Salvete.
Long story short, I was rushed for time on the ballot. I thought that I could write my ballot and send it in by mail by today or tomorrow, but the deadline was Wednesday. I looked at the ballot and told myself that, by in large, I trusted the Republican Party more than the Democrat Party. I voted along those lines. The other reason... I'm getting ahead of myself. I'll explain later.
Honestly, the candidates that I voted for didn't seem to matter too much to me. The county that represented me was heavily Republican conservative, so I knew that the man who represented us before (whom I both admire and respect) would be reelected. The positions for governor, lieutenant governor, et cetera had not made a very strong campaign in the past few weeks (I heard that the gubernatorial candidate ran out of campaign money), so I made little effort to promote them. I have strong opinions about the propositions, though, and I have tremendous support of a couple candidates that were outside my district and thus outside my vote.
The first one is Dan Logue. I shook hands with this man; I had a brief talk about Six Californias. He is a good man. I did research; he's well qualified (as a businessman and the choice of the Chamber of Commerce, among other things). He's well grounded in history and character; he seems milktoast at first glance, but he's a great guy. I heard him talk with a small group of about 10-15 Yolo Republicans. I wasn't all too impressed, but he got my vote. I'm campaigning on my own time, walking around my neighborhood with a sign endorsing Dan Logue. It's raining today, so I'm blogging about him. I want him to win.
The second, and perhaps the more interesting, is Charlie Schaupp. I heard him speak in a room of ten people- including myself and Schaupp. This man is beyond incredible. He is an ex-lieutenant colonel of the Marines, well-grounded in politics, the military, and farming. He follows party lines simply because Republican policies are better than nothing, but he is not hesitant to walk up to big-name Republicans and call them out for corruption. He is, pure and simple, a good leader. Want more proof? He went up against the Republican turncoat Bill Dodd during the primaries. The Democrat candidates were backed by millions of dollars, while Schaupp paid a small sum of about twenty thousand. Even still, Schaupp was able to oust two of the candidates and practically tie with the third. Why? Because he is the best man for the position. Period. Moving on...
Now for the reason why I voted Republican. On Monday, it was announced that Bill Clinton was coming to my area to endorse the Democratic candidates in the area. Naturally, everyone who could go went to the campaign rally, Democrats and Republicans alike. I was not pleased. They made the Republicans look like monsters, spreading false rumors and drumming up cheap support. This was an utterly cheap move by the Democrats in order to get more votes. As a Modern Whig, I was uncomfortable, to say the least. I respect Bill Clinton as a leader and a speaker; he did give the best speech of the lot. I will not stand, though, for a political ploy to draw potential voters in before bashing the other side. The Democrats even brought in representatives from other districts, such as Ami Bera, in order to get media coverage for said candidates. It's just... my vote speaks for me. I voted red.
Now for the propositions. I found most of them quite interesting, and I encourage the reader to delve deeper. Both sides of each argument are exceedingly complex. I'll go down the issues one by one.
Proposition 1 is a bill to spend over seven billion dollars on water infrastructure. Honestly, we may be in a "drought," but I don't think that the seven billion dollars would be spent wisely. Heck, it may be easier (and cheaper) to hire Arrowhead or Dasani or another big water company. That said, Republicans and Democrats both support it because it's better than nothing. I still say no.
Proposition 2 relocates the money that California spends. An extra 0.5 percent would go to balancing California's budget, and at least fifty percent of the money in the budget balancing fund would go into paying off debts. This could help turn around the poor economic state of California, if only by a little. The one catch is that it cuts out the excess spending to California public schools. While opponents consider this the fatal flaw of the proposition, I actually see this as a plus. Less money means less corruption and more efficiency. Yes.
Proposition 45 means that the Insurance Commissioner must approve any health insurance rate changes. This would slow down any health insurer's ability to adapt, especially considering the looming Obamacare that will wreak havoc on most health insurers. No.
Proposition 46 means that you can sue doctors for more money. It's stupid; I generally don't like people suing other people anyway. It also requires doctors to have drug screening, but I would like to think that people will know if any doctor's drug consumption affects their work. No.
Proposition 47 essentially lowers the penalties for drug possession. Drug possession is still illegal, but it's no longer a felony. As a Republican conservative, I would say no, but as a libertarian, I would say yes. I might post about drugs later, but I'll save you the details and say that I put yes, although I would undoubtedly understand and perhaps commend you by voting no.
Proposition 48 is perhaps the most fun to debate. It allows North Fork Rancheria, a casino company, to establish a casino that is outside of native American lands, call the grounds "native American lands," and pay native Americans money to operate the casino. Here's where the "buts" come in. The casinos will establish outside reservation soil. But that would mean that casino companies would be able to plant casinos everywhere in California! But shouldn't casinos already have the right to start up anywhere, according to libertarian principles? But the casinos will affect the environments around them, perhaps turning certain towns of California into miniature Las Vegases or worse? But wouldn't that be a good thing, creating more jobs and establishing economic hubs where they otherwise would not be? That's a lot of "buts." I voted yes, my friends independently voted no, it's a weird loop of political contradictions. Yes?
So that's my opinion of the 2016 California election in a nutshell. You may realize that this is my 99th post. I have something planned for my 100th post, and it's currently in a draft. Expect it soon, perhaps after the elections. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to enjoy my night before campaigning for Dan Logue tomorrow. Vote Dan Logue!
Sunday, November 2, 2014
Wednesday, October 1, 2014
On the Subject of Unions and Integrity
Salvete.
I used to be a part of a union. It was awkward, but, aside from the confrontation between the union representatives and the manager, things were relatively fine. Personally, I've always had qualms with the unions, but my employment under the unions slightly altered my opinion. Whereas I used to view unions as merely sucking time and money away from businesses and corporations at the expense of the taxpayer, I now viewed them from the perspective of an employee under the union. I had an employer who pushed me to my limits, but I had a union that ensured that I wouldn't be able to give it my all. For example, I often worked the closing shift at my store. I needed to empty the trash, sweep the store, and generally prepare for the store to open in the morning. That said, there was the mandatory ten-minute break after two hours of work, not only cutting into the precious time needed to close the store but also disrupting the flow of my work. If the store wasn't ready by closing time, there was no way to make up for the losses. In this way, I now fully understood what the phrase "right to work" meant: not just a simple catchphrase, but a summation of why modern-day unions fundamentally don't work.
That said, I began to better understand the purpose of unions, having experienced a union firsthand. Granted, I wouldn't shed a tear for them were they wiped off the face of the earth, but I recognize that they are organizations to be reformed, rather than removed. Ergo, here are a few reforms that I propose to change unions for the better:
1. Become more localized and less centralized. I want a union representative that knows the team, that is friends with the manager, that can say exactly what the situation is in an individual store, find the solution as quickly and efficiently as possible, and solve it. That simply can't be done from a headquarter, and it's the reason why corporations employ managers and assistant managers. It would intimidate any employee for a stranger to call their name and ask them to sign a union form before bickering with the manager and calling in union reinforcements (true story). That's not an organization that I want for myself.
2. Rely on volunteer work. I understand that there would have to be a few paid positions to keep the whole nationwide structure together, just as in any large organization, from corporations to governments to charities. However, one of the biggest problems of unions is the endless lobbying, the plagues that are corruption and bureaucracy. Heck, some of the unions are even larger and more powerful than some of the corporations they detest. Volunteer work turns an organization hellbent on obtaining power into an organization hellbent on achieving their goals, while similarly refuting the argument that union workers are simply out there to get out of work and reap benefits.
2a. Raise their own money. The corporations have to do it, so why can't the unions? If they claim to be so hardworking and dedicated to helping their fellow man, then this should be a slight road bump. For me, this is the worst crime of unions: ignorance. Unions have ironically decided to become more anti-employer than pro-employee, yet they rarely put themselves in the shoes of the employer. The union elite need to learn the hard work and sacrifice that come into moneymaking before they can boast that businesses can follow union lines while still keeping an ample profit.
3. Make membership optional. I think of union membership as job insurance- with perks. In the instance that your boss is a jerk or that the company goes through tough times, the union is there to make sure that workers get their just dues. That said, I have not encountered any person in leadership, public or private, who would fire someone at the drop of a dime. I hope that I never do see such a person. I'm sure that there are several thousand workers interested in joining unions, if not several million. Personally, I would rather skip paying union dues and refuse to conform to the union's political goals while risking the one-percent chance that I would be fired on any given day (one percent is frighteningly large, actually... it's probably more like 0.1 percent).
Now yes, I do realize that these reforms would cripple the union structure as we know it. Unions need to have their government funding, and they will stop at nothing to make sure that they have power and control. Quite honestly, unions are rapidly becoming worse than the most stereotypical corporations. Heck, at least corporations supply services to their customers, while unions do little to help their clients. Perhaps it is time for unions to refresh themselves.
Saturday, September 20, 2014
England Remains in Control
Salvete.
Well, Scotland has stayed British for now. My English friend (who currently resides in Scotland) is thrilled about this, while I am, surprisingly, apathetic. I would be equally satisfied with a new Scottish nation and a United Kingdom. It's sad because this election is how I might imagine the "Six Californias" proposal to go: a good run, but overall not enough. I also had a fun titles for blog posts, should the alternative happen. Here are a few, with subtitles as appropriate:
Happy Birthday, World! You Get a Brand New Country!
The Definitely-Not-United-Anymore Kingdom of England... and Wales?
Scotland the Brave but Financially Doomed
Celebrate with Haggis!: The Scotland Success Story
Scotland Falls to Militant Nationalist Radicals; Brits Resume Enjoying Tea
Anyway, those are a few. The 100th blog post is coming up, and I hope to make it big. Stay tuned.
Friday, September 12, 2014
My Utopia
Salvete.
Last Sunday I watched the latest FOX show Utopia. The characters on the reality show quickly sorted themselves out into the "if you're right of center, you'll hate my guts" type and the "if you're left of center, you'll hate my guts" type, and there were quite a few more of the former than the latter. The goal of the show is to determine if (and how) a perfect society can be made. The answer became clear on the first episode of the show: clearly you can't make a perfect society with these people. The society fell into a dystopia almost instantaneously, and I didn't need to watch the Tuesday episode. The End.
It got me thinking about my utopia, my theoretical perfect world. What would the government be like? What would my culture be like? How would the economy run? I thought that I would start with the economy, since economy and government are often more important to a society than the culture. Look at Switzerland, New Zealand, and Singapore- they rarely highlight their cultures, but their economies and governments make them among the most powerful minor nations in the world. Thus, let's start with the government.
For the purposes of this experiment, I will assume that I have control of a small nation, about the size of Kosovo or Luxembourg. The reason is obvious; the mechanics of a small government are far different than the mechanics of a large government. While Russia can focus on imperialism, Estonia would have to focus on nationalist isolationism. While America works better as a republic, Serbia can focus on a more democratic government. Thus, I would have different recommendations for the United States.
The government of my utopia would be republican, and there would be no single individual in charge of an entire branch of government. The military would have complete control over itself, but the legislators would have control of the military's budget, the military's objectives, and a small but elite national army, thus hindering the main army's capabilities. The staff of generals would similarly be heavily scrutinized, so as to prevent a military coup. The judges would be selected from the set of legislators by the set of legislators. Citizens would have all the rights entitled by the United States constitution.
The economy would be slightly isolationist. My utopia would have an independently-controlled currency that is linked to the value of precious metal (gold is cliche, so perhaps a lesser-known element like molybdenum?). There would be low tariffs, low income taxes, and low corporate taxes. This would encourage corporations and businesses to find shelter in my country. My nation would focus on a specific product or commodity and create high quality [insert said product or commodity]. That way, my nation can be put on the map as having moderate economic value. Once the economy kicks off and my nation has sizable control of the market, I would raise tariffs to continue to encourage businesses to manufacture on our soil. Because of low, flat income taxes, my country would have a low minimum wage, if any, and welfare would be little to none. Our nation would try to be as free from debt as possible, and completely self-sufficient.
Perhaps the defining aspect of a utopia is the culture. My culture would be one of religious freedom but a strong Christian overtone. Being a Christian, I am biased, but I believe that Christian doctrine is better soil for productivity, education, and general goodwill for mankind than any other religion, including atheism. This would be crucial for my society to grow and prosper. Independence and ownership would be key defining virtues of my culture, and political parties would be small and strongly anti-corruption. Racism, sexism, and other prejudices would be frowned upon but not banned or limited. Freedom would mix with honor and integrity in a strong, absolute blend of morals and values. Citizens would be encouraged to expand their knowledge by any means possible; contracted private schools and universities would be abundant and well-supplied.
