Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
The Boss
President Black Bush: England... Japan's sending Playstations... Stankonia said they are willing to drop bombs over Baghdad... Rickidy Raw is coming... Afrika Bambaataa and the Zulu Nation.
A memorable quote from the Chapelle Show, the scene is titled "Black Bush" and it aired April 14, 2004. The idea is that sitting president, George W. Bush, had a "gangsta" mentality in his approach to foreign policy. For Black Bush, their is no shame in going to war. Any who oppose his policy are considered ignorant to his master plan and are deliberately misled. Though Chapelle created in the medium of the satire and absurd, his political insight on President Bush's aggressive foreign policy was important. Today, we again find a president in the thorough of criticism for pursuing an aggressive foreign policy. The New York Times recently vilified the president for his mirror image approach to the war on terror. "Mr. Obama is the liberal law professor who campaigned against the Iraq war and torture, and then insisted on approving every new name on an expanding “kill list,” poring over terrorist suspects’ biographies on what one official calls the macabre “baseball cards” of an unconventional war." The article insinuates a near obsession gripping President Obama as he battle our ruthless enemy, Al Qaeda. Downplaying his consistent approach in utilizing violence to neutralize threats as baffling to liberals and confounding to conservatives; a drastically different picture is painted from the traditional war mongering yellow journalism that has plagued the New York Times (see: Thomas Friedman, Iran coverage ). President Obama has maintained a Republican foreign policy, as far as conservative pundits are concerned, their should be no change of course. The ritual of politics is a vehement battle for credibility. To criticize the President for taking a thorough approach towards our nations national security, while championing the sacrifice of more American lives in the event of a war with Iran, is what we should come to expect from elitist media outlets. The President's opponents are wavering, all the cards must be used in this final push for a new regime in power.
A memorable quote from the Chapelle Show, the scene is titled "Black Bush" and it aired April 14, 2004. The idea is that sitting president, George W. Bush, had a "gangsta" mentality in his approach to foreign policy. For Black Bush, their is no shame in going to war. Any who oppose his policy are considered ignorant to his master plan and are deliberately misled. Though Chapelle created in the medium of the satire and absurd, his political insight on President Bush's aggressive foreign policy was important. Today, we again find a president in the thorough of criticism for pursuing an aggressive foreign policy. The New York Times recently vilified the president for his mirror image approach to the war on terror. "Mr. Obama is the liberal law professor who campaigned against the Iraq war and torture, and then insisted on approving every new name on an expanding “kill list,” poring over terrorist suspects’ biographies on what one official calls the macabre “baseball cards” of an unconventional war." The article insinuates a near obsession gripping President Obama as he battle our ruthless enemy, Al Qaeda. Downplaying his consistent approach in utilizing violence to neutralize threats as baffling to liberals and confounding to conservatives; a drastically different picture is painted from the traditional war mongering yellow journalism that has plagued the New York Times (see: Thomas Friedman, Iran coverage ). President Obama has maintained a Republican foreign policy, as far as conservative pundits are concerned, their should be no change of course. The ritual of politics is a vehement battle for credibility. To criticize the President for taking a thorough approach towards our nations national security, while championing the sacrifice of more American lives in the event of a war with Iran, is what we should come to expect from elitist media outlets. The President's opponents are wavering, all the cards must be used in this final push for a new regime in power.
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Friday, May 25, 2012
Thursday, May 24, 2012
You Know What They Say About Florida...
For those not familiar with the carnival atmosphere that characterizes the state of Florida's Republican dominated government, allow me to introduce the concept of the "voter purge." Rick Scott recently attempted to deny thousands of eligible voters the right to vote in the upcoming presidential election. Some might recall this strategy utilized under Kathrine Harris, the infamous former Secretary of State of Florida. She was the elected official who chose to void thousands of vote's, including those of military personal serving in war, which would later be upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court during the 2001 Presidential election. Governor Scott decided to compile a list of 180,000 voters, all recent immigrants to the United States in order to regulate anyone voting illegally. His first attempt to compare the list with the Department of Homeland Security was rebuffed, naturally for its politically insensitive intentions. His last resort was to compare the list with the Florida Department of Motor Vehicles. Utilizing the D.M.V., he was able to invalidate thousands of Americans who were not required to inform the department of their recent status as United States citizens. It is no coincidence that millions of newly immigrated United States citizens and their children born in this nation, fear the Republican and Tea Party's vehement anti-immigration rhetoric. This tactic of "purge-ing" is fully endorsed by the both the Republican and Tea Party, as the two have unrolled similar measures in the electoral swing states of New Mexico and Colorado.
