On Modern Warfare...

This past semester in college I took a class that spent a lot of time discussing Supreme Court cases and arguing the constitutionality of the arguments and rulings.  Another topic we covered was the concept of "Just Warfare."  When is a country justified in going to war?

My comments led to the suggestions by a classmate that I be an arms dealer.  I must admit, I have never been recommended to that occupation, but here are some of my speaking points.

One of our discussion prompts was: "Is the use of Predator drones in warfare a good idea?"  My thoughts:

- For America, American lives must always be more valuable than another country's lives--it's a principle of survival.  We cannot send our citizens into unnecesarry danger when safer alternative exist.

Classmate rebuttal: Predator drones remove the human aspect from warfare--you no longer understand the actual consequences of your violence.  What is to stop us from staring a lot of wars?

My rebuttal: If we can run a risk-free war with 100% probability for success,and are doing it for the right reaons (a whole other discussion), where is the problem?  We would be promoting democracy, and you, the class, seem to agree that democracy is the best form of government for everyone (a point which I disagree on), so again, where's problem with going to war?

I was then told I ought to be an arms dealer.  It was amusing.

What are your thoughts on warfare?  Where do you take issue with my speaking points?  I'll happily respond to any comments you leave for me!

Cool As A Cucumber: How Senator Sherrod Brown Addresses An Issue That Really Matters

Imagine

Imagine that your job is completely dependent upon the opinion of thousands of people from all walks of life. If they like you, you will be paid. If they don’t like you, well, here’s a pink slip. It is in this situation that Senator Sherrod Brown finds himself everyday when he goes to work.

If you were in his shoes, how would you speak to your employers? How would you explain to them the problems that their organization is facing? Who would you approach for assistance first?

What He Did

Senator Brown elected to appeal to the public’s sensitivities and publish an op-ed piece about the current trade deficit America has with China in The New York Times, entitled "For Our China Trade Emergency, Dial Section 301." It is written from a perspective that is against the status quo; Senator Brown is decidedly opposed to our current trade practices and the foundations upon which they were established ten years ago.

He argues that they are robbing Americans of thousands of jobs and, by extension, economic prosperity. Judging by his thoughtful remarks, he perceives this to be a major issue facing America, one that the everyman has a stake in and therefore ought to be educated on.

His case is constructed with logical reasoning derived from empirical and historical data. In building a calculated argument based upon generally-accepted principles, he creates a compelling case for change in America's foreign trade policies with China.

Ultimately, however, his argument's efficacy can be determined by the response of the audience for whom he writes: the internationally-minded intellectual, those whose livelihoods are, or can be, directly impacted by the U.S. trade deficit with China.

As a senator, his own livelihood is reliant upon his ability to rouse his constituents to support changes he feel can better their lives. Thus, his rhetorical approach bears even more consideration when looking at the larger issue he is addressing. But we will get to more of that in a minute.

In the Beginning…

Now, for those of us unfamiliar with how we managed to get ourselves into this mess, the whole reason for the article, here is a crash-course: decades ago, during the Reagan administration, America decided that it wanted to trade with China. This was a daring move, as China was still closed to the outside world.

But press onward we did!

Our trade policies were founded upon the presupposition that capitalism would bring about democracy, and we wanted China to leave its sinister Communist system and embrace liberty and justice, so that we could profit from its economic potential.

Whether or not this assessment of cause-and-effect was correct is currently a moot point. What matters is that the legislation we passed back then is biting us in the hindquarters now. We adjusted the rules so that our companies could export more to China. Instead, the corporations stabbed us in the back by closing their factories in America down and shipping the jobs to the pittance-earning Chinese. How capitalist of us.

So much for Sino-US trade strengthening the American trade position…

Enter Senator Sherrod Brown.

 

Just Who Is This Senator Guy Anyway?

Senator Brown comes to the table as an informed observer, though his role is slightly more interested than the casual newsreader; his political status is being applied to give the issue more visibility. His platform can be strengthened by winning favor of his constituents, so why not milk this problem for all its worth, right?

However, rather than abuse his position, Senator Brown makes a solid argument for reform in regards to Sino-US trade relations. His mention of historical context provides the newcomer to the issue with the basic information requisite to consider his viewpoint. His logical connections between the facts of cause and the suggestions for reaction establish him as one who is rational, reasonable, and educated.

Unlike many political commentators and pundits, he does not force the issue to extremity to gain acknowledgment of his point, like this...

Or like this.

Irrationality or extremism is rarely effective in actually accomplishing anything, which is the antithesis of what Sen. Brown is trying to do—he is trying to rally people, particularly those of influence in Congress, to action. His is a calm and collected call to action, not the raucous, strident call to cultural revolution of extremists. He calls for change; change we can believe in.

To do this, he methodically analyzes the problem and offers a viable response. As a result, his perspective can almost immediately be accepted as credible.

As a senator, Brown is a member of the Democratic Party and a result there are some subtle bits and pieces that are tied to their agenda. His overall suggestion, that Congress grant the president “authority to impose tariffs on China or any other country that unfairly manipulates its currency,” is a classic Democrat big-government objective.

However, in the context of the article it is not functioning to convert Republicans or independents to his party, but rather functions as a suitable and, again, logical solution to the current trade crisis. It maintains his ethos as a writer on a complex topic.

But That’s Not All!

In addition, within the two-line biography of the contributor, it states that he is the author of “Myths of Free Trade.” The title of this book leads readers to automatically assume that he is against many of the current trade policies in place; that he feels there are serious flaws in our economic system. This explains his stance on Sino-US trade agreements, though it also exposes some bias on his part as a writer.

Again, though, his bias does not seem to interfere with his logical reasoning or evidence. And in writing for The New York Times, he places his opinion in the public record to spur conversation and debate among constituents, industrialists, economists, businessmen, entrepreneurs, and politicians alike.

He Knows His People...