That's a general layout of my utopia. It may change over the years, but I think it's a good start.
Last Sunday I watched the latest FOX show Utopia. The characters on the reality show quickly sorted themselves out into the "if you're right of center, you'll hate my guts" type and the "if you're left of center, you'll hate my guts" type, and there were quite a few more of the former than the latter. The goal of the show is to determine if (and how) a perfect society can be made. The answer became clear on the first episode of the show: clearly you can't make a perfect society with these people. The society fell into a dystopia almost instantaneously, and I didn't need to watch the Tuesday episode. The End.
It got me thinking about my utopia, my theoretical perfect world. What would the government be like? What would my culture be like? How would the economy run? I thought that I would start with the economy, since economy and government are often more important to a society than the culture. Look at Switzerland, New Zealand, and Singapore- they rarely highlight their cultures, but their economies and governments make them among the most powerful minor nations in the world. Thus, let's start with the government.
For the purposes of this experiment, I will assume that I have control of a small nation, about the size of Kosovo or Luxembourg. The reason is obvious; the mechanics of a small government are far different than the mechanics of a large government. While Russia can focus on imperialism, Estonia would have to focus on nationalist isolationism. While America works better as a republic, Serbia can focus on a more democratic government. Thus, I would have different recommendations for the United States.
The government of my utopia would be republican, and there would be no single individual in charge of an entire branch of government. The military would have complete control over itself, but the legislators would have control of the military's budget, the military's objectives, and a small but elite national army, thus hindering the main army's capabilities. The staff of generals would similarly be heavily scrutinized, so as to prevent a military coup. The judges would be selected from the set of legislators by the set of legislators. Citizens would have all the rights entitled by the United States constitution.
The economy would be slightly isolationist. My utopia would have an independently-controlled currency that is linked to the value of precious metal (gold is cliche, so perhaps a lesser-known element like molybdenum?). There would be low tariffs, low income taxes, and low corporate taxes. This would encourage corporations and businesses to find shelter in my country. My nation would focus on a specific product or commodity and create high quality [insert said product or commodity]. That way, my nation can be put on the map as having moderate economic value. Once the economy kicks off and my nation has sizable control of the market, I would raise tariffs to continue to encourage businesses to manufacture on our soil. Because of low, flat income taxes, my country would have a low minimum wage, if any, and welfare would be little to none. Our nation would try to be as free from debt as possible, and completely self-sufficient.
Perhaps the defining aspect of a utopia is the culture. My culture would be one of religious freedom but a strong Christian overtone. Being a Christian, I am biased, but I believe that Christian doctrine is better soil for productivity, education, and general goodwill for mankind than any other religion, including atheism. This would be crucial for my society to grow and prosper. Independence and ownership would be key defining virtues of my culture, and political parties would be small and strongly anti-corruption. Racism, sexism, and other prejudices would be frowned upon but not banned or limited. Freedom would mix with honor and integrity in a strong, absolute blend of morals and values. Citizens would be encouraged to expand their knowledge by any means possible; contracted private schools and universities would be abundant and well-supplied.
That's a general layout of my utopia. It may change over the years, but I think it's a good start.
Thursday, September 11, 2014
9/11
Salvete.
9/11 is always an awkward topic to talk about. It's treated like a minor holiday, but a day in which evil scored a brief victory. You can't say "Happy 9/11" like with Thanksgiving or the Fourth of July.
Clearly the past events don't help. Sure, we've lost our Twin Towers, but at least we've thrown the Middle East of chaos with the only hope of peace coming from the most anti-American organization to hit the region. We're less secure, taken more losses, and we seem to enjoy every moment of defeat. Of course they're not good Muslims. Hamas and Palestine just want their territory back. How dare you think otherwise; you're worse than the terrorists who have killed thousands of lives to date.
9/11 is rapidly becoming a forgettable event in our nation's history. Granted, it's generally good to be free of the restraints of the past, but to avidly try to erase the past- well, it's a disservice. It's a disservice to the American people, especially those whose lives were sacrificed so that we could open our eyes.
9/11 is always an awkward topic to talk about. It's treated like a minor holiday, but a day in which evil scored a brief victory. You can't say "Happy 9/11" like with Thanksgiving or the Fourth of July.
Clearly the past events don't help. Sure, we've lost our Twin Towers, but at least we've thrown the Middle East of chaos with the only hope of peace coming from the most anti-American organization to hit the region. We're less secure, taken more losses, and we seem to enjoy every moment of defeat. Of course they're not good Muslims. Hamas and Palestine just want their territory back. How dare you think otherwise; you're worse than the terrorists who have killed thousands of lives to date.
9/11 is rapidly becoming a forgettable event in our nation's history. Granted, it's generally good to be free of the restraints of the past, but to avidly try to erase the past- well, it's a disservice. It's a disservice to the American people, especially those whose lives were sacrificed so that we could open our eyes.
Sunday, September 7, 2014
Six Californias
Salvete.
Well, I was going to be satisfied with just Jefferson seceding, but this works too.
I'm sure this is just a pipe dream, but it's one of the best plans for Californian Republicans. Californian participation in the Senate may be ten senators greater, but there would be a strong Republican presence. Republican votes in California would actually count, and Republicans could actually have their say.
That said, a six-state fracture seems a tad outlandish. I understand that the "Six Californias" people found vastly different cultures and outlooks on life, but they can be grouped into categories (Republican conservative cultures and Democrat liberal cultures) in order to give the two peoples greater political freedom while still maintaining political stability.
I can't complain, though; I will go behind any political front to liberate the Californian Republican conservative vote. I urge you to join me in giving people like me a say in the "Six Californias" initiative.
Well, I was going to be satisfied with just Jefferson seceding, but this works too.
I'm sure this is just a pipe dream, but it's one of the best plans for Californian Republicans. Californian participation in the Senate may be ten senators greater, but there would be a strong Republican presence. Republican votes in California would actually count, and Republicans could actually have their say.
That said, a six-state fracture seems a tad outlandish. I understand that the "Six Californias" people found vastly different cultures and outlooks on life, but they can be grouped into categories (Republican conservative cultures and Democrat liberal cultures) in order to give the two peoples greater political freedom while still maintaining political stability.
I can't complain, though; I will go behind any political front to liberate the Californian Republican conservative vote. I urge you to join me in giving people like me a say in the "Six Californias" initiative.
In Defense of Bush
Salvete.
George W. Bush was no superstar. He was not the savior of the world, and his policies weren't that good, either. Of course, everyone knows this by now, and he has been mercilessly mocked, ridiculed, and shamed for his policies and, more emphatically, his accent. While the Bush's reputation is all but destroyed in the eyes of the left, the right has managed to view Bush in a slightly-positive light until recent years. I think it is time to recognize that, while Bush was no hero, he certainly was no villain.
I think the source of the hatred of Bush derives from the Iraq War and the accompanying invasions of personal freedom. No one assaults Bush's economic policies because, quite frankly, no one cares. Ergo, for the purpose of keeping this post relatively short, I will address the Bush's behavior in Iraq.
Probably the largest catalyst of the Iraq War was the 9/11 bombing. America was dazed and confused, and she wanted heads to roll because of this. To my memory, the only tragedy to come close to having the devastation and horror that accompanied 9/11 was the Pearl Harbor bombing. What happened after Pearl Harbor? We went to war; heads simply needed to roll. We put aside the failed economic policies of Roosevelt and even the fact that America was still in recession to weaponize the American people and fight the Axis juggernaut. What happened after 9/11? We went to war; heads simply needed to roll. That said, whereas World War II was fully supported by the American people and gave America glory and victory, the Iraq War was mediocrely supported by the American people and gave America a victory that she couldn't sink her teeth into. Whereas people were fine sacrificing their belongings and luxuries to beat the Nazi threat, no one needed to sacrifice anything to beat the Iraqi threat, but compliance was a good start. Thus was born the Department of Homeland Security and the endless bureaucracy that ensued.
Was it Bush's fault? Perhaps, just as it was Wilson's fault for allowing America to march herself into World War I before fully embracing American propaganda. It's not indefensible, and we surely should cut the ex-president some slack. It's not everyday that someone is in the tight situation that he was in. And it's not like he emboldened our enemies, overthrew two stable governments, and had our ambassador shot. Yes, Obama, we are still angry about Ambassador Stevens.
George W. Bush was no superstar. He was not the savior of the world, and his policies weren't that good, either. Of course, everyone knows this by now, and he has been mercilessly mocked, ridiculed, and shamed for his policies and, more emphatically, his accent. While the Bush's reputation is all but destroyed in the eyes of the left, the right has managed to view Bush in a slightly-positive light until recent years. I think it is time to recognize that, while Bush was no hero, he certainly was no villain.
I think the source of the hatred of Bush derives from the Iraq War and the accompanying invasions of personal freedom. No one assaults Bush's economic policies because, quite frankly, no one cares. Ergo, for the purpose of keeping this post relatively short, I will address the Bush's behavior in Iraq.
Probably the largest catalyst of the Iraq War was the 9/11 bombing. America was dazed and confused, and she wanted heads to roll because of this. To my memory, the only tragedy to come close to having the devastation and horror that accompanied 9/11 was the Pearl Harbor bombing. What happened after Pearl Harbor? We went to war; heads simply needed to roll. We put aside the failed economic policies of Roosevelt and even the fact that America was still in recession to weaponize the American people and fight the Axis juggernaut. What happened after 9/11? We went to war; heads simply needed to roll. That said, whereas World War II was fully supported by the American people and gave America glory and victory, the Iraq War was mediocrely supported by the American people and gave America a victory that she couldn't sink her teeth into. Whereas people were fine sacrificing their belongings and luxuries to beat the Nazi threat, no one needed to sacrifice anything to beat the Iraqi threat, but compliance was a good start. Thus was born the Department of Homeland Security and the endless bureaucracy that ensued.
Was it Bush's fault? Perhaps, just as it was Wilson's fault for allowing America to march herself into World War I before fully embracing American propaganda. It's not indefensible, and we surely should cut the ex-president some slack. It's not everyday that someone is in the tight situation that he was in. And it's not like he emboldened our enemies, overthrew two stable governments, and had our ambassador shot. Yes, Obama, we are still angry about Ambassador Stevens.
Friday, September 5, 2014
Paper AND Plastic: My Impressions on California's Latest Mistake
Salvete. So much to talk about, so little time for blogging. Might as well resume now.
So I was thinking about all the topics that I could write about: a defense of Bush's policies, an apology letter to Estonia, a talk about unions. The one that I decided to write first, though, not only holds the most weight but pertains the most to the near future. Shortly, the state of California is going to ban the use of plastic bags in grocery stores.
The sad thing is that a lot of people around me (or at least the more outspoken ones) love the idea! Plastic bags supposedly harm the environment, and plastic bags are flimsy anyway. Having had experience in grocery retail, I decided to throw in my two cents and explain why California should not outlaw plastic bags.
First and perhaps most relevant is the simple fact that plastic bags are easier to use. Sure, they might be flimsy, but they are more easily stored, transported, and stuffed than plastic bags. For an inexperienced bagger, the difference between paper and plastic may take a good few seconds, precious time in the grocery industry. If customers value their time more than the environment (and trust me, most of them do), plastic is the way to go. Plastic is more flexible than paper, allowing clerks to bag items of all shapes and sizes, from wine bottles to vegetable trays. Sure, plastic bags may be flimsier, but it is far easier to double-bag in plastic than it is to double-bag or perhaps even single-bag in paper, and two bags of plastic are at least as strong as one bag of paper.
Second and perhaps more importantly is the set of economic implications that plastic is going to bring. I don't know who supplies or who makes the bagging equipment, so for now I can assume the most logical choice: they're made in China, shipped across the Pacific, and supplied by an American company, which for the sake of familiarity we will call BagCo. BagCo will have to abandon a large percentage of its plastic bag industry and replace it with paper in order to compensate for this new regulation, so that will cost the company. It would also mean either a greater consumption of lumber (hurting the environment) or a greater consumption of recycled paper and/or wood products (hurting the company further). BagCo might have to downsize slightly to keep its profits steady, thus killing jobs. This scenario is not necessarily going to happen word for word, but it is at least an easily-foreseeable future that California would deal BagCo (if not the entire grocery industry) a severe blow. And that is a dangerous thought.
Of course, I can't change anything. I am in the vast minority, and the law is very likely going to pass. I would merely like my words to be remembered, if only to say "I told you so" in the future.