The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU's School of Law, along with the A.C.L.U., the N.A.A.C.P. and hundreds of other social justice organizations are fighting against these conservative tactics. In Florida, some of the most extreme of the recently enacted Voter Restriction Laws have already been placed on the books. The new valid state issued I.D. requirement will make it extremely difficult for students without a State issued I.D. to vote. Students who attend school out of state and need that states drivers license in order to live, will be forced to undergo the expensive process of receiving a new license for a change to state. Some might even be forced to misrepresent an address in order to vote in time, an absolute form of voter fraud. To label this a conspiracy theory would be to utilize the same form of "mystification" that conservatives utilizes in claiming any form of voter fraud epidemic. In fact, other than striking fear in the hearts of their voting base through homosexual recruitment theories, nothing riles up conservative America more the idea of Democrats stuffing the ballot boxes. The sad truth is that voter fraud at an individual level is almost non existent. The states that have been assessed for the violation find the incident to roughly occur 0.0002% of the time. It is funny because the typical orthodox conservative rhetoric lambasts President Obama for supporting gay marriage during a time when more "pressing matters must be attended to." I suppose this 0.0002% epidemic, is what they are eluding towards.
The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU's School of Law, along with the A.C.L.U., the N.A.A.C.P. and hundreds of other social justice organizations are fighting against these conservative tactics. In Florida, some of the most extreme of the recently enacted Voter Restriction Laws have already been placed on the books. The new valid state issued I.D. requirement will make it extremely difficult for students without a State issued I.D. to vote. Students who attend school out of state and need that states drivers license in order to live, will be forced to undergo the expensive process of receiving a new license for a change to state. Some might even be forced to misrepresent an address in order to vote in time, an absolute form of voter fraud. To label this a conspiracy theory would be to utilize the same form of "mystification" that conservatives utilizes in claiming any form of voter fraud epidemic. In fact, other than striking fear in the hearts of their voting base through homosexual recruitment theories, nothing riles up conservative America more the idea of Democrats stuffing the ballot boxes. The sad truth is that voter fraud at an individual level is almost non existent. The states that have been assessed for the violation find the incident to roughly occur 0.0002% of the time. It is funny because the typical orthodox conservative rhetoric lambasts President Obama for supporting gay marriage during a time when more "pressing matters must be attended to." I suppose this 0.0002% epidemic, is what they are eluding towards.
Polls: Obama leads Romney in Florida, Ohio and Virginia
By Holly Bailey - yahoo.com
President Barack Obama leads Mitt Romney in Florida, Ohio and Virginia, according to new polls of the key 2012 swing states, although Obama's advantage has narrowed in recent months. Obama has inched ahead of Romney 48 percent to 44 percent in both Florida and Virginia, according to three new NBC News/Marist polls. In Ohio, the president has a 6-point advantage over Romney, leading his Republican rival 48 percent to 42 percent among registered voters in the state. (The polls have a plus or minus 3 percent margin of error.) Despite the good news, there are signs of danger for the Obama campaign. In March, the same polls found Obama with a 12-point lead over Romney in Ohio and a 17-point lead in Virginia. In January, the poll had Obama besting Romney by 8 points in Florida. Yet Obama and Romney are statistically tied in all three states when it comes to the question of which candidate would best handle the economy. A plurality of voters in these states believe Romney is the best candidate to handle the national debt. While Romney's numbers are on the rebound, the polls found one key hurdle for the presumptive Republican nominee: His favorability numbers continue to lag behind Obama's. In Ohio and Virginia, Obama holds a 10-point advantage or more over Romney when it comes to the percentage of voters who hold a "favorable" impression of the candidate. In Florida, the margin is narrower, but voters are still statistically split on how they view Romney: 45 percent hold a favorable view, compared to 43 percent who hold an unfavorable one.
By Holly Bailey - yahoo.com
President Barack Obama leads Mitt Romney in Florida, Ohio and Virginia, according to new polls of the key 2012 swing states, although Obama's advantage has narrowed in recent months. Obama has inched ahead of Romney 48 percent to 44 percent in both Florida and Virginia, according to three new NBC News/Marist polls. In Ohio, the president has a 6-point advantage over Romney, leading his Republican rival 48 percent to 42 percent among registered voters in the state. (The polls have a plus or minus 3 percent margin of error.) Despite the good news, there are signs of danger for the Obama campaign. In March, the same polls found Obama with a 12-point lead over Romney in Ohio and a 17-point lead in Virginia. In January, the poll had Obama besting Romney by 8 points in Florida. Yet Obama and Romney are statistically tied in all three states when it comes to the question of which candidate would best handle the economy. A plurality of voters in these states believe Romney is the best candidate to handle the national debt. While Romney's numbers are on the rebound, the polls found one key hurdle for the presumptive Republican nominee: His favorability numbers continue to lag behind Obama's. In Ohio and Virginia, Obama holds a 10-point advantage or more over Romney when it comes to the percentage of voters who hold a "favorable" impression of the candidate. In Florida, the margin is narrower, but voters are still statistically split on how they view Romney: 45 percent hold a favorable view, compared to 43 percent who hold an unfavorable one.
Saturday, May 12, 2012
A civil conversation with a Ron Paul supporter, Part 2
The following is part two of a previously published conversation....