The audience of The New York Times tends to be an educated demographic. They are directly affected by the events on Wall Street, they have white-collar jobs, and they are well versed in the international arena. As such, Senator Brown had to write his piece with them in mind; else he would be viewed as one on a lower intellectual level. Brown acknowledges this and writes with references to actual current affairs. He does not brief them on the whole issue, as it would be redundant, but he alludes to other relevant information that the globally aware reader would already be familiar with. He gains respect and authority with this technique as he can be seen as an equal, instead of a pandering politician or pretentious armchair economist.

 

He Has Skills...

Senator Brown writes to his audience in language that they are accustomed to, language that others may find to be more advanced. However, again, he dodges pretentious language by speaking with a voice that is uniquely his. He does not abuse a thesaurus to command attention. He does not misuse his vocabulary, a common hallmark of a false authority.

And while he is intelligent and sophisticated in his tone, he remains somewhat conversational. He does not move to the realm of inaccessibility by sounding haughty and removed; he prefers to use inclusive pronouns like “us” and “our.” By doing so, he is appealing to the voters’ sense of community and esprit de corp, an important element of any communication by a politician to any form of audience—he is always on the campaign trail.

His writing feels fresh and organic and resembles the commentary one might encounter at a family gathering with a certain politically-inclined uncle. In fact, that is what gives this piece strength. Senator Brown does not force readers to his point. Rather, he makes it clear that to think otherwise may not be the best decision they have ever made; he does not ostracize those who disagree.

...And He's Good At What He Does!

In short, Senator Brown is a skilled writer. However, more importantly, he is a master of rhetoric. Regardless of who you are, what your background is, what your political affiliation is, or what your personal philosophies are, Senator Sherrod Brown will convert you to his belief that change must happen, and he will do it with inimitable efficacy.

He will not assault you with loaded or “gotcha” questions; he will not beat or bludgeon you with numbers and statistics; he will not strangle you with circular reasoning; he will not insult your belief system; he will not compare you to Hitler or Mussolini or Stalin; he will use calm, cool reasoning to bring you around to his way of thinking. Just like a good politician ought to.

*Note: Also published on Python's Philosophies blog.

LeBron James, Supreme Ruler of the Sports World

Who here has heard of LeBron "King" James?

My guess is that anyone who knows someone who knows basketball has heard about the 20-something basketball sensation.  The only reason why he has not captured space on the tabloids is because there has not been a marital scandal like Kobe's moment of infamy.

Yet he seems to have a mind-blowingly strong choke hold on the basketball world.  This year, several A-list players became free-agents.  For the layman, that means they are individual players who have completed their contracts with their previous team and are available to sign with another team.  They announced that they might have a Summit of Stars, where, according to sources, they would discuss their professional goals and determine the future power balance of NBA teams.  This apparently did not happen.

Sports fans have since waited on the edge of their seats to hear who the most highly-touted NBA player will choose to play for next season.

He will announce his decision Thursday.

It seems that LeBron and his entourage have been milking this opportunity for all it's worth.  Almost the point of nausea, in my opinion.  Granted he is a talented player.  But he was extremely disappointing in the NBA playoffs.  My bracket was ruined when he played poorly against Boston, who then went on to face-off against the Lakers in the 2010 Finals.

But every aspiring basketball franchise has been throwing ridiculous salary offers, business deals, and more at this one individual.  Some even went to great lengths to clear space in their salary caps to afford this player.

LeBron is predicted to be one of the most successful players in NBA history.  Akin to Michael Jordan or more.  The difference, in my opinion, between James and Jordan is that Jordan didn't hog the spotlight.  He allowed attention, but didn't work to hype himself.  He let his skills speak for himself.  That's why I think he remains as a legend.

Even though he has a ridiculous moustache right now.

As to where LeBron will end up, Cleveland seems to have the best chance.  Money, plus he doesn't have to move.  And we all know how inconvenient moves are.

But we'll see on Thursday if I am right.

Until next time...

Arizona: Paving The Way For A Barbed Wire Fence

According to a recent Gallup poll, 88% of Americans have heard about Arizona's recent legislative action to allow law enforcement personnel to check suspected illegal aliens for proper documentation (USA Today article). 

What is not touted in the media is that, according to the same Gallup poll, 59% of Americans who know about the bill support it.  Only 39% do not.  Interesting, considering how the media has effectively announced that Arizona is an un-American state with this bill and that no sane American is in support of it.

As usual, celebrities have jumped into the fray, denouncing Arizona lawmakers and lambasting the policies that it seeks to enact.  But let's take a quick breath and think about the effects that this bill has.  I am not an educated political scholar, but I think that the bill would be beneficial to America as a whole.

Arizona is a state where illegal immigrants are known to cross the border into the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.  They bring hopes, dreams, ambition, hard work ethics, and, frequently, drugs and weapons.  The first half of the list is what we want in future Americans.  The latter two items, though, we could do without. 

While it is in the the Second Amendment that we have a right to bear arms, and I am in full support of that policy, the guns brought in are not registered, nor are the bearers licensed.  They can do whatever they want with them and law enforcement agents have no method of tracking down the actual owners in the event of a murder.  How does that make America safer?

Financially-challenged immigrants have been the backbone of this nation's growth.  The Brooklyn Bridge, Empire State building, the entire New York subway system, among other famous structures and systems, were all built with the blood and sweat of people trying to feed their families and make a life in the Land of Opportunity.  I have immigrant ancestors who struggled and prevailed, and I am proud of that heritage.  But the nation has shifted from the conditions under which the immigrants of the past earned their living.

These days, we have equal opportunity employment legislation.  This is a very good thing.  We have Worker's Compensation programs, another great measure designed to help those of the working class.  We have unions, guilds, and other associations that ensure that exploitation in the workplace becomes a thing of the past.  Medicare, Medicaid, WIC, and other programs have helped keep the disadvantaged from slipping into complete destitution.  America has realized that all citizens deserve fair and just treatment as well as a fair chance to succeed.  Both are major strides in human and civil rights.