So I was thinking about all the topics that I could write about: a defense of Bush's policies, an apology letter to Estonia, a talk about unions. The one that I decided to write first, though, not only holds the most weight but pertains the most to the near future. Shortly, the state of California is going to ban the use of plastic bags in grocery stores.
The sad thing is that a lot of people around me (or at least the more outspoken ones) love the idea! Plastic bags supposedly harm the environment, and plastic bags are flimsy anyway. Having had experience in grocery retail, I decided to throw in my two cents and explain why California should not outlaw plastic bags.
First and perhaps most relevant is the simple fact that plastic bags are easier to use. Sure, they might be flimsy, but they are more easily stored, transported, and stuffed than plastic bags. For an inexperienced bagger, the difference between paper and plastic may take a good few seconds, precious time in the grocery industry. If customers value their time more than the environment (and trust me, most of them do), plastic is the way to go. Plastic is more flexible than paper, allowing clerks to bag items of all shapes and sizes, from wine bottles to vegetable trays. Sure, plastic bags may be flimsier, but it is far easier to double-bag in plastic than it is to double-bag or perhaps even single-bag in paper, and two bags of plastic are at least as strong as one bag of paper.
Second and perhaps more importantly is the set of economic implications that plastic is going to bring. I don't know who supplies or who makes the bagging equipment, so for now I can assume the most logical choice: they're made in China, shipped across the Pacific, and supplied by an American company, which for the sake of familiarity we will call BagCo. BagCo will have to abandon a large percentage of its plastic bag industry and replace it with paper in order to compensate for this new regulation, so that will cost the company. It would also mean either a greater consumption of lumber (hurting the environment) or a greater consumption of recycled paper and/or wood products (hurting the company further). BagCo might have to downsize slightly to keep its profits steady, thus killing jobs. This scenario is not necessarily going to happen word for word, but it is at least an easily-foreseeable future that California would deal BagCo (if not the entire grocery industry) a severe blow. And that is a dangerous thought.
Of course, I can't change anything. I am in the vast minority, and the law is very likely going to pass. I would merely like my words to be remembered, if only to say "I told you so" in the future.
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
A Tale of Two Borders: The United States and Israel
Salve. Well, I'm back.
The United States and Israeli border problems are some of the worst border crises in history. The reactions by the United States government are similarly some of the worst in United States history. Thus I arouse from my inactivity to give my two cents on these issues. I shall address our border first.
I want America to have at least half a billion citizens, if not more. I truly do. The average person who comes to this country will do far better off here than elsewhere, and I want as many people as possible to share in the glory that is "the American dream." I believe that, if well-dispersed across America, this new influx of immigrants could well serve the United States and help themselves along the way.
That said, a lot of the security of the United States is based on how well our borders are maintained. We made a treaty with Canada that neither of us would secure the U.S.-Canada border, and we don't have any threats coming from the north, so that border is essentially maintained. We have made no such pact with Mexico, and Mexicans are crossing the border in record numbers. It seems to me now that only two options are on the table:
1. The Republican conservative option: Secure the border, and deport illegal immigrants as necessary.
2. The Democrat liberal option: Provide amnesty to illegal immigrants, and put off border control for a later time.
I would like to humbly request a few more solutions that, though radical, would at least mollify the situation:
1. Build more immigration stations. It would solve the quandary behind the plight of the illegal immigrant, and the security that accompanies the immigration station would (at least slightly) secure the border. Illegal immigrants would be able to achieve their dream of coming to America, and the Democrats and least would be at the loss of an argument.
2. Purify the Mexican government. This gets to the root of the problem: identifying why illegal immigrants want to come to America and bringing it to Mexico. We take out as much corruption as possible, we implement similar benefit systems, and we uplift Mexico. If we supply the money, we can supply the conditions for how that money is used.
3. Annex Mexico. This is probably the most controversial option, but it is also effective. How much better would Mexico run as an American state? It could run relatively independently, but it could be held in check by her neighboring states and by the federal government. The Mexican people could be citizens, and we'd have a far easier war on drugs.
Now, these last two options would have dramatic international implications. Although the Mexican people would be happier, the United Nations would not be. I guess one could say the same about Israel.
Israel is the one nation with guts anymore. Most wars nowadays happen when a stronger nation wants something that a smaller nation has, or when two small neighboring nations have a relatively large dispute. Israel, with no regards to international criticism, makes plans to invade the Gaza Strip. They are not afraid of consequences, and they do everything that they possibly can to protect their citizens. I guess the United States should take a lesson from Israel. Be bold.
The United States and Israeli border problems are some of the worst border crises in history. The reactions by the United States government are similarly some of the worst in United States history. Thus I arouse from my inactivity to give my two cents on these issues. I shall address our border first.
I want America to have at least half a billion citizens, if not more. I truly do. The average person who comes to this country will do far better off here than elsewhere, and I want as many people as possible to share in the glory that is "the American dream." I believe that, if well-dispersed across America, this new influx of immigrants could well serve the United States and help themselves along the way.
That said, a lot of the security of the United States is based on how well our borders are maintained. We made a treaty with Canada that neither of us would secure the U.S.-Canada border, and we don't have any threats coming from the north, so that border is essentially maintained. We have made no such pact with Mexico, and Mexicans are crossing the border in record numbers. It seems to me now that only two options are on the table:
1. The Republican conservative option: Secure the border, and deport illegal immigrants as necessary.
2. The Democrat liberal option: Provide amnesty to illegal immigrants, and put off border control for a later time.
I would like to humbly request a few more solutions that, though radical, would at least mollify the situation:
1. Build more immigration stations. It would solve the quandary behind the plight of the illegal immigrant, and the security that accompanies the immigration station would (at least slightly) secure the border. Illegal immigrants would be able to achieve their dream of coming to America, and the Democrats and least would be at the loss of an argument.
2. Purify the Mexican government. This gets to the root of the problem: identifying why illegal immigrants want to come to America and bringing it to Mexico. We take out as much corruption as possible, we implement similar benefit systems, and we uplift Mexico. If we supply the money, we can supply the conditions for how that money is used.
3. Annex Mexico. This is probably the most controversial option, but it is also effective. How much better would Mexico run as an American state? It could run relatively independently, but it could be held in check by her neighboring states and by the federal government. The Mexican people could be citizens, and we'd have a far easier war on drugs.
Now, these last two options would have dramatic international implications. Although the Mexican people would be happier, the United Nations would not be. I guess one could say the same about Israel.
Israel is the one nation with guts anymore. Most wars nowadays happen when a stronger nation wants something that a smaller nation has, or when two small neighboring nations have a relatively large dispute. Israel, with no regards to international criticism, makes plans to invade the Gaza Strip. They are not afraid of consequences, and they do everything that they possibly can to protect their citizens. I guess the United States should take a lesson from Israel. Be bold.
Friday, July 4, 2014
Fourth of July Post: Anti-Nationalism
Salvete. Well, I missed the one-year anniversary post, but I can sure as heck continue the Fourth of July posts. Thus, I listen to fireworks blast outside like gunshots, I will talk about the exact opposite of the first Fourth-of-July post: anti-nationalism.
It seems like the people in charge of America are trying a different tactic to try and win the favor of the people: anti-nationalism. According to a recent poll that I heard about recently (Quinnipiac, I believe), there is an astounding percentage of Americans who don't feel patriotic. When viewing a battalion of young drum majors on television, one of them wore a dress comprised of the British flag. Oh, the irony.
Both nationalism and anti-nationalism are forms of propaganda and are equally devastating, but the former brings order, while the latter brings chaos. It all depends on the intent of the wielder, and it explains the reason why conservatives are so nationalist and the liberals are so anti-nationalist. One of the main differences between the two is that the end result of anti-nationalism is far easier to spot than the end result of nationalism. An anti-nationalist society would resent its government to lead to drastic governmental changes, perhaps to the point of overthrowing the government. The end result of nationalism is an out-of-control populace who will simply become permanently brainwashed to the point of no return.
Yet anti-nationalism is far more prominent in modern-day America than in other nations or time periods. Why? I believe it is because of two distinct factors. The first is because of the underdog effect. People want to resist something, whatever it be. Big business and big government are two of the largest targets. Because it is hard to paint the United States of America as an underdog, America has become a thing to resist.
The second lies in the events of the past fourteen years. We have seen America decline on the international front, and we have seen her crumble from the inside from the weight of bureaucracies. There is no achievement in which America can take pride, and the past two administrations have not helped to mollify the situation. We have "lost" more wars in the 21st century than we have in all of our previous wars combined. Yet because of the anti-war, anti-interventionist sentiment of America, there is little that this government can do anymore to boost the morale of the American populace. It is sad but true.
I pledge allegiance
To restoration
Of the honor and dignity of America
And to the hope
That one day
In God's will
We shall reclaim our power
And show our liberty and justice to all.
Now, if the fates (and the fireworks) allow, I shall get some good night's sleep.
It seems like the people in charge of America are trying a different tactic to try and win the favor of the people: anti-nationalism. According to a recent poll that I heard about recently (Quinnipiac, I believe), there is an astounding percentage of Americans who don't feel patriotic. When viewing a battalion of young drum majors on television, one of them wore a dress comprised of the British flag. Oh, the irony.
Both nationalism and anti-nationalism are forms of propaganda and are equally devastating, but the former brings order, while the latter brings chaos. It all depends on the intent of the wielder, and it explains the reason why conservatives are so nationalist and the liberals are so anti-nationalist. One of the main differences between the two is that the end result of anti-nationalism is far easier to spot than the end result of nationalism. An anti-nationalist society would resent its government to lead to drastic governmental changes, perhaps to the point of overthrowing the government. The end result of nationalism is an out-of-control populace who will simply become permanently brainwashed to the point of no return.
Yet anti-nationalism is far more prominent in modern-day America than in other nations or time periods. Why? I believe it is because of two distinct factors. The first is because of the underdog effect. People want to resist something, whatever it be. Big business and big government are two of the largest targets. Because it is hard to paint the United States of America as an underdog, America has become a thing to resist.
The second lies in the events of the past fourteen years. We have seen America decline on the international front, and we have seen her crumble from the inside from the weight of bureaucracies. There is no achievement in which America can take pride, and the past two administrations have not helped to mollify the situation. We have "lost" more wars in the 21st century than we have in all of our previous wars combined. Yet because of the anti-war, anti-interventionist sentiment of America, there is little that this government can do anymore to boost the morale of the American populace. It is sad but true.
I pledge allegiance
To restoration
Of the honor and dignity of America
And to the hope
That one day
In God's will
We shall reclaim our power
And show our liberty and justice to all.
Now, if the fates (and the fireworks) allow, I shall get some good night's sleep.
Sunday, June 29, 2014
Film Innovation Has Been Frozen
Salvete.
The other day Disney's Frozen passed the one-billion dollar mark, becoming the highest-grossing animated film of all time (not counting Avatar). I would like to make a brief post to warn the world, if it isn't too late already. So here it is:
Frozen is not as good as you make it to be. It is new, sure, and it has three or four passable songs, but it is not worth a billion dollars. Disney knows this, and they have tried it before. Do you remember Tangled? How you all fawned over that film for months after its release! How easy it was for Disney to see a pattern! Now, that pattern is perfected. You are essentially begging Disney to make the exact same kinds of movies for the rest of its existence, with catchy songs, little plot, and targeted advertising. Innovation is dying, and you ground it beneath your foot. I hope you like Dreamworks, because that may be the only strong animation studio left that is bold enough to try new things. You fed from Disney's hand like animals, and you must now pay the price.
The other day Disney's Frozen passed the one-billion dollar mark, becoming the highest-grossing animated film of all time (not counting Avatar). I would like to make a brief post to warn the world, if it isn't too late already. So here it is:
Frozen is not as good as you make it to be. It is new, sure, and it has three or four passable songs, but it is not worth a billion dollars. Disney knows this, and they have tried it before. Do you remember Tangled? How you all fawned over that film for months after its release! How easy it was for Disney to see a pattern! Now, that pattern is perfected. You are essentially begging Disney to make the exact same kinds of movies for the rest of its existence, with catchy songs, little plot, and targeted advertising. Innovation is dying, and you ground it beneath your foot. I hope you like Dreamworks, because that may be the only strong animation studio left that is bold enough to try new things. You fed from Disney's hand like animals, and you must now pay the price.
One-Year Anniversary
Salvete.
Well, I missed the anniversary by a few days. And Straight Pride Week. However, I do have several new posts saved as drafts for the upcoming weeks, so be prepared.