Friend: I don't think we disagree on where we want this country to go i think its on the path we take. This video has no political affiliation. It has many parts but I ask that you please watch a few of them to help you better understand my point of view. The greatest leaps in achievements in the history of mankind happened in America before 1913 under the rule of our constitution. There was no inflation during that time. People kept what they earned which inspired them to work. What is wrong with that model?
Obamas2012.blogspot.com: First off he is absolutely wrong about existentialism, it is a philosophy that necessitates action only in the present. Whereas traditional Western philosophy, which he prescribes too obviously in his continual reference that everything is simply the result of cause and effect. He wishes to present arguments in absolutes to crowd the issue and force partisanship. There can be no compromise. This logic of simplification allows him to always work within the logic of what he deems to be an acceptable cause. He really drives this logical paradigm with his condescending remarks towards a college education. Inflation as he notes supplies more money. Yet he only immediately notes how it displaces the wealth from the rich and gives it to the poor. Once more he is reiterating his logic of oversimplification. The creation of an income tax and the establishment of the Federal Reserve put accountability in the hands of the voters who elect politicians to enact the regulations under the new initiatives. Yes, prior to 1913 everything was insanely cheap, but at the same time if you have ever read any Charles Dickens, Stephen Crane or John Steinbeck you can see how the early American capitalistic system run by corporate industrialists and supported by conservative Republican's rarely provided the adequate salary necessary to sustain a family much less one individual. He has the nerve to simplify inflation saying "for you to collect something, you didn't have to do anything. Is this great..... And somebody who does produce something now is stolen from (min 7:00)", Again, attempting to mystify through misinformation and strictly limiting the scope of argument to his biased logic only using a vernacular of generalities, clumping the labor of the lower class who worked in the most despicable conditions in the world prior to 1913, with that of wealthy industrialists and their working class families. So what difference does it make if bread is 10 cents and a house is a thousand dollars when elitist prevent you from moving into their neighborhoods and your corporate back foreman pays your less than 5 cents a day? Why do you think women and children worked sixty hours a week prior to the creation of income tax and the federal reserve for a salary that bought them nothing, barely enough to show up for work at the factory and put in another 12 hour shift in inhumane conditions. He then goes to attack Karl Marx not in logically arguing his opinion, but invalidating him as a person referring to him as a Hollywoodesque character and then oversimplifying his economic theories as "the poor stealing from the rich." All the while he plays the Hollywoodesque role of the fool, to mislead the audience. A happy go lucky, reluctant character lectures about a very real and dangerous threat to the Civil Rights for not just gays, women or African Americans, but for all working class citizens of the United States. Behind his soft demeanor he jabs at the very academic institutions that he uses to validate his own ideas (min. 9:53), this is another lie which allows him to appear as a knowledgeable "sage" source. Despite the fact that he wants the audience to avoid academics because he knows best and they need not bother themselves with its corrupt nature. He does not educate, he brain washes with his showmanship. I am glad you showed this video to me, I can really see where Ron Paul gets much of his political mannerisms. Speaking grand ideas, but always cowering behind the microphone as his Republican rivals blast their persona's. Truly the allegorical snake in the grass.
Friend: Believe me, I can tell this guy is bias and has an ulterior motive. but what he says in video 3 makes a lot of sense to me. I would really like to hear your opinion on videos 2-3 or 4. This guy has no connection to Ron Paul.
Obamas2012.blogspot.com: The making of a Country, M. Cleon Skousen is the book these lectures are based on.
Believes the price of objects to be a burden. Says the 100 years of the United States: no inflation or income tax (min. :40, 1:05) From U.S. Constitution to 1913 (min. 14:20) 1776-1913
First off the guy has the balls to wonder why we had no inflation, when everything was produced during the years of 1776-1913 with slave and indentured labor. Not once does he mention the enslavement of people or the perpetual bondage of indentured servitude, it is cost benefits in running an economy for hundreds of years. He withholds the historical truth that from 1776-1781 we were under the Article of Confederation, and each state produced its own currency which almost destroyed our young economy. This is all before he manages to condense 2900 years of human civilization (citing the Garden of Eden as our origin, min 3:16) between Moses preaching to the Midonites and Paul Revere riding his horse, to signal the Red Coats arrival. This is the "mystification" that I spoke of earlier. Using Reductionist logic, stating that a light in a primitive lantern from the Bronze Age is the same as a lantern used in the early stages of the Industrial Revolution. Its brilliant, he makes the audience believe that the those thousands of years were an insignificant evolutionary state in man, a mere chore from the divine that should not be analyzed and praised for its basis as the genesis of human ingenuity and intelligence. As far as he is concerned we should not wonder how man develop the art of writing or astronomy. If anyone SHOULD know, only him and his cadre. He speaks of socialism as any totalitarian state apparatus that conveniently fits his historical logic as "evil" or unnecessary to his process of mystification. Socialism is only a word to drive fear into the hearts of his middle class, audience (I only see gray hairs in the front roll, but I could be mistaken). I mean that whole period, Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Alexander the Great, Moses, Jesus Christ, Muhammed, John Locke, John Calvin, Martin Luther, Soren Kierkegaard, Emmanuel Kant, William Shakespeare, Chaucer; these are just Western idols of human civilizations monument progress through meticulous centuries of labor. "Each according to his ability, to each according to his need, so everyone make sure he doesn't have ability wea've now described America's welfare program, if you work you lose....