kids like the rest of us. And if he has to flaunt it, there’s a place for that: in the privacy of his own home. Which should be a jail cell. We all know that people in prison engage in homosexual acts, right? Which means that criminals are more likely to be homosexuals. So wouldn’t it save us a lot of tax dollars to simply throw all gay people in prison? You know, cut out the middleman.”

Higher Education

“Just exactly what makes colleges so dangerous? It’s the fact that their classrooms and lecture halls are filled with a poison known as New Ideas. New Ideas hurt Americans in two ways:

Let me ask you this: why were you happier when you were a kid? Because you didn’t know anything. The more you know, the sadder you get. Don’t believe me? By the time you finish reading this chapter, over a hundred dogs and cats in animals shelters around the nation will have been euthanized. Bet you wish you could erase that knowledge. But it’s too late. You learned a New Idea, and it made you sad. College is just more of the same.”

Hollywood

“That shining city that only cares about money has an underbelly that only cares about saving the world. It’s getting to America can’t ignore the tiniest humanitarian crisis without some big movie star going on Access Hollywood to bitch about it.”

Class War

“Now I’m not the smartest knife in the spoon, so explain this to me. We’re supposed to help folks out of poverty by giving them a financial reward for being poor? Doesn’t add up. If being poor is a never-ending money party, where’s the incentive to get rich”

Race

“Affirmative action is a prime example of the Leftist campaign to make ideas seem less dangerous than they are, through the strategic use of positive words. Think about it. How can something be bad if iti is “affirimative”? And how can we ignore it if it is “action”? See, its name does nothing to describe what “affirmative action” actually is: a system that rewards Group A and punishes Group B just because long ago something bad happened to Group A that incidentally made Group B a whole lot of money.”

Immigrants

“So let’s take that beautiful idea to a logical conclusion and not only leave the past behind but deny that past ever happened. Like this:
America is not a land of immigrants.
There. Was that so hard to say? It makes sense if you think about it. It feels like we’ve been here forever, doesn’t it? Let’s just assume we have been.”

Science

“If I may quote myself: Reality has a well-known liberal bias. And who can you depend on to kowtow to reality like it’s the only game in town? Scientists. They do it religiously. With their fanatical devotion, scientists are no better than cult members – only difference is that they put their blind faith in empirical observation instead of in a drifter who marries 14-year-olds and declares himself the reincarnation of Ramses II.”



If you enjoyed the quotes, you might be interested in reading his book. It's a quick, fun, and humorous read. I would highly recommend it.

Be sure to let me know which quotes were your favorite or if you have any other feedback on Stephen Colbert in general.

The Burden of Responsibility

According to AdvertisingAge, the leading advertising based online syndicate, the Obama administration is attempting to clamp down on advertisements for unhealthy foods aimed at teenaged demographics. This delicate issue is one all to often revisited. But, who is to blame?

Free speech allows the corporations to express themselves (and their products) and furthermore to attempt to persuade susceptible children. Parents and guardians, as often contended, should bear the responsibility for keeping their kids healthy from sugary, fatty foods. And lastly, the actual kids. They're the innocent ones, right? Although they are the target of the advertisers, are they really responsible for looking out for their own wellbeing? They can't vote, they can't drink, and they are still legal minors. So then, who's looking out for who?

It's a free country, says the junk-food advertisers. Freedom is, after all, based on the principles of self-determination in all aspects of civilization. If one wishes to become fat (or obese), then eat to one's heart's content! The advertisers don't force kids to eat their unhealthy foods, they merely try to persuade and convey information. But, in the end, the advertisers working for the Big Sugar corporations are the ones with the lobbyists. When it comes down to it, big business gets what big business wants.

What do YOU think -- whose responsibility is it to protect children from unhealthy-food advertising?

2012 Election Fundraising Totals

The numbers are in for the second quarter fundraising totals of 2012 prospective Presidential candidates. Barack Obama, the inevitable democratic nominee, leads the pack with a whopping $46 million haul. In second, GOP front-runner and Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney trails at about a third of Obama's haul: $18 million in donations. In third and fourth, respectively, Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann possess about $5 million each. 

The Republican base's division among several possible nominees has given incumbent President Barack Obama a healthy lead in the fund-raising competition thus far. Sooner or later, a GOP nominee will officially be named and then -- and only then -- the dollarocracy race will be in full swing.

Until then, who do YOU think will get the Republican Party's nomination for president?