However, despite good intentions, illegal immigrants are straining the government programs.  They do not mean to be a problem, but the government is spending a lot of money with little-to-no return, i.e.: taxes.  I have many friends who are honest, hardworking people, but do not have a fully-legal status in this country, though many are working towards that.  But they do not understand the concept of taxes, the importance of them, and therefore do not file them.  Taxes are a source of income for the government, which is then channeled into various programs, initiatives, and other costs of running a country.  The average tax-paying citizen, while their taxes may not be very substantial in the overall scheme of things, are at least some amount of help for the government to keep up with their expenses.

With no malice intended, these illegals immigrants are leeching off of the system.  Sure, they take jobs doing tasks that are often undesirable, but legal citizens are still unemployed.  If we were stricter on illegal immigration, those jobs would probably end up being filled by someone who has a social security number, official allegiance to the country, and is obligated by law to pay taxes on their income.

Also, recently, Congress passed the healthcare bill.  This granted the millions of Americans who did not have health insurance the opportunity to sign up under a policy.  How many of those who will be covered under this new bill are not legal citizens of the United States of America?  Also, how many of those under Medicare and WIC programs are not documented citizens?  How much money is the government spending on programs that are not required to differentiate between citizens and illegal aliens and therefore giving the latter parties the opportunity to continue taking advantage of our government?

Is it honestly wrong to say that suspected illegal immigrants should be checked for documentation?  Is it wrong to be less welcoming to those who knowingly sidestep our laws to gain access into our country?  I can understand that racial profiling is an inevitable side effect and that it is not fair for Americans of ethnic heritage.  I am in full support of developing policies to prevent that.  But in all reality, it is primarily those of ethnic heritage that are sneaking across the border.  If we overlook that point, we are only kidding ourselves.

We have immigration procedures.  They are there for a reason.  We have a border patrol, both employed and volunteer.  It is there for a reason.  We spend billions of dollars on national defense.  We do that fora  reason.  We have ICE.  It is there for a reason.

Why is it that Arizona, under states' rights, establishing a harsher procedure for identifying illegal immigrants is a travesty?  We cannot rely on federal agencies to micromanage the country.  Allowing a state to delegate those responsibilities, albeit under strict enforcement policies, sounds like a good idea to me.  It is not racist.  It is not un-American.  It is enforcing our established laws and legislation.

No Way! Pres. Obama is Anti-Vegas?

Welcome, Dear Readers.

Now, I am sure you all, like me, were shocked-- just absolutely floored, when you heard about Pres. Barack Obama’s insulting reference to Las Vegas.

Wait, audience, what is that you’re saying? What do you mean you don’t watch the press conferences? Are you kidding me? I’m very disappointed in you.

Now, if we look at his remark in depth we can understand that the people who care most are the people affected least-- the nation’s growing political peanut gallery (I am not an official “peanut”) and representatives from both sides of the political spectrum (do I smell something “mavericky” in the air?) whose voters tend to reside in non-Nevada states.

Here are Obama’s precise words, “You don’t go buying a boat when you can barely pay a mortgage. You don’t blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you’re trying to save for college. You prioritize. You make tough choices.” (Full Story)

Well I am flabbergasted! How dare he suggest to us how to spend our money! I say we cash in our college savings and run to Vegas, just to spite him! However, since I have a brain and am capable of rational thinking, and also since I try to be a champion of the misunderstood and misrepresented, I would like to point out a few elements within the speech that were ignored.

First, where are all the boat manufacturers in this debacle, huh? Pres. Obama slighted boat-makers just as much as Vegas! Apparently they don’t hang on every word that comes forth from the president’s mouth. And if they did, they must not care that much.  Unlike some, apparently…

Second, it is a known fact that the odds are against you when you gamble in a casino. I was once given wise counsel to this effect: set fire to your money instead, at least you can sit and watch the flames. Las Vegas knows that it thrives on tourism, popularly interpreted as gambling.

However, they cannot accuse Pres. Obama’s admonition for people not to spend extravagantly in a city that, by the way, is infamous for overindulgence, during tough times as being anti-Vegas. That’s a bit of an overreaction. He correctly used it as an example of tourism that should take a backseat to a college education. I think it would be a lot less effective of an example to say, “You don’t blow a bunch of cash on Legoland when you’re trying to save for college.” It is sound advice for the financially un-savvy. Everyone’s thinking it; he’s just saying it.

His comment last year that bailout money should not be used for corporate trips to Vegas is also under fire. Why? The president gave them the money. He is not enforcing his words with Gestapo. He is like a father telling his son not to spend his entire allowance on gumballs and jawbreakers.

And to be perfectly frank, how is traveling to Vegas going to help a company reorganize and streamline, not to mention cut costs and spending, when they’re paying $1600-a-night for a penthouse suite on the Strip? That doesn’t sound very thrifty to me. Pres. Obama is merely trying to steer the country, as a whole, where it needs to be going.

And as for the reaction of Las Vegas, where Mayor Oscar Goodman announced that Pres. Obama is no longer a welcome guest to Las Vegas, and that, “I will do everything I can to give him the boot.” He added, “The president is a real slow learner.” That is a bold statement, Mayor Goodman. Maybe even borderline unwise.

Somehow, to me, in my little politically-ignorant mind, shunning the President of the United States of America from your city over a poorly-chosen statement does not sound like a smart idea. Especially since Pres. Obama has previously remarked that he enjoys visiting Las Vegas.

Additionally, Pres. Obama's remarks included, “You prioritize. You make tough decisions.” That sounds like a hidden complement to me. He is implying that a Las Vegas trip is a great experience, but one that must be postponed in order to achieve goals of greater significance.