(5:00)" The wars, another quick liberal ideology drop to soften his appeal (min. 6:00), Ending wars is a non partisan for any neutral setting. Robert Fulton, steamboat, the beginning of American entrepreneurship. Another reductionist argument. Simplifying the evolution of United States industry, by using the word "profit" to associate a fictitious oppression (min. 6:17). I could sit here and dissect every single historical statement that he attempt to weave into his own economic theories. England outlawed the cotton gin not as a move towards socialism, but to allow the United States to continue to utilize its slave labor and cheaply produce the fabric. England was then able to begin its move from the industrial revolution to the next stage of capitalism (min. 7:30). He loves to cite the titans of industry, people who were assisted immensely through capital and inflation in order to develop their products; ending each story simply and with Reductionist logic, "they keep all their money." Man, and to say that everything came from American inventions. Germany and France during the 18th and 19th century were a utopia for all American scientists(min. 12:12). Will Rodgers jokes to to paint a picture of a simpler, fictitious time; putting down academia, he does not want you to learn about how the government and capitalism works; just take his word for it "it's complicated" so just take my reductionist logic and ignore any other opinion.
Friend: I don't think we disagree on where we want this country to go i think its on the path we take. This video has no political affiliation. It has many parts but I ask that you please watch a few of them to help you better understand my point of view. The greatest leaps in achievements in the history of mankind happened in America before 1913 under the rule of our constitution. There was no inflation during that time. People kept what they earned which inspired them to work. What is wrong with that model?
Obamas2012.blogspot.com: First off he is absolutely wrong about existentialism, it is a philosophy that necessitates action only in the present. Whereas traditional Western philosophy, which he prescribes too obviously in his continual reference that everything is simply the result of cause and effect. He wishes to present arguments in absolutes to crowd the issue and force partisanship. There can be no compromise. This logic of simplification allows him to always work within the logic of what he deems to be an acceptable cause. He really drives this logical paradigm with his condescending remarks towards a college education. Inflation as he notes supplies more money. Yet he only immediately notes how it displaces the wealth from the rich and gives it to the poor. Once more he is reiterating his logic of oversimplification. The creation of an income tax and the establishment of the Federal Reserve put accountability in the hands of the voters who elect politicians to enact the regulations under the new initiatives. Yes, prior to 1913 everything was insanely cheap, but at the same time if you have ever read any Charles Dickens, Stephen Crane or John Steinbeck you can see how the early American capitalistic system run by corporate industrialists and supported by conservative Republican's rarely provided the adequate salary necessary to sustain a family much less one individual. He has the nerve to simplify inflation saying "for you to collect something, you didn't have to do anything. Is this great..... And somebody who does produce something now is stolen from (min 7:00)", Again, attempting to mystify through misinformation and strictly limiting the scope of argument to his biased logic only using a vernacular of generalities, clumping the labor of the lower class who worked in the most despicable conditions in the world prior to 1913, with that of wealthy industrialists and their working class families. So what difference does it make if bread is 10 cents and a house is a thousand dollars when elitist prevent you from moving into their neighborhoods and your corporate back foreman pays your less than 5 cents a day? Why do you think women and children worked sixty hours a week prior to the creation of income tax and the federal reserve for a salary that bought them nothing, barely enough to show up for work at the factory and put in another 12 hour shift in inhumane conditions. He then goes to attack Karl Marx not in logically arguing his opinion, but invalidating him as a person referring to him as a Hollywoodesque character and then oversimplifying his economic theories as "the poor stealing from the rich." All the while he plays the Hollywoodesque role of the fool, to mislead the audience. A happy go lucky, reluctant character lectures about a very real and dangerous threat to the Civil Rights for not just gays, women or African Americans, but for all working class citizens of the United States. Behind his soft demeanor he jabs at the very academic institutions that he uses to validate his own ideas (min. 9:53), this is another lie which allows him to appear as a knowledgeable "sage" source. Despite the fact that he wants the audience to avoid academics because he knows best and they need not bother themselves with its corrupt nature. He does not educate, he brain washes with his showmanship. I am glad you showed this video to me, I can really see where Ron Paul gets much of his political mannerisms. Speaking grand ideas, but always cowering behind the microphone as his Republican rivals blast their persona's. Truly the allegorical snake in the grass.
Friend: Believe me, I can tell this guy is bias and has an ulterior motive. but what he says in video 3 makes a lot of sense to me. I would really like to hear your opinion on videos 2-3 or 4. This guy has no connection to Ron Paul.