I would just like to thank everyone (most importantly God) for the 1.4 K views that I've received over the past year. Perhaps the upcoming year will get more followers and views. Only time will tell.
Well, I missed the anniversary by a few days. And Straight Pride Week. However, I do have several new posts saved as drafts for the upcoming weeks, so be prepared.
I would just like to thank everyone (most importantly God) for the 1.4 K views that I've received over the past year. Perhaps the upcoming year will get more followers and views. Only time will tell.
Monday, June 23, 2014
Straight Pride Week
Salvete. I'm back from a big long break, in which I got a new job, et cetera. I hope the three of you following this don't blame me. That said, let us continue, as we approach the one-year anniversary of this very blog.
As with most new jobs, I went to a safety course. It was bland and had offered nothing that the online orientation didn't offer, but I was able to meet quite a few fellow employees and observe the building. I noticed that on the tables of the classroom was a shockingly large amount of glitter. Along with several of my peers, I was slightly perturbed at the glitter catching onto my business attire, and during my break I decided that I would ask the safety instructor about the glitter. She responded promptly that they had recently been making tutus. I asked the obvious follow-up question: why on God's green earth would they be making tutus en masse in an official business environment? Why, it's Gay Pride Month, of course! So, seeing as the first post talked about the California debate on gay rights, and seeing that we're rounding the full circle with the first anniversary of the blog, I dub this week Straight Pride Week on Plaustrum20 Politics (not the people, the concept). Why? Because every argument has an opposite, though not necessarily equal, counterargument
Let's address the tutu thing first. Clearly I am not gay, but if I were, I would be insulted. The one thing that the staff could come up with that affiliates with gay people is a tutu? It would be like saying that Black History Month should be full of hoodies, or that females should show their pride by waving shoes [my apologies in advance; I really couldn't think up something better on the spot for stereotypical African Americans]. It's contradictory, fighting prejudice with stereotypes. Granted, I'm all for satirical jests now and then, but not when you're honoring the target in a solemn manner.
Also, why should there be a gay pride month in the first place? It's as preposterous as, as the YouTube comedian Jack Douglass says, "White History Month." I shouldn't care whether I'm white, black, red, yellow, or purple; it doesn't make a lick of difference. I don't need other people telling me that simply being white is good or bad; I know exactly what being white entails: nothing [another slip-up; I guess you know I'm white. Go figure for a Jeffersonian]. That's exactly what being gay entails for the homosexual: nothing. If homosexuality is a choice, then there is little point, and if homosexuality is a genetic flaw, then there is little point. Perhaps Gay Pride Month would be homosexuality's defiance against anti-homosexuality, but it comes off as undeservedly rubbing it in the face of anti-homosexuality.
That, to a degree, is the problem: a big misunderstanding of the conservative view of homosexuality. The left thinks that the right is full of hate for and fear of homosexuals, when in reality we are concerned far more deeply than that. There are very few conservatives that passionately hate specific homosexuals. Rather, we are concerned about the degradation of society and the soul of the homosexual. If the nuclear family is not respected, what is? In this way, we consider divorce in the same way; we want a pure, God-fearing society, but the recent revolutions have tossed that vision aside.
However, the social liberals often don't recognize this claim as legitimate. Without the background motivation for social conservatives, social liberals can only see mindless hate, assuming that conservatives are not socially advanced enough to see their perspective. In a way, they may be right, but the progression of this society doesn't seem to be good, to say the least. Like I said before, conservatives are the brakes, while liberals are the gas.
That's my opinion. I welcome counterarguments and (logically-based) contrary opinions. Expect more later this week.
As with most new jobs, I went to a safety course. It was bland and had offered nothing that the online orientation didn't offer, but I was able to meet quite a few fellow employees and observe the building. I noticed that on the tables of the classroom was a shockingly large amount of glitter. Along with several of my peers, I was slightly perturbed at the glitter catching onto my business attire, and during my break I decided that I would ask the safety instructor about the glitter. She responded promptly that they had recently been making tutus. I asked the obvious follow-up question: why on God's green earth would they be making tutus en masse in an official business environment? Why, it's Gay Pride Month, of course! So, seeing as the first post talked about the California debate on gay rights, and seeing that we're rounding the full circle with the first anniversary of the blog, I dub this week Straight Pride Week on Plaustrum20 Politics (not the people, the concept). Why? Because every argument has an opposite, though not necessarily equal, counterargument
Let's address the tutu thing first. Clearly I am not gay, but if I were, I would be insulted. The one thing that the staff could come up with that affiliates with gay people is a tutu? It would be like saying that Black History Month should be full of hoodies, or that females should show their pride by waving shoes [my apologies in advance; I really couldn't think up something better on the spot for stereotypical African Americans]. It's contradictory, fighting prejudice with stereotypes. Granted, I'm all for satirical jests now and then, but not when you're honoring the target in a solemn manner.
Also, why should there be a gay pride month in the first place? It's as preposterous as, as the YouTube comedian Jack Douglass says, "White History Month." I shouldn't care whether I'm white, black, red, yellow, or purple; it doesn't make a lick of difference. I don't need other people telling me that simply being white is good or bad; I know exactly what being white entails: nothing [another slip-up; I guess you know I'm white. Go figure for a Jeffersonian]. That's exactly what being gay entails for the homosexual: nothing. If homosexuality is a choice, then there is little point, and if homosexuality is a genetic flaw, then there is little point. Perhaps Gay Pride Month would be homosexuality's defiance against anti-homosexuality, but it comes off as undeservedly rubbing it in the face of anti-homosexuality.
That, to a degree, is the problem: a big misunderstanding of the conservative view of homosexuality. The left thinks that the right is full of hate for and fear of homosexuals, when in reality we are concerned far more deeply than that. There are very few conservatives that passionately hate specific homosexuals. Rather, we are concerned about the degradation of society and the soul of the homosexual. If the nuclear family is not respected, what is? In this way, we consider divorce in the same way; we want a pure, God-fearing society, but the recent revolutions have tossed that vision aside.
However, the social liberals often don't recognize this claim as legitimate. Without the background motivation for social conservatives, social liberals can only see mindless hate, assuming that conservatives are not socially advanced enough to see their perspective. In a way, they may be right, but the progression of this society doesn't seem to be good, to say the least. Like I said before, conservatives are the brakes, while liberals are the gas.
That's my opinion. I welcome counterarguments and (logically-based) contrary opinions. Expect more later this week.
Friday, May 9, 2014
Roy Allmond, Pete Peterson, and Dan Schnur: A Closer Analysis
Salvete.
Elections are coming in, and, while I have already gone over my stance for secretary of state, I would like to make a slight footnote. The only other running candidate that is not Green or Democrat is Roy Allmond. I thought I'd give a shout out to him before explaining my choice further.
(For those of you who are too lazy to scroll down a tad and get my choice of secretary of state, here it is:
Secretary of State: Tie, between Dan Schnur and Pete Peterson. I loved both of these candidates. Dan Schnur, an independent, stresses the need for a nonpartisan judge for both sides. He promises to be anti-corruption, a quality that I see in my beloved Isamaa ja Res Publica Liit (IRL) and absolutely adore in a candidate. On the other hand, Pete Peterson has a well laid-out plan of his policies and goals as secretary of state. Quite honestly, I might flip a coin on election day.
Elections are coming in, and, while I have already gone over my stance for secretary of state, I would like to make a slight footnote. The only other running candidate that is not Green or Democrat is Roy Allmond. I thought I'd give a shout out to him before explaining my choice further.
(For those of you who are too lazy to scroll down a tad and get my choice of secretary of state, here it is:
Secretary of State: Tie, between Dan Schnur and Pete Peterson. I loved both of these candidates. Dan Schnur, an independent, stresses the need for a nonpartisan judge for both sides. He promises to be anti-corruption, a quality that I see in my beloved Isamaa ja Res Publica Liit (IRL) and absolutely adore in a candidate. On the other hand, Pete Peterson has a well laid-out plan of his policies and goals as secretary of state. Quite honestly, I might flip a coin on election day.
In addition, I would also like to point out a few things about this choice at the end).
Roy Allmond's campaign statement is easy to miss for a standard Republican conservative. I came back to his campaign, educated voter that I am, to dissect it and figure out if he's the right candidate for me. Upon dissection, I find it blatantly clear that he is a supporter of The Blaze. He has a 1791.com email address, and he clearly does not consider the Republican Party to be conservative. That much is clear. I will give him points that his heart is in the right place, and I support him for that.
Unfortunately, that's about as far as it gets. Roy Allmond is the Peace and Freedom candidate of the conservative right; he makes heavily biased, unfounded assertions that would make any Democrat face-palm. I'm not saying that's necessarily bad, but I definitely would not want that in a leader. I would say that Roy Allmond would walk into office and perhaps regret his decision within a week, just as I might. A candidate whose only policy is being anti-progressive is an okay candidate, but not an optimal candidate. Also, Comic Sans? Why, Roy? Why? (No, I am not basing my argument on the use of Comic Sans, although it is an example of the poor campaigning tactics).
By no means am I saying that Pete Peterson and Dan Schnur are optimal candidates either, which is also why I've decided to blog today. As I research Pete Peterson, I note that the LA Times supports both Pete Peterson and Ashley Swearengin, and they support each other. (For those of you who don't recall, Swearengin is the Republican mayor of Fresno running against David Evans for controller.) I get the sense of establishment that Allmond talked about, even though Peterson is simply a professor at Pepperdine with a load of political experience.
It would also be unfair to accuse Roy Allmond of being blatantly biased without accusing Dan Schnur of being anti-biased. Dan Schnur seems to be against political parties, for fair elections, and little else. Further research shows that he wants to (in the background) demand politics courses and give the office of the secretary of state a technical renovation.
I guess when all is said and done, I'm still voting for either Schnur or Peterson, but the general choice is much less distinct. To Peterson, I have nothing but good will to you, and I hope you excel in life, but I cannot vote for you without experience and a solid plan. God Bless, though.
P.S. David Evans, who is running for controller, is, like Allmond, an outsider in the Republican race, but he is a CFO and has both experience, a constructive philosophy, and a general outline of what he needs to do. I will most likely be voting for him.
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
File55's "Intolerable": Fantastic
Salvete.
An amazing documentary has come out just a few hours ago.
File55's Intolerable is one of the most well-writ, well-developed, conservative documentaries I have seen. Its primary focus is the development and the history of the Tea Party, and better yet, it is free to watch and to download. The documentary essentially summarizes the birth of the Tea Party, compares it to the original Tea Party of the 1770s, and debunks several myths about the Tea Party. The documentary goes around to a slew of Tea Party hubs to interview their members and instigators nationwide.
What surprises me most about the Tea Party is the anti-corporation sentiment. The Tea Party isn't so illogical as to generally hate businesses, but they loathe government's connection with large businesses, something that one wouldn't expect of them. An unusually large portion went into explaining that. In fact, the Tea Party seems fairly centrist, perhaps conservative centrist. Sure, the film was developed by Blaze staff and uses Blaze articles, but there is very little pro-establishment-Republican sentiment in the film, if at all. The music and structure is fitting, and I believe it's shockingly well put together, given its background. It's short, it's succinct, and it's well worth one's time.
The link is http://intolerable.us/ . Check it out.
An amazing documentary has come out just a few hours ago.
File55's Intolerable is one of the most well-writ, well-developed, conservative documentaries I have seen. Its primary focus is the development and the history of the Tea Party, and better yet, it is free to watch and to download. The documentary essentially summarizes the birth of the Tea Party, compares it to the original Tea Party of the 1770s, and debunks several myths about the Tea Party. The documentary goes around to a slew of Tea Party hubs to interview their members and instigators nationwide.
What surprises me most about the Tea Party is the anti-corporation sentiment. The Tea Party isn't so illogical as to generally hate businesses, but they loathe government's connection with large businesses, something that one wouldn't expect of them. An unusually large portion went into explaining that. In fact, the Tea Party seems fairly centrist, perhaps conservative centrist. Sure, the film was developed by Blaze staff and uses Blaze articles, but there is very little pro-establishment-Republican sentiment in the film, if at all. The music and structure is fitting, and I believe it's shockingly well put together, given its background. It's short, it's succinct, and it's well worth one's time.
The link is http://intolerable.us/ . Check it out.
Monday, May 5, 2014
Seattle is the New Detroit
Salvete.