Sorry, Mayor Goodman, but your knee-jerk reaction will keep Las Vegas from not only not getting corporate bailout money flowing through Las Vegas casinos, but the city will not be getting the president’s personal income, also known as “our tax dollars at play,” either.

In summary, what is the ultimate impact of Pres. Obama’s allegedly anti-Las Vegas statement? I think the ultimate outcome will be negligible. Those that want to go to Vegas will still find a way to go. Those that were not planning on visiting will not. Those on the fence needed the financial advice anyway, and what Pres. Obama gave was solid.

On the other hand, this event might actually help Sin City-- Pres. Obama is suffering in the popularity polls, so the public might deliberately do the opposite of his suggestions.

It would be an ironic twist, to be sure.

Well, until next time…

Weir-ing Fur Was Apparently a Bad Decision

This afternoon, while trolling Yahoo!News, I came across an article about U.S. figure skater Johnny Weir's decision to include tufts of fox fur on his costume and animal right organizations' vehement opposition and condemnation of the action.  What follows is my response to the article (Full story here).

"I think, frankly, it's none of our business what he wears. This country was founded upon the principles of liberty and freedom. We should all be allowed to live (and wear) according to the dictates of our own conscience without fear of reprisal. If we are not, we are no better than the stifling governments that immigrants to this great nation were fleeing from. He made a decision regarding his design. He's not a villain.

"And anyway, why is he on the chopping block? He did not order the fox killed. He does not run a fox-slaughtering company. He is not blatantly mocking animals. Rather, he recognizes the beauty of the animal and has selected his own way of honoring it. Let's keep the accusations focused on the proper culprits- poachers of the animals and the groups that brutalize the animals.

"His mention of Haiti was a simple example of a situation in which hundreds of thousands deserve our immediate attention more than a fox, at least at this current time. When foxes become a higher priority than our fellow men, and countrymen, in need, society has indeed lost its perspective.

"I do not condone animal cruelty, but I feel like this situation has gotten out of control. Let's save the animals. But, personally, I choose to focus my energy on rehabilitating the infirm and the addicted, providing homes for the homeless men, women, and children of the world, creating jobs for the unemployed, educating the illiterate, and mentoring the disadvantaged and orphaned.

"These causes, in my opinion are the real first steps to be taken if we are to curb the abuse of the planet."

Main Event: White House vs. Fox News

Today I came across an interesting article on Yahoo!News (Full story).  It outlines how the White House is standing up against erroneous allegations and disregard for "facts" by news networks, particularly Fox News.

I give kudos to the president for doing this.  It is his right to defend his honor, as it were.  It also was a wise political decision, seeing as how Fox News claims to be the only non-left/non-liberal news network out there, with an audience whom Obama is currently trying to win over.

Can you feel the sarcasm oozing out of that last sentence?

Another interesting move: single out individual journalists within the network.  Poor Glenn Beck.  The president has called him out.  I think it is an unwise move, in the world of journalism, is to get the president angry at you personally.  Heck, I think it is an unwise move in any world to have the president identify you as a propagator or falsehoods.  Even though the president technically does not have power to destroy you, you can still probably kiss your career, in most circles, goodbye.

Not only has Fox News, with such famous/infamous figures as Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, been labeled as an anti-Obama network, but it is the only network with whom the president will not appear on air with.  Pres. Obama has appeared on every other news network except Fox News.  Not even Bill O'Reilly's show, The O'Reilly Factor.

I think that despite the polarized mentalities of the public, in regards to Mr. O'Reilly, one must admit that Bill O'Reilly is still a credible journalist.  He has his preferences, granted, but so does every other journalist.  The difference is that he is open about them.  While he can get fairly impassioned (remember the Barney Frank appearance after Fannie and Freddie?), he still has logical reasoning, sound arguments, guest from both parties, and refrains from comparing Pres. Obama to Hitler, among other things.  I personally admire Mr. O'Reilly's courage and "bold, freshness" in speaking out against issues he feels are harming America.  Okay, that's it for my O'Reilly endorsement.

That said, I have seen on Fox News, at times, reporters with excessive skepticism in the president's ability to lead the country effectively.  Not on the O'Reilly Factor, though he does lambaste some of the more controversial policy decisions, but he never personally attacks Pres. Obama.  When you resort to smear tactics, you lose a lot of credibility as a fair-minded journalist, as well as integrity.

I support the president in his efforts to ensure that the truth of what he says is reported to the public, but I do not think it is fair to single out Fox News alone.  Other networks are guilty of misrepresenting him just as much, though they do it through servile obeisance and sycophancy, instead of criticism.  I find it rather amusing how the president does not appear to be worried about how people revere him like a demigod or how they worship the ground he walks on.

It is my personal belief that allowing such behavior to continue is inappropriate for an elected public servant of the United States of America.  He is the president.  He is but a man.  He is elected by the people, and he is to serve their interests.  Many politicians seem to have forgotten that and the president is the last person who should ever be victim of such a shortcoming.  I encourage Pres. Obama to speak out against those worshipping him as someone greater than they.  He is mortal, he is one of us, and if he is to lead this country, he must develop humility.

Goldman Sachs: Building China's Economy with US Funds

So, folks, I was surprised to read yesterday on BBC News (full article) that Goldman Sachs has invested $334m in the Chinese automobile company Geely.  While I am all for increasing competition in various markets, I am a free-market proponent, I must admit that a company that we, or I should say, "the government," gave $12b in bailout money (a) paid out big bonuses and (b) is now moving funds into the Chinese economy.  Not only do the Chinese own a huge percentage of our debt, various industrial locations, including the Geneva steel mill in Utah, but now they have our bailout funds as well.

I understand that this is probably a wise move by GS, investing in a company that has a bright future, especially because it is tied to the quickly-growing Chinese economy.  Also, according to the article, what they have invested can later be turned into shares in the company, so if Geely goes big, and it certainly has plans to do so, GS can make some serious money from their investment, which in turn will hopefully put them back in the black.  This will then allow them to pay us all back for the milk money we gave them to make sure they are getting their calcium, so to speak.