Obamas2012.blogspot.com: The making of a Country, M. Cleon Skousen is the book these lectures are based on.
Believes the price of objects to be a burden. Says the 100 years of the United States: no inflation or income tax (min. :40, 1:05) From U.S. Constitution to 1913 (min. 14:20) 1776-1913
First off the guy has the balls to wonder why we had no inflation, when everything was produced during the years of 1776-1913 with slave and indentured labor. Not once does he mention the enslavement of people or the perpetual bondage of indentured servitude, it is cost benefits in running an economy for hundreds of years. He withholds the historical truth that from 1776-1781 we were under the Article of Confederation, and each state produced its own currency which almost destroyed our young economy. This is all before he manages to condense 2900 years of human civilization (citing the Garden of Eden as our origin, min 3:16) between Moses preaching to the Midonites and Paul Revere riding his horse, to signal the Red Coats arrival. This is the "mystification" that I spoke of earlier. Using Reductionist logic, stating that a light in a primitive lantern from the Bronze Age is the same as a lantern used in the early stages of the Industrial Revolution. Its brilliant, he makes the audience believe that the those thousands of years were an insignificant evolutionary state in man, a mere chore from the divine that should not be analyzed and praised for its basis as the genesis of human ingenuity and intelligence. As far as he is concerned we should not wonder how man develop the art of writing or astronomy. If anyone SHOULD know, only him and his cadre. He speaks of socialism as any totalitarian state apparatus that conveniently fits his historical logic as "evil" or unnecessary to his process of mystification. Socialism is only a word to drive fear into the hearts of his middle class, audience (I only see gray hairs in the front roll, but I could be mistaken). I mean that whole period, Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Alexander the Great, Moses, Jesus Christ, Muhammed, John Locke, John Calvin, Martin Luther, Soren Kierkegaard, Emmanuel Kant, William Shakespeare, Chaucer; these are just Western idols of human civilizations monument progress through meticulous centuries of labor. "Each according to his ability, to each according to his need, so everyone make sure he doesn't have ability wea've now described America's welfare program, if you work you lose....(5:00)" The wars, another quick liberal ideology drop to soften his appeal (min. 6:00), Ending wars is a non partisan for any neutral setting. Robert Fulton, steamboat, the beginning of American entrepreneurship. Another reductionist argument. Simplifying the evolution of United States industry, by using the word "profit" to associate a fictitious oppression (min. 6:17). I could sit here and dissect every single historical statement that he attempt to weave into his own economic theories. England outlawed the cotton gin not as a move towards socialism, but to allow the United States to continue to utilize its slave labor and cheaply produce the fabric. England was then able to begin its move from the industrial revolution to the next stage of capitalism (min. 7:30). He loves to cite the titans of industry, people who were assisted immensely through capital and inflation in order to develop their products; ending each story simply and with Reductionist logic, "they keep all their money." Man, and to say that everything came from American inventions. Germany and France during the 18th and 19th century were a utopia for all American scientists(min. 12:12). Will Rodgers jokes to to paint a picture of a simpler, fictitious time; putting down academia, he does not want you to learn about how the government and capitalism works; just take his word for it "it's complicated" so just take my reductionist logic and ignore any other opinion.
Friday, May 11, 2012
Jeff Richards on Saturday Night Live, as Burt Bacharach on the Iraq War. A little history lesson, President Obama pulled us out of Iraq in 2011.
A civil conversation with a Ron Paul supporter, Part 1
The following is a transcript from a conversation the other day between myself and a long time friend. Please excuse the casual vernacular, we were speaking informally. I love this because it highlights how the Ron Paul supporter really has a warm home in the Obama Administration and need not settle for the elitist politics of Mitt Romney and his mainstream Conservative ideology. My friend happened to post a video praising the ideology of Ron Paul,
to which I perhaps rashly commented on:
Obamas2012.blogspot.com: Ron Paul is a hack and a pawn of an elitist party. Their only desires is to deliberately mislead working class American's into believing that their way of small town existence is under threat. He is an isolationist who cares little for those who do not share his beliefs, belong to his local lodge, or attend his specific church.
Friend: I like your passion my friend, always have. The only problem is you have always been severely misinformed. This is not about democrat or republican, this is about an idea.
Obamas2012.blogspot.com: The importance of the Federal Reserve is to regulate the market in order for the government to maintain its social obligations to its citizenry. Ron Paul desires a government that does not regulate business, because he knows that the private industries which fund his campaign will rape the American consumer once restrictions are lifted. In regards to his "liberal" social rhetoric, most Democrats, especially the Progressives, have always fought through the legal system, ACLU, and the Constitution to prevent any form of a National Security State. He is proclaiming these non-partisan issues to appear like a "sage" of the Republican party, when in reality he is no different then Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan or Mitt Romney who also knew how to manipulate the working class with false promises of laissez faire freedom. The irony of his rhetoric is that Obama has taken us out of Iraq, we are practically out of Afghanistan. The worst part of it all is that his isolationist mentality, is fertile ground for supremacist mentality. Homosexuals, Women, Immigrants, and all cultural American minorities would be placed at an immediate disadvantage with his philosophy in power. He stands for a "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" mentality that is non-existent in our consumer driven society. Anyone who has ever achieved anything in this world, had some system of support along the way to take them to the next level, it is an absolute. You are a fan of NPR and someone I consider an intellect. Read Malcom Gladwell's Outliers, its an excellent work. He writes for the New York Times, the New Yorker, and some other papers. Change is happening now for the better, we are coming together as an American race. The outcome will be a huge advance in the history of human evolution.