Did you hear? Seattle is the new Detroit. Guess who has their new minimum wage set at $15. As of now, we have the corporate giant Microsoft funding the city's economy. As of a few years from now, businesses will have to pay for practically half of their employees. They will either downsize or die out. As of a few years from then, Microsoft will realize that Seattle would be a poor place to run a business, leaving for some other place, perhaps China. Business will be stripped from Seattle, and a desperate citizenry will elect a government that feeds off of desperation. Congratulations, Seattle. You've put yourself on the path to Detroit. Have fun, or get off.
Did you hear? Seattle is the new Detroit. Guess who has their new minimum wage set at $15. As of now, we have the corporate giant Microsoft funding the city's economy. As of a few years from now, businesses will have to pay for practically half of their employees. They will either downsize or die out. As of a few years from then, Microsoft will realize that Seattle would be a poor place to run a business, leaving for some other place, perhaps China. Business will be stripped from Seattle, and a desperate citizenry will elect a government that feeds off of desperation. Congratulations, Seattle. You've put yourself on the path to Detroit. Have fun, or get off.
Saturday, May 3, 2014
Plaustrum Political Picks of the Year: California Election Edition, Part 1
Salvete.
Without further ado, here are my picks of the year. First, for the easy ones:
United States Representative: 4th Congressional District of CA: Tom McClintock. I had to start with this guy; he's absolutely amazing. He thinks outside the box, drawing attention to problems that need attention before immediately coming up with an effective solution. He is (to the best of my knowledge) transparent; he even has his own YouTube channel, which he continuously updates: https://www.youtube.com/user/McClintockCA04. No, wait, he has two YouTube channels that he continuously updates: https://www.youtube.com/user/votemcclintock. He is important to me personally: a few years ago, he supported a charter school that was opening up. Granted, that charter school became a cesspit of mediocrity almost instantaneously, but it was the thought that counted, especially with this great man. Vote for him if you live anywhere in his district, I deplore you.
Insurance Commissioner: Ted Gaines. Between a Democrat, a Peace and Freedom, and a Republican, who do you think I'm voting for?
Treasurer: Greg Conlon. Between a Democrat, a Green, and a Republican, who do you think I'm voting for? (Also, how would the Green Party, who sets money as the lowest priority, be in any way qualified for treasurer?) In all honesty, I was pleasantly surprised with the statement presented by both the Democratic and Green candidates, especially the Green candidate. Granted, Ellen H. Brown (Green) ended with a crash ("It's time to break free of from the Wall Street casino and create our own bank- with profits to the people!"), but she made an otherwise sound argument. Still, I would vote for the Republican: The party that focuses the most on a healthy economy would likely be the most qualified for control of the economy.
Controller: David Evans. There was a Green, three Democrats, and two Republicans running for office. Ashley Swearengin was the other Republican, but I seriously doubt that the mayor of the city of Fresno would be to my liking. Between his simple statement ("Most qualified for Controller.") and the fact that he is a certified accountant, "not a career politician," I would say that he makes the better case anyway. The Green Party made me sick. (The latter quote was taken from http://www.evans4controller2014.com/)
Secretary of State: Tie, between Dan Schnur and Pete Peterson. I loved both of these candidates. Dan Schnur, an independent, stresses the need for a nonpartisan judge for both sides. He promises to be anti-corruption, a quality that I see in my beloved Isamaa ja Res Publica Liit (IRL) and absolutely adore in a candidate. On the other hand, Pete Peterson has a well laid-out plan of his policies and goals as secretary of state. Quite honestly, I might flip a coin on election day.
More in future parts.
Without further ado, here are my picks of the year. First, for the easy ones:
United States Representative: 4th Congressional District of CA: Tom McClintock. I had to start with this guy; he's absolutely amazing. He thinks outside the box, drawing attention to problems that need attention before immediately coming up with an effective solution. He is (to the best of my knowledge) transparent; he even has his own YouTube channel, which he continuously updates: https://www.youtube.com/user/McClintockCA04. No, wait, he has two YouTube channels that he continuously updates: https://www.youtube.com/user/votemcclintock. He is important to me personally: a few years ago, he supported a charter school that was opening up. Granted, that charter school became a cesspit of mediocrity almost instantaneously, but it was the thought that counted, especially with this great man. Vote for him if you live anywhere in his district, I deplore you.
Insurance Commissioner: Ted Gaines. Between a Democrat, a Peace and Freedom, and a Republican, who do you think I'm voting for?
Treasurer: Greg Conlon. Between a Democrat, a Green, and a Republican, who do you think I'm voting for? (Also, how would the Green Party, who sets money as the lowest priority, be in any way qualified for treasurer?) In all honesty, I was pleasantly surprised with the statement presented by both the Democratic and Green candidates, especially the Green candidate. Granted, Ellen H. Brown (Green) ended with a crash ("It's time to break free of from the Wall Street casino and create our own bank- with profits to the people!"), but she made an otherwise sound argument. Still, I would vote for the Republican: The party that focuses the most on a healthy economy would likely be the most qualified for control of the economy.
Controller: David Evans. There was a Green, three Democrats, and two Republicans running for office. Ashley Swearengin was the other Republican, but I seriously doubt that the mayor of the city of Fresno would be to my liking. Between his simple statement ("Most qualified for Controller.") and the fact that he is a certified accountant, "not a career politician," I would say that he makes the better case anyway. The Green Party made me sick. (The latter quote was taken from http://www.evans4controller2014.com/)
Secretary of State: Tie, between Dan Schnur and Pete Peterson. I loved both of these candidates. Dan Schnur, an independent, stresses the need for a nonpartisan judge for both sides. He promises to be anti-corruption, a quality that I see in my beloved Isamaa ja Res Publica Liit (IRL) and absolutely adore in a candidate. On the other hand, Pete Peterson has a well laid-out plan of his policies and goals as secretary of state. Quite honestly, I might flip a coin on election day.
More in future parts.
Friday, May 2, 2014
Plaustrum Political Picks of the Year: CA Election Edition: Introduction
Salvete.
Well, after laughably falling short of the Lent-post-a-day quota and having waited more than two weeks to post something again, I figured that I might as well post something now.
A lot has happened. As readers probably know, I'm a Californian conservative, an odd yet pleasant kind of minority. As of last Saturday, I have officially registered as a member of the Modern Whig Party. Some trusted friends of mine have pointed out that I will be left out of Republican primaries, so I may consider switching to registering as a Republican, but for now I am satisfied existing in the league of third parties. I can't wait for what kind of mail they're going to send me.
So, while we're on the topic of voting, I have received a voter information guide. As I look through them, I have made clear observations and picks for the upcoming elections.
For one, I urge the viewer to abstain from voting for the Peace and Freedom Party. They stand for everything that I hate and stand against everything that I love. I stand for everything they hate and stand against everything they love. I would rather vote for the Communist Party, the ever-popular Green Party, anything but the Peace and Freedom Party. They don't even have the logos that I prize so much in my adversaries when they make their arguments. They essentially take liberal cliches, extract and discard the logic, and amplify it to unreasonable amounts before spitting it out in the face of what little decency California has (the same decency that pushed Proposition 8 in our favor).
Look no further than the party's political statement. Count the liberal cliches. My conservative estimate is 7 (pun intended). According to them, they are the party who will "work together democratically and cooperatively for the common good, rather than being slaves to the rich and their corporations." Because, as we all know, "[w]e should not have to sacrifice our health, our livelihoods and our planet for our bosses' profits. We can tax the rich..."
Simply put? Yes, it is that kind of party. You can see why I would rather vote for the Communists; those guys are beacons of reason compared to these guys.
If you choose to look further, please highlight the candidate for insurance commissioner from the Peace and Freedom Party. To compare, I will take out sections from the Republican and Democratic candidates, respectively:
"As a family insurance agent for the past 30 years, I've had to fight insurance companies on behalf of my clients... As Insurance Commissioner, I will work to increase criminal penalties for fraud and will aggressively prosecute those who prey on seniors and our most vulnerable citizens... The Insurance Commissioner has a duty to protect consumers and foster a business climate that will improve our state's economy and create more jobs."
-Ted Gaines
"Four years ago, Californians elected Dave Jones as Insurance Commissioner to fight for consumers and hold insurance companies accountable. Dave Jones has saved consumers $1.4 billion by ratcheting down excessive auto and homeowners insurance rates... Dave Jones refuses to accept contributions or gifts from insurance companies... The Consumer Federation of California has named Dave Jones a "Consumer Champion."
-Dave Jones
See, those were good. I dislike the idea of hiring elected officials for the purpose of confronting insurance agencies, but I admire that both the Democratic and Republican candidates realize specifically what their job means for the average Joe, what they need to do, how they have done it, and/or what they will do. Now, here is the Peace and Freedom Party candidate. Literally, this is everything she put down:
"Quality healthcare should be a universal right! Abolish the insurance companies! Register Peace and Freedom Party."
-Nathalie Hrizi
A word of advice for Mrs. Hrizi: when you're trying to run for office, stuff like this makes you look stupid. Sure, it might give you votes among the people who are either excessively liberal or excessively dumb, but you have lost whatever respect from me that you could have earned. If you want something brief, try something along the lines of what the libertarian candidate for attorney general did:
"Uphold the Bill of Rights, including 2nd Amendment. Protect our privacy. End marijuana prohibition. No death penalty. Prosecute police misconduct. End civil asset forfeiture."
-Jonathan Jaech
Basic outlines of what he plans to do. Perhaps you could leave the audience hanging, like Republican candidate for controller:
"Most qualified for Controller."
-David Evans
Heck, even the Green candidate for secretary of state could do better:
"Label GMOs, legalize cannabis, close nuclear plants, ban fracking, and divest from fossil fuels."
-David Curtis
All of those sound more logical, more cool-headed, and more qualified than... what was it again?
"Quality healthcare should be a universal right! Abolish the insurance companies! Register Peace and Freedom Party."
-Nathalie Hrizi
The picks will be out in a few.
Well, after laughably falling short of the Lent-post-a-day quota and having waited more than two weeks to post something again, I figured that I might as well post something now.
A lot has happened. As readers probably know, I'm a Californian conservative, an odd yet pleasant kind of minority. As of last Saturday, I have officially registered as a member of the Modern Whig Party. Some trusted friends of mine have pointed out that I will be left out of Republican primaries, so I may consider switching to registering as a Republican, but for now I am satisfied existing in the league of third parties. I can't wait for what kind of mail they're going to send me.
So, while we're on the topic of voting, I have received a voter information guide. As I look through them, I have made clear observations and picks for the upcoming elections.
For one, I urge the viewer to abstain from voting for the Peace and Freedom Party. They stand for everything that I hate and stand against everything that I love. I stand for everything they hate and stand against everything they love. I would rather vote for the Communist Party, the ever-popular Green Party, anything but the Peace and Freedom Party. They don't even have the logos that I prize so much in my adversaries when they make their arguments. They essentially take liberal cliches, extract and discard the logic, and amplify it to unreasonable amounts before spitting it out in the face of what little decency California has (the same decency that pushed Proposition 8 in our favor).
Look no further than the party's political statement. Count the liberal cliches. My conservative estimate is 7 (pun intended). According to them, they are the party who will "work together democratically and cooperatively for the common good, rather than being slaves to the rich and their corporations." Because, as we all know, "[w]e should not have to sacrifice our health, our livelihoods and our planet for our bosses' profits. We can tax the rich..."
Simply put? Yes, it is that kind of party. You can see why I would rather vote for the Communists; those guys are beacons of reason compared to these guys.
If you choose to look further, please highlight the candidate for insurance commissioner from the Peace and Freedom Party. To compare, I will take out sections from the Republican and Democratic candidates, respectively:
"As a family insurance agent for the past 30 years, I've had to fight insurance companies on behalf of my clients... As Insurance Commissioner, I will work to increase criminal penalties for fraud and will aggressively prosecute those who prey on seniors and our most vulnerable citizens... The Insurance Commissioner has a duty to protect consumers and foster a business climate that will improve our state's economy and create more jobs."
-Ted Gaines
"Four years ago, Californians elected Dave Jones as Insurance Commissioner to fight for consumers and hold insurance companies accountable. Dave Jones has saved consumers $1.4 billion by ratcheting down excessive auto and homeowners insurance rates... Dave Jones refuses to accept contributions or gifts from insurance companies... The Consumer Federation of California has named Dave Jones a "Consumer Champion."