I guess my only real problem with this story is that Goldman Sachs, not only famous, but infamous!- decided to move our money outside of the States.  I would have loved to hear that GS has invested $433m in a US corporation or company, something which would help build America's sagging economy and contribute to our climb out of the recession.  I guess that's all I'm trying to say.

See you next time!

Congressman Mike Rogers: "Boldly Saying What No Man Has Said Before"

Recently, in a congressional hearing, Congressman Mike Rogers (Michigan), spoke up boldly against Pres. Obama's infamous Healthcare Reform Bill. He essentially said that the bill is destroying what makes America great. More specifically, by giving the government "unprecedented power" to "rip you off your own individual [insurance/healthcare] plan." (click to view the video)

He cited statistics from the National Cancer Intelligence Center of the UK and the Canadian Cancer Registry, which conclude that those who were diagnosed with cancer, under government-run healthcare, have a lower chance of survival than if they were on private healthcare plans.

While I personally think that some of this feels a bit dramatic and fatalistic, I am still not a major proponent of a government-run healthcare system. In America, we are constantly bellyaching about how inefficient it is to do taxes and other bureacratic processes, yet many of us are actively promoting the idea of that same government running our healthcare, or in another sense, our physical well-being. I am not saying we will be owned by the government- no, I am more moderate than that- but I am saying that we will be subjected to the irksome processes that the government excels at creating. Am I right in thinking that this suggests that we may, as a public body, have some masochistic tendencies?

One point that Congressman Rogers brought up that sounds very logical to me was the percentages of the population affected. According to Rogers, and this is paraphrased, 15% will benefit from this plan, while 85% of Americans will be the ones taking the hit. I agree with his logic, and that of Abraham Lincoln, whom Rogers quoted in saying, "You can't make a weak man strong by making a strong man weak."

Do we know that the 15% that do not have healthcare even want it? I recall a news story I saw a while back where they interviewed a number of young adults who did not have healthcare. They expressed that they did not because they were young and were not planning on having significant healthcare concerns, ergo they chose not to pay premiums for a plan they felt they would not need. How many of the 46 million Americans, a number declared by Rogers, are of a similar sentiment?

Another point that Rogers brought up that I am beginning to agree with regards the underlying message that this bill suggests; that we, the American public and its government, no longer have faith in the private sector. We have given up on private companies and decided that it would just be easier to have the government deal with everything. How have we come to this point?

I feel that this has become the situation because we are losing the desire to take the initiative. Why are people dissatisfied with private healthcare plans? Probably because of the financial demands they make, the fine print, and the fickle nature of their customer service. But how can this be changed, one might ask. In a true free market, the public's boycott, or at least significantly decreased patronage, would force companies to be more competitive and offer better plans. But it seems that we have grown too tired to fight for what we want. We are willing to relinquish our freedoms, albeit gradually, and push the problem to someone else.

Imagine for a moment, what life would be like if our Founding Fathers had this same attitude. Something I admire about Pres. Obama is his ability to stir within us a sense of patriotism, of pride. While I may disagree with policies that he makes, he is still the president, and as a US citizen, it is my duty to support what I agree with. I support his efforts to make us proud to be Americans, to be the kind of people that we ought to be- better, to build our communities, and to strive to make America great. Those are ideals that our Founding Fathers desired us to carry on. Had we kept this in mind, perhaps many of our current problems would have been mitigated.

Congressman Mike Rogers was not afraid to speak his feelings about the healthcare bill, but he did so in a respectful, rational (though admittedly impassioned), non-aggressive manner. I think we can learn from his example how we ought to try to improve legislation. Let us all do so through proper channels, and refrain from attacking individuals. That only creates civil strife, and as Abraham Lincoln wisely said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." I hope that we all find within ourselves the will to improve the country around us and take responsibility for our actions.

I am positively Twitter-fied

As of the other day, I have started Twitter.  It's kind of a neat concept.  It really levels the playing field in terms of communication with people.  You get to keep astride the events in the lives of people you know or are interested in, i.e. celebrities and others.  As far as I can tell you can personally reply to things they say.

Now, unfortunately for me, I don't have an iPhone or other mobile device that can access the internet, so my use is limited to when I am at a computer.  My updates are much  less frequent, in fact, I think I use my facebook message option more, but I am determined to master this new facet of global communication.  That is, when I am not in China and it is censored by the government.  I am writing this blog on the computers at school, whose servers are in Hong Kong, thereby circumventing the Binary Curtain of China (I think that's a nifty term; help me spread its usage).

I guess the bottomline of this is that I recommend setting up an account (free), and getting connected to other people.  I am currently following the activities of my favorite writers, directors, actors, newspapers, and sports organizations.  The NYTimes and NBA update several times each hour with links to breaking stories.  It's a wonderful way to have instant access to current events, with the sifting and sorting almost completely done for you.

Go for it!

Warning: Security Checkpoint Ahead

Seeing as how I consider myself a frequent flier, mostly because when someone talks about "home cooking" I picture reheated tinfoil entrees with Styrofoam "bread" rolls, I have had ample experience in the fun-and-friendly world of airport security.

I realize that this is the time of year when people will, like birds in the winter, take flight and go south.  Or at least go somewhere.  And with that glorious spreading of our wings, we must also undergo the laugh-a-minute security checkpoints.  I hope you can tell that my sarcasm is dripping like a first grader's nose in Antarctica.

Like most people, I relegate myself to the poking, prodding, and general invasion of bodily privacy in return for the knowledge that I will probably have a safe flight.  That is, unless some whack-job comes up with a better way of killing people, like ingesting a chemical that allows him, or her (I am not sexist), to breathe fire or cry tears of searing acid.