Friend: Why did Obama extend the patriot act? A platform he ran against. Why did he sign NDAA that allows indefinite detention with out trial of American citizens? Why is medical marijuana (the best medicine for post-traumatic stress disorder) still illegal. Yet, they have no problem prescribing over priced drugs that has "suicide" written on the side as an f'ing side effect to our troops when they come home. Obama promised everyone change, then he changed his promises. I submit that Obama and Romney have the exact same policies. Yeah, they bitch about gay marriage and abortion. Then without batting an eye watch our men and women die and kill innocent people in other countries for our "safety". What you don't understand, is the Federal Reserve allows our country to fund these wars on the backs of our children. "If you live above your means you are destined to live below your means." that goes for the U.S. as well. The Fed is a privately owned bank that is allowed to print money. They increase the supply of money which is inflation. Inflation it is a tax on the American people through the rise in the price of goods and services. Furthermore, Obama's #1 campaign contributor... Goldman Sachs, Ron Paul's #1 campaign contributor The men and women of the armed forces... try again. My friend, you give the Federal government far too much credit. His philosophy is power to the people. That the problems within our community are best handled by our community. The federal government is wasteful and can only be reached by lobbyist they are not held accountable for anything. Take away their power and give it to the states and we all win.
Obamas2012.blogspot.com: A first term president has no real power or authority to repeal an act of congress, signed by a previous president and upheld by the U.S. Supreme court. The Patriot Act was detestable when an elected Republican backed by a Republican controlled congress proposed and passed the bill. It is an excuse for the government to imprison anyone in the name of terrorism. At the same time you know as well as I do was the how the post 9/11 hysteria rose to unprecedented patriotic fervor. To this day, Muslims and all other ethnic groups who share their "stereotypical" description face an unregulated belief on the governments part that they may be racially profiled, all because of the Patriot Act. I can attest to this first hand, despite the fact that I hail from all European stock of Basque, Irish, and German descent, I am still viewed by strangers as an Arab. I do put more faith in the power of the people to make a difference at a Federal level in a democratically elected society. Within state legislatures, regional prejudices rarely go unchecked. The invasion of our private lives occurs at a greater rate at the hand of state and local authorities more so than at the federal government. The War on Drugs is the same type of Republican conservative ideology used to restrict socially marginalized groups within the United States like the Patriot Act. At the same time we are also seeing less liberal states focus more on arresting illegal immigrants who form the bulk of our nations low-end labor pool rather than allowing homosexuals equal rights as Americans. The greatest tragedy for the Abortion issue would be a return to state rights, where many backwards legislature would welcome the ability to restrict a woman's right to self-determination. The situation would produce the old instance where the hypocritical rich Republican can afford to go to the states where abortion is less regulated for their own sexual mishaps, while villainising the poor who would be unable to practice this inevitable fact of life. The worst thing Ron Paul does is use the death of our fallen soldier as a political weapon to attack an humanistic and socially conscious President. When any U.S. military personnel joins the service, be it reserves or active duty, they are preparing to put their life on the line for their country. To say anyone died in vain during the Iraq or Afghanistan wars is similar to those who disrespected returning troops in Vietnam. Ultimately we both support our respective political contenders for the 2012 Election cycle because we believe they offer the best road towards the liberation of the American citizen. The problem for me is that Ron Paul can proclaim the exact same line of logic that Obama is doing, and actually convince his supporters that his ideas are original. He is a populist, attempting to herd the middle class who does not associate with or feel any affinity towards an African American president. True state rights would be a return to the old days of American business where oligarchy's ruled the economy and the politicians. And the idea that inflation is evil is the number one way to misinform anyone who has never taken a college level Macroeconomics course. Inflation is absolutely necessary to regulate any capitalist economy. It is how the economy is able to give back to the mass of working class people who do not have the advantage of the elitist class of 1%. Adam Smith mentions this in The Wealth of Nations, just like his advocacy of the black market as a tool for the mass of laborers disenfranchised from legitimate socioeconomic pursuits.
to which I perhaps rashly commented on:
Obamas2012.blogspot.com: Ron Paul is a hack and a pawn of an elitist party. Their only desires is to deliberately mislead working class American's into believing that their way of small town existence is under threat. He is an isolationist who cares little for those who do not share his beliefs, belong to his local lodge, or attend his specific church.