-Dave Jones
See, those were good. I dislike the idea of hiring elected officials for the purpose of confronting insurance agencies, but I admire that both the Democratic and Republican candidates realize specifically what their job means for the average Joe, what they need to do, how they have done it, and/or what they will do. Now, here is the Peace and Freedom Party candidate. Literally, this is everything she put down:
"Quality healthcare should be a universal right! Abolish the insurance companies! Register Peace and Freedom Party."
-Nathalie Hrizi
A word of advice for Mrs. Hrizi: when you're trying to run for office, stuff like this makes you look stupid. Sure, it might give you votes among the people who are either excessively liberal or excessively dumb, but you have lost whatever respect from me that you could have earned. If you want something brief, try something along the lines of what the libertarian candidate for attorney general did:
"Uphold the Bill of Rights, including 2nd Amendment. Protect our privacy. End marijuana prohibition. No death penalty. Prosecute police misconduct. End civil asset forfeiture."
-Jonathan Jaech
Basic outlines of what he plans to do. Perhaps you could leave the audience hanging, like Republican candidate for controller:
"Most qualified for Controller."
-David Evans
Heck, even the Green candidate for secretary of state could do better:
"Label GMOs, legalize cannabis, close nuclear plants, ban fracking, and divest from fossil fuels."
-David Curtis
All of those sound more logical, more cool-headed, and more qualified than... what was it again?
"Quality healthcare should be a universal right! Abolish the insurance companies! Register Peace and Freedom Party."
-Nathalie Hrizi
The picks will be out in a few.
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
Lent Post: Weaponry Picks of the Year
Salvete.
Today, I thought I'd start an annual series on my favorite military weapons coming out this year, based strictly on what http://militaryfactory.com/ tells me about them. As a disclaimer, I know practically nothing about military weapons. The weapons will be judged based on how they look, basic statistics, and general things that I like about them. So, without further ado, let's look into the military weaponry of this year:
The Plaustrum Tank of the Year is, by default, China's Main Battle Tank 3000. What I like about the tank is, well, the retro name, the long history with previous Russian and Chinese tanks, and the large arsenal that accompanies the tank. The website is http://militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=624.
The Plaustrum Military Firearm of the Year goes to the Pindad SS4. It's Indonesian but made by a Belgian company. It a standard rifle, but the rifle's rival was the AK-12 (AK-200), the Call of Duty of assault rifles, so it was the best option. The site is http://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarms/detail.asp?smallarms_id=596.
The Plaustrum Military Aircraft of the year was the Italian Alenia Aermacchi M-346 Master. This plane is not necessarily fast or well-equipped, but it is light and powerful. The design is fantastic. Israel, Singapore, and Italy all want this plane. The site is http://militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=967.
Those were the Plaussies. Have a nice night, everyone. Perhaps next year we'll expand to naval warfare and civilian firearms.
Today, I thought I'd start an annual series on my favorite military weapons coming out this year, based strictly on what http://militaryfactory.com/ tells me about them. As a disclaimer, I know practically nothing about military weapons. The weapons will be judged based on how they look, basic statistics, and general things that I like about them. So, without further ado, let's look into the military weaponry of this year:
The Plaustrum Tank of the Year is, by default, China's Main Battle Tank 3000. What I like about the tank is, well, the retro name, the long history with previous Russian and Chinese tanks, and the large arsenal that accompanies the tank. The website is http://militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=624.
The Plaustrum Military Firearm of the Year goes to the Pindad SS4. It's Indonesian but made by a Belgian company. It a standard rifle, but the rifle's rival was the AK-12 (AK-200), the Call of Duty of assault rifles, so it was the best option. The site is http://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarms/detail.asp?smallarms_id=596.
The Plaustrum Military Aircraft of the year was the Italian Alenia Aermacchi M-346 Master. This plane is not necessarily fast or well-equipped, but it is light and powerful. The design is fantastic. Israel, Singapore, and Italy all want this plane. The site is http://militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=967.
Those were the Plaussies. Have a nice night, everyone. Perhaps next year we'll expand to naval warfare and civilian firearms.
Monday, April 14, 2014
Lent Post: Russia and Estonia
Salvete.
Well, today I read from the ERR (a popular Estonian news source) that ethnic Russians decided to host a pro-Russian rally outside the Russian embassy.
http://news.err.ee/v/politics/9307203d-2534-4587-9fe8-61f86f8166d5
I laugh at their attempt.
That said, I am concerned for the Baltics. I heard on the radio today the concern that NATO would probably not retaliate over an invasion of the Baltics or even an invasion of Poland. If we cede the Baltics, we lose our advantage on the Baltic Sea, since Russia would have ample shoreline. Estonia is too financially and symbolically important to lose in the Second Cold War against Russia. Estonia is the pawn in front of the king, in danger of other pawns, knights, a bishop, and a queen. If Estonia is lost, we get nothing out of it, and they have an incredible position, which they can fortify with any of their pieces. Is Estonia too small and weak to defend with NATO troops? Perhaps, but NATO presence would mean the difference between a solid win and a Pyrrhic victory for the Russians. Russia would think twice before going further, and we would have left the Baltics practically unscathed. The Russian force in Estonia would be weak enough for underground movements to take over the task of reclaiming Estonia, if, of course, Russia moves past the Baltics.
Letting the Baltic states be taken is not a tactical retreat, nor is it a sign of wisdom. It is surrender in the Baltics, just as we surrendered Ukraine by not thinking ahead.
Saturday, April 12, 2014
Lent Post: Links of Death
http://science.house.gov/press-release/subcommittee-requests-ig-review-epa-experiments-humans
Good afternoon.
http://news.yahoo.com/epa-experiments-seek-harm-sick-patients-states-association-151200468.html;_ylt=AwrTWfzR0UlT_RoARxDQtDMD
How is everyone feeling today?
http://www.video.theblaze.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=31968605
Because I'm feeling FANTASTIC.
(for good measure and comparison, here's Gosnell: http://www.video.theblaze.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=26304583)
In response, my Catholic friend had but one thing to say:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDJtBh3LGJg
My the Lord have mercy on our souls.
Good afternoon.
http://news.yahoo.com/epa-experiments-seek-harm-sick-patients-states-association-151200468.html;_ylt=AwrTWfzR0UlT_RoARxDQtDMD
How is everyone feeling today?
http://www.video.theblaze.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=31968605
Because I'm feeling FANTASTIC.
(for good measure and comparison, here's Gosnell: http://www.video.theblaze.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=26304583)
In response, my Catholic friend had but one thing to say:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDJtBh3LGJg
My the Lord have mercy on our souls.
Thursday, April 10, 2014
Lent Post: State of Jefferson
Salvete.
Today I heard The Blaze cover the State of Jefferson. I've known about the state of Jefferson for about a year, but I was excited to learn from The Blaze that three counties thus far support the secession. Unfortunately, I live too far south in California to be largely affected, but I very much want my county to join the movement. Essentially, from what I recall of the state of Jefferson, there was an attempt in the 1940s to split from California. While, of course, it didn't work (particularly because of the Pearl Harbor bombing and the start of World War II), it makes far more sense in today's standards. Literally, millions of Republican conservatives are being politically drowned out. When we try to stop the union corruption, the unions out-fund and defeat us. We are taxed without our consent, and we are forced to accept liberal policies, both social and fiscal. These policies have driven California into a dust-bowl, impoverished humiliation, and we desperately want out. I want red counties from the northern, Jefferson-supporting Siskiyou County to the southern Kern county to secede from the Californian government.
Would the economy of Jefferson work? It definitely would not have an economy as large as California's, but it would avoid the economic catastrophes that California has had over the years, such as an enormous debt and a monstrous government. It would function like a Midwestern state, with a small economy and perhaps undesired funds from the United States government, but relatively economically free. Whereas liberals could slander the Southern states as supposedly "racist" or "sexist" or "gun-toting," Jefferson would take a new approach to conservatism, one that would break stereotypes and be a positive light to conservatism. Would the innovation coming from Silicon Valley stop? Secession would cut its flow but would in no means halt the wave of innovation entirely; high school students from Northern California often travel south for their college education but move back north for work.
This is not a independence pipe-dream like the Scottish-independence fiasco that my friend at http://iconosceptic.wordpress.com/ bemoans. This is an upset faction choosing to leave failed policies and bogged-down bureaucracy for decently better policies and economic security, not the other way around.
I, Trygve Plaustrum, support secession from the state of California and formation of the state of Jefferson.
Today I heard The Blaze cover the State of Jefferson. I've known about the state of Jefferson for about a year, but I was excited to learn from The Blaze that three counties thus far support the secession. Unfortunately, I live too far south in California to be largely affected, but I very much want my county to join the movement. Essentially, from what I recall of the state of Jefferson, there was an attempt in the 1940s to split from California. While, of course, it didn't work (particularly because of the Pearl Harbor bombing and the start of World War II), it makes far more sense in today's standards. Literally, millions of Republican conservatives are being politically drowned out. When we try to stop the union corruption, the unions out-fund and defeat us. We are taxed without our consent, and we are forced to accept liberal policies, both social and fiscal. These policies have driven California into a dust-bowl, impoverished humiliation, and we desperately want out. I want red counties from the northern, Jefferson-supporting Siskiyou County to the southern Kern county to secede from the Californian government.
Would the economy of Jefferson work? It definitely would not have an economy as large as California's, but it would avoid the economic catastrophes that California has had over the years, such as an enormous debt and a monstrous government. It would function like a Midwestern state, with a small economy and perhaps undesired funds from the United States government, but relatively economically free. Whereas liberals could slander the Southern states as supposedly "racist" or "sexist" or "gun-toting," Jefferson would take a new approach to conservatism, one that would break stereotypes and be a positive light to conservatism. Would the innovation coming from Silicon Valley stop? Secession would cut its flow but would in no means halt the wave of innovation entirely; high school students from Northern California often travel south for their college education but move back north for work.
This is not a independence pipe-dream like the Scottish-independence fiasco that my friend at http://iconosceptic.wordpress.com/ bemoans. This is an upset faction choosing to leave failed policies and bogged-down bureaucracy for decently better policies and economic security, not the other way around.
I, Trygve Plaustrum, support secession from the state of California and formation of the state of Jefferson.
Tuesday, April 8, 2014
Lent Post: Equal Pay
Salvete. Before I begin, a friend of mine has started up a blog. Even though I agree with only half of the blog, it is very well writ, and, as was desired, it makes the average debater think and reflect. You may find it at http://iconosceptic.wordpress.com/.
So, the debate for "equal pay" is going on. My response is going to be controversial. You have been warned.
First, income inequality between men and women has far too many factors to be hailed as fact. One would have to include job types, job requirements, job rarity, job hours, and job quality. These practically cannot be measured by any outsider beyond biased narratives; thus, the statistics are essentially worthless. They may serve as a rough estimate at best, but there must be ample room for doubt, bias, and error.
The same goes with a large amount of statistics. Gun crime statistics cannot be accurate because either there were murders/homicides not recorded and thus not included in the report, or the statisticians fudged the numbers to fit the logic behind the gun statistics, thus polluting and biasing the statistics. Either way, there should be ample room for error in the result.
But I digress. People seem to miss the point about "equal pay," most likely because it seems to be too offensive to mention. The business is the organization providing the payroll, so they can be as sexist, homophobic, or racist as they want. To be sure, if I ran a business, pay would be determined based on merit and product, and in no way based on background, race, gender, or any other prejudiced manner. However, when the government establishes a foothold on the output of a business's income, it steps into very dangerous territory.
However, the case is different when the government contributes to a business's income. Because the government is controlled by all American citizens, the government should pay women and men without prejudice and based on merit. In that case, a racist, sexist, and otherwise prejudiced company does not need to receive money from the government. Should the government manipulate its investments to target the business by strengthening the business's rivals? Of course not, although that is possible under my strategy. However, if a company wants to function separate of the social and fiscal policies of the government, it has the right to do so, though the government has just as much right to retract its investments.
Such is my opinion. I'm planning on a solid day of video games tomorrow. It sounds like fun.
So, the debate for "equal pay" is going on. My response is going to be controversial. You have been warned.
First, income inequality between men and women has far too many factors to be hailed as fact. One would have to include job types, job requirements, job rarity, job hours, and job quality. These practically cannot be measured by any outsider beyond biased narratives; thus, the statistics are essentially worthless. They may serve as a rough estimate at best, but there must be ample room for doubt, bias, and error.
The same goes with a large amount of statistics. Gun crime statistics cannot be accurate because either there were murders/homicides not recorded and thus not included in the report, or the statisticians fudged the numbers to fit the logic behind the gun statistics, thus polluting and biasing the statistics. Either way, there should be ample room for error in the result.