I find it strange that you are not allowed to bring on basic liquids, while you are allowed to bring on a belt, or a pen, or a cell phone.  All of these items are equally as deadly.  The only thing is that they don't explode.

How many of us have seen movies where the hero uses makeshift weapons?  It only takes a touch of creativity to turn anything into a lethal death-toy.  Heck, what did man have before tools?  His fists.  Are they going to start asking you not to bring hands on board an aircraft?  Will you be able to check them in your bags?  If it nudges you over the miserly weight allowance will you really have to pay the fine?  If you forget that you can't bring them on an airplane can you mail them to your destination or back home?  I think you get the idea.

Another bit of juicy irony is that, at least in America, parading around in your birthday suit is a criminal offense, yet in airport security checkpoints ask you to remove your belt, shoes, coats, watches, toupees, etc.  If you somehow manage to set off the metal detector, then they get their magic wand out and run it over your body.  I'm sorry, but that is too much like the criminal offense of molesting people or physical assault.  There has got to be a more decent way to search crowds for death-bringers.

Another interesting thought: they, meaning the Powers That Control The "Friendly Skies," don't want you taking weapons out of the country either.  I understand accountability and how international safety is a team sport.  But when it comes down to it, don't you want the bad guys and their weapons, etc, to leave?  Why try to find them and keep them within your borders?

Please don't take this last statement too seriously.  It's all in jest.  If you actually consider what I'm saying, it's obvious that my statements are flawed.  Again, it's just a joke.  But back to the issue at hand...

We must not forget the advantages of this system.  Firstly, it keeps the airways safe.  Until the next maniac tries something.  Secondly, it gives people peace of mind.  Once they make it past the Judgement Day security checkpoints.  Finally, it saves money on cleaning.  The floor around the checkpoints have got to be some of the cleanest places in the whole airport; no one is allowed to wear shoes!

I guess, after all of this ranting about security, I truly am thankful for the wonderful surly TSA workers who stand around all day telling people what they have to take off.  And trust me, there are people who go through the checkout line that you never want to see with anything less than a full-length parka on.  These unsung heroes keep the planes filled with safe people; old people who snore loudly; babies who scream the entire flight; kids that kick your seat-back as you are nodding off to sleep.  

Come to think of it, it truly is a miracle that there are hardly any casualties from commercial flights.

I encourage you all, despite your jet lag, blood-shot eyes, and swollen feet, to smile and thank your TSA agent the next time you go through the security checkpoint.  After all, they could let bad people through if they really wanted to...

Rain, Rain, Go Away!

So, folks, it's been a long time.  I mean a really long time, like, a "two-month" long time.  I apologize.  I fell off the world during that time.

Today in Beijing it rained.  "Big deal," you say, brushing the news aside.  Yeah, it is a big deal!  It normally takes my dad and I about 25 minutes to get me to where I work.  It took us 45 minutes to get one block.  All of this because of rain.  Well, it's nice to blame the weather because you can't be called insensitive if you criticize it.  You can if you blame the actual problem: the drivers' etiquette, or lack thereof.

When people talk about repression and the denial of freedoms being an inherently insidious thing, they were clearly living in some fantasy world.  Some people are just not interested in living democratically and taking the initiative to fix things.  It's not their "thing."  

The traffic jam that I was trapped in was not due to a car accident, or a fallen tree.  It was because the drivers were not willing to work together.  They were all focused on getting themselves through the intersection, regardless of how it was accomplished.  No one would yield to another.  No one was willing to give an inch of ground.  In fact, many were taking inches that weren't there to take in the first place!  It was like watching a bunch of kindergartners scramble after a handful of Skittles thrown on the ground; complete and utter chaos!

From this isolated example, it does not seem like democracy would work for those several dozen drivers, as they just didn't care about the welfare of others or the advancement of a group, and coincidentally it applies in the literal sense as well.  They only wanted to focus on them and theirs.  There was no "working for the common good."  In fact, less freedom, harsher rules, and more punishment for the violation of them would have been the best solution to the issue at hand.

Wait, with the whole "focusing on them and theirs" thing has jogged my memory; that's just what it's like in most democratic societies anyway!

Never mind, everyone.

"Muddah, Faddah, kindly disregard this letter."

How to be Successful

Recent political developments have offered me the chance to reflect on success and prosperity. While I agree that all people deserve opportunities to grow and find success, I do not agree that people are entitled to success. Success comes as a result of hard work; plain, old-fashioned work.

Too often we see the Ponzi schemes of society, offering something for nothing. We all took elementary school math, right? Zero cannot equal 100, so why would it be any different in the business world? Even the fundamentals of physics affirms the impossibility of something for nothing in the Conservation of Matter theorem; that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, only reallocated.

In ages past, alchemy was a sought-after skill. Later it was gold digging and treasure hunting. The get-rich-quick schemes that are so prevalent today are merely the alchemy and gold digging of our day.

One would be seen as unwise to pursue a career in alchemy or gold digging, yet today people regularly get involved in schemes that promise rewards for very little or no work or investment. All too soon becomes clear that the meager amount invested, in some cases an entire savings account, is lost and there is nothing to show for it.

Unfortunately, for many this is an experience that has to be lived before they learn that lasting success, cannot come from taking shortcuts. As my mom always taught me, “Cheaters never prosper.” It was this pursuit of shortcuts that contributed to the current economic situation. How can we hope to rebuild an economy if we don’t use the proper materials and processes to lay the foundations?

Egypt was built on the backs of slaves; slaves who were not allowed to skip details; slaves who completed the process in full, however agonizing is must have been. The pyramids and tombs that they built are a lasting monument to the merits of hard work.

P.T. Barnum once said, “There’s a sucker born every minute.” Most of them soon lose everything the have if they don’t learn from the mistakes of those who have gone before them. For true success, you must put forth true effort.