Friend: I like your passion my friend, always have. The only problem is you have always been severely misinformed. This is not about democrat or republican, this is about an idea.
Obamas2012.blogspot.com: The importance of the Federal Reserve is to regulate the market in order for the government to maintain its social obligations to its citizenry. Ron Paul desires a government that does not regulate business, because he knows that the private industries which fund his campaign will rape the American consumer once restrictions are lifted. In regards to his "liberal" social rhetoric, most Democrats, especially the Progressives, have always fought through the legal system, ACLU, and the Constitution to prevent any form of a National Security State. He is proclaiming these non-partisan issues to appear like a "sage" of the Republican party, when in reality he is no different then Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan or Mitt Romney who also knew how to manipulate the working class with false promises of laissez faire freedom. The irony of his rhetoric is that Obama has taken us out of Iraq, we are practically out of Afghanistan. The worst part of it all is that his isolationist mentality, is fertile ground for supremacist mentality. Homosexuals, Women, Immigrants, and all cultural American minorities would be placed at an immediate disadvantage with his philosophy in power. He stands for a "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" mentality that is non-existent in our consumer driven society. Anyone who has ever achieved anything in this world, had some system of support along the way to take them to the next level, it is an absolute. You are a fan of NPR and someone I consider an intellect. Read Malcom Gladwell's Outliers, its an excellent work. He writes for the New York Times, the New Yorker, and some other papers. Change is happening now for the better, we are coming together as an American race. The outcome will be a huge advance in the history of human evolution.
Friend: Why did Obama extend the patriot act? A platform he ran against. Why did he sign NDAA that allows indefinite detention with out trial of American citizens? Why is medical marijuana (the best medicine for post-traumatic stress disorder) still illegal. Yet, they have no problem prescribing over priced drugs that has "suicide" written on the side as an f'ing side effect to our troops when they come home. Obama promised everyone change, then he changed his promises. I submit that Obama and Romney have the exact same policies. Yeah, they bitch about gay marriage and abortion. Then without batting an eye watch our men and women die and kill innocent people in other countries for our "safety". What you don't understand, is the Federal Reserve allows our country to fund these wars on the backs of our children. "If you live above your means you are destined to live below your means." that goes for the U.S. as well. The Fed is a privately owned bank that is allowed to print money. They increase the supply of money which is inflation. Inflation it is a tax on the American people through the rise in the price of goods and services. Furthermore, Obama's #1 campaign contributor... Goldman Sachs, Ron Paul's #1 campaign contributor The men and women of the armed forces... try again. My friend, you give the Federal government far too much credit. His philosophy is power to the people. That the problems within our community are best handled by our community. The federal government is wasteful and can only be reached by lobbyist they are not held accountable for anything. Take away their power and give it to the states and we all win.
Obamas2012.blogspot.com: A first term president has no real power or authority to repeal an act of congress, signed by a previous president and upheld by the U.S. Supreme court. The Patriot Act was detestable when an elected Republican backed by a Republican controlled congress proposed and passed the bill. It is an excuse for the government to imprison anyone in the name of terrorism. At the same time you know as well as I do was the how the post 9/11 hysteria rose to unprecedented patriotic fervor. To this day, Muslims and all other ethnic groups who share their "stereotypical" description face an unregulated belief on the governments part that they may be racially profiled, all because of the Patriot Act. I can attest to this first hand, despite the fact that I hail from all European stock of Basque, Irish, and German descent, I am still viewed by strangers as an Arab. I do put more faith in the power of the people to make a difference at a Federal level in a democratically elected society. Within state legislatures, regional prejudices rarely go unchecked. The invasion of our private lives occurs at a greater rate at the hand of state and local authorities more so than at the federal government. The War on Drugs is the same type of Republican conservative ideology used to restrict socially marginalized groups within the United States like the Patriot Act. At the same time we are also seeing less liberal states focus more on arresting illegal immigrants who form the bulk of our nations low-end labor pool rather than allowing homosexuals equal rights as Americans. The greatest tragedy for the Abortion issue would be a return to state rights, where many backwards legislature would welcome the ability to restrict a woman's right to self-determination. The situation would produce the old instance where the hypocritical rich Republican can afford to go to the states where abortion is less regulated for their own sexual mishaps, while villainising the poor who would be unable to practice this inevitable fact of life. The worst thing Ron Paul does is use the death of our fallen soldier as a political weapon to attack an humanistic and socially conscious President. When any U.S. military personnel joins the service, be it reserves or active duty, they are preparing to put their life on the line for their country. To say anyone died in vain during the Iraq or Afghanistan wars is similar to those who disrespected returning troops in Vietnam. Ultimately we both support our respective political contenders for the 2012 Election cycle because we believe they offer the best road towards the liberation of the American citizen. The problem for me is that Ron Paul can proclaim the exact same line of logic that Obama is doing, and actually convince his supporters that his ideas are original. He is a populist, attempting to herd the middle class who does not associate with or feel any affinity towards an African American president. True state rights would be a return to the old days of American business where oligarchy's ruled the economy and the politicians. And the idea that inflation is evil is the number one way to misinform anyone who has never taken a college level Macroeconomics course. Inflation is absolutely necessary to regulate any capitalist economy. It is how the economy is able to give back to the mass of working class people who do not have the advantage of the elitist class of 1%. Adam Smith mentions this in The Wealth of Nations, just like his advocacy of the black market as a tool for the mass of laborers disenfranchised from legitimate socioeconomic pursuits.