But I digress. People seem to miss the point about "equal pay," most likely because it seems to be too offensive to mention. The business is the organization providing the payroll, so they can be as sexist, homophobic, or racist as they want. To be sure, if I ran a business, pay would be determined based on merit and product, and in no way based on background, race, gender, or any other prejudiced manner. However, when the government establishes a foothold on the output of a business's income, it steps into very dangerous territory.
However, the case is different when the government contributes to a business's income. Because the government is controlled by all American citizens, the government should pay women and men without prejudice and based on merit. In that case, a racist, sexist, and otherwise prejudiced company does not need to receive money from the government. Should the government manipulate its investments to target the business by strengthening the business's rivals? Of course not, although that is possible under my strategy. However, if a company wants to function separate of the social and fiscal policies of the government, it has the right to do so, though the government has just as much right to retract its investments.
Such is my opinion. I'm planning on a solid day of video games tomorrow. It sounds like fun.
Thursday, April 3, 2014
Lent Post: Fort Hood
Salvete.
Well, it happened again. Hopefully we learned our lesson this time.
My simple reaction is this: for instances like this, you need a gun on you at all times. Otherwise, you are a target. If the firearms of these victims are out of reach, they will rarely be prepared for a surprise attack. Concealed carry works; storing people's firearms with the police where they won't be needed is folly. Why even bring the firearms at all?
I understand that people and businesses should have the policies they want in their domains, but don't tell me that concealed carry doesn't work, nor should you tell me that institutions have the right idea by locking everyone's firearms away for the "safety" of the inhabitants.
Well, it happened again. Hopefully we learned our lesson this time.
My simple reaction is this: for instances like this, you need a gun on you at all times. Otherwise, you are a target. If the firearms of these victims are out of reach, they will rarely be prepared for a surprise attack. Concealed carry works; storing people's firearms with the police where they won't be needed is folly. Why even bring the firearms at all?
I understand that people and businesses should have the policies they want in their domains, but don't tell me that concealed carry doesn't work, nor should you tell me that institutions have the right idea by locking everyone's firearms away for the "safety" of the inhabitants.
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
Lent Post: Movie #1: Disney's "Frozen"
Salvete.
Now is the time that the three of you following this post have been waiting for: my movie posts. I think I'm going to start with Frozen.
Frozen is by no means worth the hype. There are only two or three marketable songs, and the rest seem about a minute at longest. The end result is a mediocre replacement for Tangled. I wouldn't recommend it for most non-Disney fans, while I do see why some people may like it.
Now, I recall hearing a Christian talking about the homosexual references in Frozen. Believe it or not, I can definitely see the multiple homosexuality references throughout Frozen. Was this intentional? Perhaps. Does it affect the plotline or the my general enjoyment of the movie (or lack thereof)? No. Emphatically no. I keep my views on homosexuality, but I believe that the homosexual references in Frozen are either too well hidden or too skewed to impose anything on the target audience. Thus, I watch Frozen with no feeling of ill will or hatred, bad though the movie is.
More later.
Now is the time that the three of you following this post have been waiting for: my movie posts. I think I'm going to start with Frozen.
Frozen is by no means worth the hype. There are only two or three marketable songs, and the rest seem about a minute at longest. The end result is a mediocre replacement for Tangled. I wouldn't recommend it for most non-Disney fans, while I do see why some people may like it.
Now, I recall hearing a Christian talking about the homosexual references in Frozen. Believe it or not, I can definitely see the multiple homosexuality references throughout Frozen. Was this intentional? Perhaps. Does it affect the plotline or the my general enjoyment of the movie (or lack thereof)? No. Emphatically no. I keep my views on homosexuality, but I believe that the homosexual references in Frozen are either too well hidden or too skewed to impose anything on the target audience. Thus, I watch Frozen with no feeling of ill will or hatred, bad though the movie is.
More later.
Lent Post: Common Core
Salvete.
I'm back, after a spontaneous one week of vacation. Miss me?
Today I'm going to talk about Common Core. Personally, I don't know too much about it, but from what I know, this transformation of American education is unnecessary. I would encourage and promote the condensation of education in youth (teach them calculus by the end of middle school or at least high school) because that would give our youth the educational kick that would perhaps eliminate the need for higher education. A complete rearranging of the curriculum, however, is unnecessary. No one was calling for a change in curriculum schedule because it worked well; it was not the problem. The new rearrangement doesn't seem appropriate, and the curriculum seems quite dumbed down. I wish, if anything, that they took the curriculum and shifted everything down two or three grades, especially considering that the first through fourth grades seem exactly the same.
There are no new connections between different mathematical concepts, and they in fact seem to dumb down each and every grade from the old educational plan. For example, serious two-dimensional and three-dimensional graphing does not come up until high school, perhaps freshman or sophomore year. I love that Common Core is trying to make a connection between the first, second, and third dimensions, but that should be a late-elementary concept at most.
The inspiration of this blog was http://www.video.theblaze.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=31661801. I get the confusion of the people involved, but I understand what the Common Core exam was trying to do. They were trying to split the subtraction number (316) into hundreds, tens, and ones units and subtracting each of them from the subtracted number (427) to achieve the difference. This, however, can only work to solidify subtraction, addition, and, if applied well enough, factoring. You cannot link this method to multiplication, and in fact it seems to weaken the relationship between addition and multiplication and (eventually) multiplication and exponentials/factorials. Addition should be a quick, easy process, and most students should understand the concepts behind basic addition and basic subtraction. Great. Move on to more applicable functions.
That is part of my Common Core opinion. You shall have more posts as Lent progresses.
I'm back, after a spontaneous one week of vacation. Miss me?
Today I'm going to talk about Common Core. Personally, I don't know too much about it, but from what I know, this transformation of American education is unnecessary. I would encourage and promote the condensation of education in youth (teach them calculus by the end of middle school or at least high school) because that would give our youth the educational kick that would perhaps eliminate the need for higher education. A complete rearranging of the curriculum, however, is unnecessary. No one was calling for a change in curriculum schedule because it worked well; it was not the problem. The new rearrangement doesn't seem appropriate, and the curriculum seems quite dumbed down. I wish, if anything, that they took the curriculum and shifted everything down two or three grades, especially considering that the first through fourth grades seem exactly the same.
There are no new connections between different mathematical concepts, and they in fact seem to dumb down each and every grade from the old educational plan. For example, serious two-dimensional and three-dimensional graphing does not come up until high school, perhaps freshman or sophomore year. I love that Common Core is trying to make a connection between the first, second, and third dimensions, but that should be a late-elementary concept at most.
The inspiration of this blog was http://www.video.theblaze.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=31661801. I get the confusion of the people involved, but I understand what the Common Core exam was trying to do. They were trying to split the subtraction number (316) into hundreds, tens, and ones units and subtracting each of them from the subtracted number (427) to achieve the difference. This, however, can only work to solidify subtraction, addition, and, if applied well enough, factoring. You cannot link this method to multiplication, and in fact it seems to weaken the relationship between addition and multiplication and (eventually) multiplication and exponentials/factorials. Addition should be a quick, easy process, and most students should understand the concepts behind basic addition and basic subtraction. Great. Move on to more applicable functions.
That is part of my Common Core opinion. You shall have more posts as Lent progresses.
Monday, March 24, 2014
Lent Post: Library
Salvete.
I volunteer at my local library from time to time, and today was one of those days. Near the end of my scheduled shift, a patron of the library called me over from working on her computer. She was an African American woman, likely in her 40s or 50s. As the respectful library volunteer I was, came over to her. Instead of asking me a question about the computer or the library, she asked me personal questions. These weren't investigative questions, mind you; I never gave her my name or any personal information. Rather, she talked to me about my volunteer work.
Naturally, of course, I was slightly uncomfortable, considering that she was a stranger asking me questions about things. Nonetheless, I answered her truthfully and considerately, and she seemed to have no false intentions. I walked away thoughtfully, thinking perhaps about posting this occurrence on my blog.
How often can two strangers have a decent conversation? In a worse scenario, strangers could kill each other just from a mere look. It's sad to see how society has deteriorated, but I guess that is life now. I pray that society changes for the better, and I hope others do as well.
I volunteer at my local library from time to time, and today was one of those days. Near the end of my scheduled shift, a patron of the library called me over from working on her computer. She was an African American woman, likely in her 40s or 50s. As the respectful library volunteer I was, came over to her. Instead of asking me a question about the computer or the library, she asked me personal questions. These weren't investigative questions, mind you; I never gave her my name or any personal information. Rather, she talked to me about my volunteer work.
Naturally, of course, I was slightly uncomfortable, considering that she was a stranger asking me questions about things. Nonetheless, I answered her truthfully and considerately, and she seemed to have no false intentions. I walked away thoughtfully, thinking perhaps about posting this occurrence on my blog.
How often can two strangers have a decent conversation? In a worse scenario, strangers could kill each other just from a mere look. It's sad to see how society has deteriorated, but I guess that is life now. I pray that society changes for the better, and I hope others do as well.
Sunday, March 23, 2014
Lent Post: Movie Week?
Salvete.
Today I listened to two sermons and a movie. Yesterday, since I watched another movie, I will be commenting on those movies this week. I won't say the titles, since that will give away the movies and perhaps spoil the blogs. I will be talking about one sermon today, and another sermon tomorrow.
One of the sermons I listened to today was centered around a TED Talk about the psyches of the wealthy and the poor. The link is here: http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_piff_does_money_make_you_mean
I find the results of his experiment fascinating, but I do not find them surprising. There have been numerous studies on the rich and poor, Republicans and Democrats (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/20/republican-democrat-brain-politics-fmri-study_n_2717731.html), and I would say they all narrow down to one truth: rich people are good at making and keeping their money. Duh.
This is a straw man, but it does have backing. For example, when taking the pretzels and candy, the wealthier individual is finding the initiative and taking it. The rich assess wealth and risk, and they are hesitant to randomly give money away. Thus, they are able to increase their wealth over that of a poor person, who may take money less seriously. Whereas Paul Piff concludes that this is an effect of being rich, I would like to assert that it is a cause of being rich.
It is very difficult to become rich without your focus being on making money, at least for a good portion of time. If, as Paul Piff concludes, becoming wealthier means more greed, protectiveness, and self-interest, this explains perfectly the wide income gap in the various regions of the world today. Essentially, once one starts making money, there is no coming back.
However, I might see this as a natural, if not good, aspect of society (minus the greed and the sinful desires). The people who are most ambitious and who know how to make the most use of their money will get the most money. While I would advise the Christian rich to tithe, I am fine with this scenario, and I don't care about the income inequality in America because very little of it affects me. I do hope, however, that all Americans, instead of merely rich Americans, prosper- of their own accord.
Today I listened to two sermons and a movie. Yesterday, since I watched another movie, I will be commenting on those movies this week. I won't say the titles, since that will give away the movies and perhaps spoil the blogs. I will be talking about one sermon today, and another sermon tomorrow.
One of the sermons I listened to today was centered around a TED Talk about the psyches of the wealthy and the poor. The link is here: http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_piff_does_money_make_you_mean
I find the results of his experiment fascinating, but I do not find them surprising. There have been numerous studies on the rich and poor, Republicans and Democrats (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/20/republican-democrat-brain-politics-fmri-study_n_2717731.html), and I would say they all narrow down to one truth: rich people are good at making and keeping their money. Duh.
This is a straw man, but it does have backing. For example, when taking the pretzels and candy, the wealthier individual is finding the initiative and taking it. The rich assess wealth and risk, and they are hesitant to randomly give money away. Thus, they are able to increase their wealth over that of a poor person, who may take money less seriously. Whereas Paul Piff concludes that this is an effect of being rich, I would like to assert that it is a cause of being rich.
It is very difficult to become rich without your focus being on making money, at least for a good portion of time. If, as Paul Piff concludes, becoming wealthier means more greed, protectiveness, and self-interest, this explains perfectly the wide income gap in the various regions of the world today. Essentially, once one starts making money, there is no coming back.
However, I might see this as a natural, if not good, aspect of society (minus the greed and the sinful desires). The people who are most ambitious and who know how to make the most use of their money will get the most money. While I would advise the Christian rich to tithe, I am fine with this scenario, and I don't care about the income inequality in America because very little of it affects me. I do hope, however, that all Americans, instead of merely rich Americans, prosper- of their own accord.
Saturday, March 22, 2014
Lent Post: Vsauce and Obama
Salvete.