No Cheese for you: The Cheese Nazis

Today I offer a hot tip for all of you international travelers. Word on the street is that Chinese customs is no longer allowing travelers to bring in foreign cheeses. Why? One can only speculate.

The background on the issue is this: in the not-to-distant past, there was the damaging discovery that there were many Chinese-made dairy products that contained melamine, resulting in a decline in the consumption of Asian dairy products. The correlation between those events and today’s issue can be interpreted in several ways.

One viewpoint could be that this is wrought from the blatant cruelty of the government; the government is proactively seeking to make life miserable for the ex-pat community, forcing them to buy Chinese products that, by the way, are not renowned for their excellence throughout the international market. Quite frankly, that opinion is ignorant and biased, not to mentioned more than a bit far-fetched. Only a moron would consider it valid.

Another angle is that this is another move by the government to remind everyone that they are in control and the can do as they darn well please, not unlike a six-year-old on a power trip. Again, this is another incorrect assumption spawned from the ranting of flippant liberals.

On the other hand, perhaps this was actually a planned, tactical action to stimulate the flagging industry. With the confiscation of the cheeses, it would close the foreign cheese “grey” market among the ex-pat community and divert the consumers’ resources into the Chinese dairy industry, hopefully helping in the resuscitation the flagging sector. While this final view is overly complicated and may be reading too far into the situation, it can be seen as logical. Granted, though, it is not necessarily the most effective means to the desired end.

In the end, who can say why this travesty is taking place? No one from the Chinese side is saying anything and there is no clear explanation as to why this move would benefit anyone in the long- or short-term. Also, I thought is was the Chinese stuff that was dangerous…

Coming up next: Tips to help you succeed

Kim Jong "The Mentally" Il

It's been a little while, eons for the blogosphere, but I am back, writer's block gone, and I am commentating on, as promised, everyone's favorite Korean sociopath: Kim Jong Il.

I will begin with a brief biography, taken straight from his autobiography, "How To Lose Friends and Alienate Yourself, but Gain Control of a Withering Northeast Asian Country in the Process," available anywhere non-existent books are sold. It reads as follows:

In the beginning, there was Kim Jong Il, no further information is required.

The book goes on and on about how he is to rule over the world one day and other ramblings of a depraved mind, so to speak. What he doesn't mention is that the rest of the world exists solely for the purpose of making sure he doesn't nuke himself, or more importantly us, by erecting more embargoes than Elizabeth Taylor had marriages.

It seems that every few minutes he decides that his country, the ironically names "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" (emphasis added) might have a nuclear missile and threatens to launch it. However, as we have found out through experience, the missiles are generally no more effective than a bottle rocket, often with the same effect. One may be led to think that he does not bother to ask his scientists what they have actually developed before he makes brash statements about WMDs.

Mr. Il... he just never learns does he? How many more sanctions can the U.N. place on North Korea? I am really quite curious. It seems as that as long as I could remember we have been alienating the DPRK. What is left to embargo? Do we start blockading migratory birds?

I recall a few weeks back that I was reading an article about Supreme Ruler of the Universe Kim Jong Il and how he and his cronies were in the final development stages of their Taepodong II missile and that they didn't know what to expect from the Obama administration, as opposed to the Bush administration. Well, in my frank and uneducated opinion, that is probably the wrong information to leak.

Let's just review the necessary facts: 1. The DPRK is determined to spite the U.N. with their missile development. 2. They do this with history suggesting that only negative outcomes will result. 3. They do this without having the foggiest idea of how Obama's administration will result. Is it me, or does that sound like KJI slept through "Dictatorship 101?"

Now it's a well-known fact that I can't end without the obligatory slam on his hair: it's utter silliness. He, Donald Trump, and Rod Blagojevich should start a club: Those Who Have Hair But Don't Know How To Wear It.

Honestly, how do you expect people to follow you or take your threats seriously when you look like the offspring of the Bride of Frankenstein and Elmer Fudd? You simply cannot demand credibility and respect, even if you have a country and your own army!

Well, our time is up, but I already have a treat prepared for next week:

Why are Chinese customs officers confiscating foreign cheese in suitcases?

Until tomorrow...

Chavez, that scwewy wabbit!

As has been reported in the news, our friend in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, has passed a referendum eliminating a term-limit for the presidency. He also declares that "those who voted "yes" today voted for socialism, for revolution" (Yahoo!news).

Call me paranoid, but isn't this sort of what Hitler did? The Wiemar republic, the economic crash, the enactment of the emergency dictator position, any of that ring a bell? Once he became temporary dictator, he quickly moved into dictator-for-life. What happened next is history. Cold, brutal history.

I am reminded of Calvin and Hobbes, one of my favorite comic strips growing up. There was the G.R.O.S.S. club, where Calvin was dictator for life. He and Hobbes went about terrorizing Susie. While it was all innocent childhood fun, let us pause for a moment and use this as an analogy for Hugo "The Man" Chavez.

Will his success, which he blatantly cites as a victory for socialism in the above quote, lead to fascism? It did for an economically distraught Germany. Venezuela has had its fair share of struggles, but the economy is growing under Chavez. Will they cave into nationalism and become aggressive? South America already has a reputation for social chaos. If they do become aggressive, will they turn on capitalist states like America and the European Union? This all sounds a bit extreme, in terms of drawing conclusions, but it is definitely food for thought.

In my opinion, worst case scenario: World War Four (who are we kidding, we're pretty much in World War III already) with the South American dictatorships against the North American capitalists, like a bad game of Risk.

Best case scenario: Venezuela successfully integrates socialism and the economy grows, bringing with it a better quality of life for Venezuelans.

However, despite my analysis, whether it is valid is your call, we can only wait and see what happens.

Until next time, when I bring up another one of our favorite friends, Kim Jong Il, and his stylin' hairdo...

Here's a quick appetizer...