Friday, May 4, 2012
When stupidity governs Florida
Recently Florida A&M University has come under intense scrutiny in the wake of the tragic death of Robert Champ. Champ was the victim of hazing from his fellow band-mates following a Rattlers football game last season. No one will disagree that the death of this caliber is inexcusable. Few critics have been more vocal in the rebuke of FAMU for the governing of its organizations and handling of the investigation than Rick Scott. The unpopular Republican governor has taken every chance to drag this issue out into the public and ensure that it remains at the forefront of his press releases and interviews. His undaunting pursuit of the university has caused it to cease all marching band activity for two years. Not to mention the allegorical "book" thrown at the thirteen students charged with Felonies for the attack. A Historic Black College and University, A&M was a federal land grant recipient in the 19th century. The Marching One Hundred has been a central institution. It will remain a significant point of pride, a source of esteem and strength for for the students, faculty, and community. To the students and greater community of Florida A&M University, the isolation and persecution of this institution is a known and regrettable truth of its hallowed past. Anti-reconstruction, anti-civil rights, and anti-President Obama hysteria are all supple atmospheres for the conservative Right to undermine the ability of this institution to thrive and prosper.
Republican Rick Scott is a man with an agenda. The Trayvon Martin case has once more introduced Florida politics to the spotlight of the national media. The case has become a pivotal issue for the conservative Right as they make the necessary moves to defend any attempt to rescind the legislation. Even questioning the legality of the "Stand Your Ground Law" has drawn ire from the Republican elite. Scott, following NRA orders one can only assume, took every precaution in ensuring that those who could best defend the bill were present on the nineteen member panel to judge its ruling. For Scott, the ability to use the Florida A&M death as a political token in order to draw attention from the fact that the state already condones violence in actively utilizing the death penalty and the de jure pass for any person to kill another in the name of self-defense.
Let me reiterate, hazing is a terrible practice. In its most horrific instance, individuals like Robert Champ tragically lose their life. At the same time it is important to understand that since 1970, at least one college student a year enrolled at an American university has died as a result of hazing. The current state law of Florida which mandates all Greek organizations on the practice of hazing is named after Chad Meredith. A student at the University of Miami, Meredith was "hazed" to death in 2001. The following is a list of victims and their universities for only the last ten years.
(courtesy of hazing.hanknuwer.com)
(2012) Vinicennes University -William Torrance
(2011) Robert Champ
(2011)Cornell University Geroge Desdeunes
(2010)Radford, Samuel Mason
(2009)Prairie View A&M, Donnie Wade Jr.
(2009)SUNY Genesco, Arman Partamian
(2008) Caly Poly, Carson Starkey
(2008) Utah State, Michael Starks
(2008) Lenoir Rhyne, Harrison Kowiak
(2008)Wabash College, Johnny Smith
(2008) University of Delaware, Brett Griffin
(2007)Rider University, Gary Devercelly Jr.
(2006) University of Texas, Tyler Cross
(2005) University of Texas, Jack Phoummarath
(2005) University of California, Kenny Luong
(2005)Chicago State University, Matthew Carrington
(2004) University of Oklahoma, Blake Hammontree
(2004) University of Colorado, Gordon Bailey
(2003) Bradley University, Robert Schmalz
(2003) Plymouth State University, Kelly Nester
(2003) Rocester Institute of Technology, Jerry Hopkins
(2003) Plattsburgh State, Walter Dean Jennings
(2003)Yale University, Nicholas Grass, Kyle Burnat, Andrew Dwyer and Sean Fenton
(2002) University of Maryland, Daniel Reardon
(2002) University of Nevada, Albert Santos
(2002) California State Los Angeles, Kenitha Saafir and Kristin High
(2002) San Diego State University, Brian Jimenez and Zachary Jacobs
(2002) Alfred University, Ben Klein
Hazing is a sad, brutal truth within the American social fabric. From high schools to United States Military institutions, among men and women alike hazing is truly the unspoken offspring of a culture that condones violence. It is the family member at the reunion that everyone will forget when the scene has died down. I believe it is necessary to explore the death of Robert Champ much in the same way we continue to question the tragic loss of Trayvon Martin. Both deaths highlight a violent pattern in our society, in which the value of human life is placed second to the adoration of pride and property.
some hazing links
Stop Hazing.org
Florida State University Hazing Information
National Rifle Association on Trayvon Martin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)