The Debate on Unions

Unions are a tricky topic. They have their pros and cons, and quite honestly, I'm not sure what to think about them. I've got a dad who is an executive at the Federal Aviation Agency and who witnesses firsthand the tax-payer waste that comes from unionized employees, and I have a grandmother (dad's mom) who is the President of a large-scale California Teacher's Union. My granny came to visit last week and boy oh boy did those two get into it…

My Dad admits it: unions exist to serve a purpose. They protect workers. Plain and simple. But, in his opinion, they are outdated. He asserts that they were necessary back when they originated in the 1800's to protect railroad workers who might face injuries, but now, not so much. In his job at the FAA, he oversees employees who come to work each and every day and sit in front of a computer doing absolutely nothing. The catch? They can't be fired. It's too difficult to hold public employee union workers accountable. My dad has said, "Just about the only way you can fire a public employee is for sexual harassment of physical assault. Otherwise, they're still in work."

My grandmother, on the other hand, contends that unions are there to protect employees from unfair management practices. As a public school teacher, she understands the realities of the workplace. She says that without unions, principals can choose to fire teachers at will, with little or no reason at all. If a principal, say, doesn't like the fact that a certain teacher takes of work to observe Jewish holidays, that teacher might be fired. Without unions, teachers are essentially helpless. And sadly, principals often seek scape goats to protect their own skin. A soft-spoken, quiet teacher who declines to challenge the principal is a prime target for lower-tier students. A principal may choose to put the lower-performing kids in a class with that teacher, and when that teacher is shown to have a class full of under-performing children, she's fired. That is, what my granny explain, what teachers' "tenure" is for. She says, at least in her school district, principals can fire a teacher at any time in the first two years of their employment if they so choose. After that, teachers are tenured and protected. But, is the protection necessary? Do unions really serve a purpose? Do they do more harm than good?

In her old-age and wisdom, my grandmother admitted that both sides have extremes. Sometimes, incompetent teachers are protected by unions when they shouldn't be. By the same token, teachers are often fired unfairly. "Unions aren't perfect," she acceptingly conceded, "but they are a barrier to attempt to aid the lowly-paid public employees of the country".

What do YOU think?

Speaking of GOP Puppets...

When you think of the Republican Party -- and the Democratic Party, for that matter -- what comes to mind? Strong-willed, common-sensical, patriotic citizens who seek the highest office in the land to represent their fellow brethren? Or rather, "politicians" who put on a smile to please the masses in order to attempt to get elected and represent the ideological beliefs of their respective party and those who financed their campaign. For me, the latter. But there is one candidate who sticks out like a sore thumb from the rest…

Yes, I am talking of course about Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas). Ron Paul wants to legalize drugs and prostitution, end all American involvement in wars abroad, and put the US dollar back on the gold standard -- among other things. His ideological principles don't exactly seem to line up with his party affiliation. Yet, he gets to debate and play along in the campaigning with the other Republicans. Why would the GOP actually let a man that represented the people and principles of democracy run for office?

The answer, in my opinion, is simple. Ron Paul is there to give angsty teenagers peace of mind. I mean, if the debate stage was filled with bullshitting politicians like Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, the public would eventually notice that no candidate is really there to represent the people. So, the GOP allows Ron Paul to fill that void. Nobody pisses and complains about corrupt politicians because, hey -- Ron Paul is a good guy and he is seeking the nomination! Sorry folks, as Donald Trump put it, "I like him. Ron Paul is an extraordinary guy, but unfortunately he has absolutely zero chance of being elected." The fact of the matter is, he's there for show. He's there to counter the bought-and-paid-for politicians by representing a glimmer of hope for actual democratic representation. And as for why Ron Paul plays along…well, like I said, he does have a glimmer of hope. The Republicans sure as hell won't nominate him, but, if for some ungodly reason he actually won some primaries, then…well maybe he would stand a chance. But at the end of the day it looks like American citizens are playing the lottery for an actual, honest, responsible politician.

It's one-in-a-million, and his name is Ronald Ernest Paul.

What's the Deal With Herman Cain?

I don't know if the GOP decided that letting a black man run for nomination would be a beneficial publicity stunt or if they simply thought a pizza man would make a fit Commander in Chief. Well, on second thought, a pizza man would be a step in the right direction for the Republican party after the legacy of George W. Bush…

Anywho, Herman Cain just might be a calculated publicity move for the Republicans. And that's what winning elections within a two-party system is all about -- publicity, right? The Tea Party is often dubbed as a "racist" group, and as such, allowing a black man to be a part of the GOP debates and nomination proceedings might shed a good light on them in the eye of the American public. It certainly can't hurt.

But is Herman Cain really only for show? Is he merely a puppet in place so as to assuage the skeptics and antagonists of the Tea Party? Probably. I mean, it makes sense. Realistically, the real front-runners of the Republican ticket are all rich white men, but it sure doesn't hurt the GOP's image to let a rich black man (and a woman, lest we forget Michele Bachman!) play along. And by play I mean participate. And by participate I mean attempt to win the nomination -- with a high likelihood of failure. So yes, he probably is just playing along for the publicity as well as the one-in-a-million shot of an actual nomination. Herman Cain has a slim-to-none chance at becoming President, but he's a living, breathing PR campaign for the Grand Ol' Party.