I realized that the erstwhile link to the Mormons and Homosexuality article may have some unintended conclusions drawn to it. I put it up there strictly for the purpose of clarifying what the Church's position is, in light of the recent Prop 8 hubbub. I have since removed it, as to avoid misleading people.

Economic Stimulus Involves Religious Restrictions?

You will never believe this! Remember in all the campaign debates how we were told that earmarking would stop? Well, apparently that did not include provisos on funds in the upcoming stimulus bill.

The democrats in the House have decided that it would be prudent to bar educational institutions money for "modernization, renovation, or repair" that allow "sectarian instruction, religious worship or a school or department of divinity" (www.foxnews.com). This includes colleges and private schools. However, Republican Sen. Jim DeMint is fighting it. Hopefully with President Obama's help, this questionable clause can be removed.

Now, really, does this seem patriotic? Does anyone recall who it was that first came to America seeking safety? It was the Puritans. It was their founding Christian beliefs that laid the foundation for the society we enjoy today, whether or not people want to admit it. That's why on all currency is printed "In God We Trust."

Sure, there are myriad people who are not be Christian. You don't have to be to follow this statement. God can technically be anything you consider to be the greatest power in existence. For some, money is God. Others, family. Maybe nature, or Buddha.

Conservatives always seem to be under fire for not being open-minded or accepting, yet it seems to be those who profess to be "liberal" that do most of the public stereotyping, to be guilty of the same in this sentence.

Now this may appear to be a bit of a tangent, but it all goes to illustrate how important religion is for this country, whether it is Catholicism, Buddhism, Islam, or even Atheism. To deny a school financial assistance due to its endorsement of the First Amendment is to judge the nature of validity religion, namely to say, religion has no business being affiliated with the government. It sounds to me that if a school allowed religious instruction, etc, regardless of the integrity of the institution, that it would be deemed unfit for government aid.

Does the government distribute WICs, food stamps, and other financial aid to those in need by first screening their religious involvement, social activities, or recreational preferences? I believe not. Yet, the government gives lots of money to these people, some of which are taking advantage of the whole situation.

Schools generally tend to be positive contributors to its community and its city. Colleges are excellent resources for improving the development of a state. In my opinion, this alone warrants unrestricted availability to apply for government aid. I am not saying it should get the money, just that it should have a fair shake in the application process.

America is moving to be a place for equal opportunity employment. Why not equal opportunity government funding for institutions that can only help this country? I see this as an opportunity for the government to make amends for the previous bailout, which set a lot of people on edge, by boosting the country's educational systems.

Education creates a qualified and competent workforce. A competent workforce can lead to innovative and efficient companies. Healthy companies create more jobs. More jobs boosts the economy. How can aiding a school in improving itself ever be a negative thing, and why shouldn't schools who encourage religious practices be entitled to help? Why religion and not some other criteria?

From my viewpoint, this clause has a lot going against it, logically, politically, and socially. I hope the government agrees, or else there is going to be frustration across all demographics.

Well, this is just another Python Public Service Announcement (PPSA).

Until next time...

In Memoriam: Chris Owens

Today I received some very sad news.

Chris Owens, a good friend of mine for 10 years, was found to have taken his life this morning. I wish this evening to commemorate his life.

Chris was everything you could want in a friend. He was very bright and knew how to make you smile. I rarely saw Chris without a smile on his own face and he was always quick to share in mirth with others.

We spent hours discussing politics, society, but also ridiculous topics (which animal in the animal kingdom would win in an open arena showdown. His answer: the hippo).

His face was one of the few I knew I could count on while I was in Salt Lake City dealing with medical problems. I always felt we were kindred spirits. If nothing else, Chris was a loyal friend.

On top of his wonderful personality, he was also talented jazz pianist, guitarist, and music major. It seems like only a few days ago, and it really almost was, when I was driving him to the University 15th Student Ward at the University of Utah. He wore his stylish aviators, goatee, and leather jacket. One week, he and my cousin Mike played a beautiful piano duet arrangement of "All Creatures of Our God and King." This is what made him so memorable; humor balanced with sincerity. Passion with self-control. Strength with gentleness.

In "The Sandlot," Babe Ruth appears to one of the main characters in a dream and imparts this wisdom: Heroes may be remembered, but legends never die.

Christopher Owens was a legend in my eyes. The things we did were memorable, and though he is gone, I have a vast archive of fond memories to look back on.

I do not know the details of his tragic decision, but I pray that he finds relief to his burdens in the Lord's arms. I wish to close with the beautiful language of William Wordsworth.

"Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting:

The Soul that rises with us, our life's Star,

Hath had elsewhere its setting,

And cometh from afar:

Not in entire forgetfulness,

And not in utter nakedness,

But trailing clouds of glory do we come

From God, who is our home[.]"

I will miss you, Chris.

I Am Lost for Words

Hi all!
Today I have no idea what to write. I guess I could harp about how disgusting obese hairy men in speedos are, but that's not very original. Or I could drone on and on about my monotonous excuse for a life. Or I could try to formulate a conspiracy theory and circulate it to reach the status of cult icon. Or I could tell you that I am going to go make tomato pancakes right now and how delicious they are and how you can't have them. But that would be lying. I think they would be gross, and as a result, I would want you to have ALL of them. I would be that selfless.

See, this is what happens when it is a slow news day. No major military offensives, no new impeachments, no high-profile celebrities in fan-dom crises. Nothing. Yahoo! has one of its top stories for today about a big snake. Wow. Scintillating. I can't wait to hear what comes next.

Oops! Let me give you a towel to wipe that dripping sarcasm off the screen.

So, I guess I am that sad; I have to have some interesting news to be interesting. I guess I am a human moon-impersonator, reflecting the light from another source. This is not to be confused with me mooning you. No, that would be completely, utterly, and in all other ways, inappropriate.

Well, I am going to euthanize you all by shutting up, so enjoy the afterlife!

Until next time...