Minutes ago, I watched a Vsauce video. I understand that the Vsauce officials are most likely on the opposite side of the spectrum as me, but I like to watch their videos because they are educational, more applicable than courses taught by several academic institutions.
In the video, he talked about meeting President Obama along with several other YouTubers on healthcare reform. Unfortunately, this is a trend that I see all too often, particularly with the vlog brothers. Their attempt is to gain popularity among the masses by seizing control of the modern academic elite, having moved on from the ancient academic elite (professors).
Their plan is to mooch off of the popularity of the educational channels in order to boost their popularity. After all, who wouldn't accept an invitation to join the president at an exclusive White House meeting- for anything? I see the situation in the reverse way. Whereas I disagreed with their views but respected them as educational scholars and (on occasion) masterminds, I can't help but feel that their bias might distort the content of their channels. It certainly won't mollify the conservative theory that the White House is controlling every part of the media. However, until I believe that they are blatantly discarding facts for propaganda, I will continue to watch and enjoy their work.
Minutes ago, I watched a Vsauce video. I understand that the Vsauce officials are most likely on the opposite side of the spectrum as me, but I like to watch their videos because they are educational, more applicable than courses taught by several academic institutions.
In the video, he talked about meeting President Obama along with several other YouTubers on healthcare reform. Unfortunately, this is a trend that I see all too often, particularly with the vlog brothers. Their attempt is to gain popularity among the masses by seizing control of the modern academic elite, having moved on from the ancient academic elite (professors).
Their plan is to mooch off of the popularity of the educational channels in order to boost their popularity. After all, who wouldn't accept an invitation to join the president at an exclusive White House meeting- for anything? I see the situation in the reverse way. Whereas I disagreed with their views but respected them as educational scholars and (on occasion) masterminds, I can't help but feel that their bias might distort the content of their channels. It certainly won't mollify the conservative theory that the White House is controlling every part of the media. However, until I believe that they are blatantly discarding facts for propaganda, I will continue to watch and enjoy their work.
Friday, March 21, 2014
Lent Post: College
Salvete.
I was given the prompt to end the fragment "Because college tuition is so high" with an assertion. Whereas the stereotypical answer would have been raising (more correctly lowering) scholarships, government aid, and like arguments, I came up with the assertion, in a jumbled, improvised manner, that there should be a societal movement that does not fanatically promote college. As always, my liberal colleague was right there alongside me to tell me I was wrong. Once again, in response, I make my case here.
What is the purpose of college? To learn things? We practically have all of the most advanced knowledge ever discovered in the palm of our hand. We simply need to know where to look, which either we ourselves or our job will point us to. Anything that we don't have in the palm of our hand is too advanced to be applicable and thus impractical. So yes, if you are interested in wasting thousands of dollars on useless information that you may never apply, spend your own money, but don't ask for government aid. Speaking of money, college is insanely expensive. How many college alumni break free of their monetary bonds, even with a diploma? If you have plenty of money to spare, then spend that money. If not, you shouldn't have to bother. What about the college experience? You mean the part of college that is the least about education and more about gossip, the social scene, and fun times off of your dollar? I could spend a hundred dollars and have the same amount of fun as I would spending thousands of dollars to goof off in the "college experience." What about connections? If you're looking for connections, you could literally have thousands of them almost instantaneously. College is an incredibly expensive alternative to, say, Facebook. What about the innovation that comes from colleges? That can just as easily come from an educated business workforce, who could get the building blocks for their research from, you guessed it, the Internet.
What about the jobs? Businesses will be looking for the diplomas and the educations, you get from colleges, right?
Right.
We now spend thousands of dollars primarily for the prestige of being a college graduate. Employers currently desire diplomas as either requirements or recommendations for occupations. This is a reasonable tradition; after all, knowledge was not suddenly at the palm of one's hand until the third millennium AD. However, the times have changed; people can now expand their learning and their network without sitting directly next to each other. This is why I want there to be a social movement eliminating the necessity of college.
Granted, I have taken college courses and am glad for them, but I wouldn't have needed to go if my family couldn't afford them. No one needs college to become legend.
I was given the prompt to end the fragment "Because college tuition is so high" with an assertion. Whereas the stereotypical answer would have been raising (more correctly lowering) scholarships, government aid, and like arguments, I came up with the assertion, in a jumbled, improvised manner, that there should be a societal movement that does not fanatically promote college. As always, my liberal colleague was right there alongside me to tell me I was wrong. Once again, in response, I make my case here.
What is the purpose of college? To learn things? We practically have all of the most advanced knowledge ever discovered in the palm of our hand. We simply need to know where to look, which either we ourselves or our job will point us to. Anything that we don't have in the palm of our hand is too advanced to be applicable and thus impractical. So yes, if you are interested in wasting thousands of dollars on useless information that you may never apply, spend your own money, but don't ask for government aid. Speaking of money, college is insanely expensive. How many college alumni break free of their monetary bonds, even with a diploma? If you have plenty of money to spare, then spend that money. If not, you shouldn't have to bother. What about the college experience? You mean the part of college that is the least about education and more about gossip, the social scene, and fun times off of your dollar? I could spend a hundred dollars and have the same amount of fun as I would spending thousands of dollars to goof off in the "college experience." What about connections? If you're looking for connections, you could literally have thousands of them almost instantaneously. College is an incredibly expensive alternative to, say, Facebook. What about the innovation that comes from colleges? That can just as easily come from an educated business workforce, who could get the building blocks for their research from, you guessed it, the Internet.
What about the jobs? Businesses will be looking for the diplomas and the educations, you get from colleges, right?
Right.
We now spend thousands of dollars primarily for the prestige of being a college graduate. Employers currently desire diplomas as either requirements or recommendations for occupations. This is a reasonable tradition; after all, knowledge was not suddenly at the palm of one's hand until the third millennium AD. However, the times have changed; people can now expand their learning and their network without sitting directly next to each other. This is why I want there to be a social movement eliminating the necessity of college.
Granted, I have taken college courses and am glad for them, but I wouldn't have needed to go if my family couldn't afford them. No one needs college to become legend.
Thursday, March 20, 2014
Lent Post: Three-in-a-Day: Per Request, My Take on the Malaysian Aircraft
Salvete.
Before the conversation goes away, I think I'm going to put in my two cents about the missing Malaysian aircraft.
For one, The Twilight Zone presents a "humorous" theory in "The Odyssey of Flight 33." Oddly enough, I heard The Twilight Zone mentioned on CNN via The Blaze. An interviewee on FOX suggests that the plane's computers were hacked into, and there is, of course, the potential of terrorism looming in most if not all theories.
Personally, as long as the jetliner is of no threat to the United States of America or most of the West, I don't care about the jetliner. It is the fate of a handful of passengers and (maybe) the pilots at stake; while inaction would make the nations involved look cowardly, more people have been put in danger and/or killed in individual instances, and more people may be put at risk by searching for the jetliner. If the plane has the fuel or is given fuel, it would likely be shot out of the sky before it endangers the citizens of the West. Israel has caught on, but I believe that the rest of the West should understand that they should secure their borders more effectively, at least temporarily.
Terrorists are patient. They wait for a time to strike. The Malaysian aircraft may reappear in a few hours or in a few decades. With all of the resources and attention spent on this single aircraft, we could prepare for when the aircraft suddenly appears near one of our greatest landmarks. Perhaps we will never know. For now, we should simply prepare.
Before the conversation goes away, I think I'm going to put in my two cents about the missing Malaysian aircraft.
For one, The Twilight Zone presents a "humorous" theory in "The Odyssey of Flight 33." Oddly enough, I heard The Twilight Zone mentioned on CNN via The Blaze. An interviewee on FOX suggests that the plane's computers were hacked into, and there is, of course, the potential of terrorism looming in most if not all theories.
Personally, as long as the jetliner is of no threat to the United States of America or most of the West, I don't care about the jetliner. It is the fate of a handful of passengers and (maybe) the pilots at stake; while inaction would make the nations involved look cowardly, more people have been put in danger and/or killed in individual instances, and more people may be put at risk by searching for the jetliner. If the plane has the fuel or is given fuel, it would likely be shot out of the sky before it endangers the citizens of the West. Israel has caught on, but I believe that the rest of the West should understand that they should secure their borders more effectively, at least temporarily.
Terrorists are patient. They wait for a time to strike. The Malaysian aircraft may reappear in a few hours or in a few decades. With all of the resources and attention spent on this single aircraft, we could prepare for when the aircraft suddenly appears near one of our greatest landmarks. Perhaps we will never know. For now, we should simply prepare.
Lent Post: Three-in-a-Day: Forcing Equality
Salvete.
So I was talking with my liberal friends last night, and we were discussing homosexuality for the tenth or so time. I brought up the Arizona businessman forced to work for the homosexual clientele by the government. I believe that his case would be justifiable to everyone, but apparently I was wrong. The reason, according to my colleague, is that equality must be enforced.
If you need the government to enforce equality in non-governmental institutions, you're trying too hard. You're forcing companies or individuals to do things against their wills and beliefs. That is tyranny, plain and simple. I don't care what cause it is; the government is never the best way to settle disputes, although it is quite an effective way.
What if people are violently assaulting minorities? We already have those laws in place; we simply need to enforce them. Schools are not integrated enough? The government is its own individual entity; it should treat all students equally, "equal under the law." Businesses do not have that same obligation, since they neither have control over nor are directed by the people. It's that simple. If you don't like the business, don't go there, or don't work there, if that applies. It is a free country. What about all the hatred? Hatred is not a crime, albeit hideous. Destroying hate would have greater repercussions than hate itself.
I dearly hope that my friends understand my point of view.
Update: I recently received a comment stating that it would be ridiculous for the reverse of this situation to happen. That is, to say, elitist groups such as Neo-Nazis would not bother choosing, say, Jewish businesses because it is, according to them, out of their league. It's funny how I don't recall mentioning this on my blog, but I will address it nonetheless. It's always good to encourage two-sided debate.
Perhaps that theory is correct, but the threat of said event is still both legal and plausible. Abstaining from a business because of beliefs is one thing; targeting businesses for their beliefs is completely another. If said Neo-Nazis boycotted the Jewish business, there would probably be no dire consequences, since the Neo-Nazi population is too small and too lunatic to make a difference. The Jewish business would probably be a lot better off without them. However, Neo-Nazis (and other bigoted organizations, mind you) would jump at the possibility of forcing said Jewish (or other minority) businesses to provide them with whatever services said businesses offer. The business would be helpless, and the government would side with the customer or risk inconsistency; the minority suddenly becomes a wide-open, perfect target. So, while the commenter was right in saying that "Nazi don't shop for Jewish wedding planners" before this ruling, the ruling now incentivizes Neo-Nazis to demand business from their target. That's what the homosexual couple did in Arizona. That's what anyone can do to anyone now, minority or majority, right or wrong.
So I was talking with my liberal friends last night, and we were discussing homosexuality for the tenth or so time. I brought up the Arizona businessman forced to work for the homosexual clientele by the government. I believe that his case would be justifiable to everyone, but apparently I was wrong. The reason, according to my colleague, is that equality must be enforced.
If you need the government to enforce equality in non-governmental institutions, you're trying too hard. You're forcing companies or individuals to do things against their wills and beliefs. That is tyranny, plain and simple. I don't care what cause it is; the government is never the best way to settle disputes, although it is quite an effective way.
What if people are violently assaulting minorities? We already have those laws in place; we simply need to enforce them. Schools are not integrated enough? The government is its own individual entity; it should treat all students equally, "equal under the law." Businesses do not have that same obligation, since they neither have control over nor are directed by the people. It's that simple. If you don't like the business, don't go there, or don't work there, if that applies. It is a free country. What about all the hatred? Hatred is not a crime, albeit hideous. Destroying hate would have greater repercussions than hate itself.
I dearly hope that my friends understand my point of view.
Update: I recently received a comment stating that it would be ridiculous for the reverse of this situation to happen. That is, to say, elitist groups such as Neo-Nazis would not bother choosing, say, Jewish businesses because it is, according to them, out of their league. It's funny how I don't recall mentioning this on my blog, but I will address it nonetheless. It's always good to encourage two-sided debate.
Perhaps that theory is correct, but the threat of said event is still both legal and plausible. Abstaining from a business because of beliefs is one thing; targeting businesses for their beliefs is completely another. If said Neo-Nazis boycotted the Jewish business, there would probably be no dire consequences, since the Neo-Nazi population is too small and too lunatic to make a difference. The Jewish business would probably be a lot better off without them. However, Neo-Nazis (and other bigoted organizations, mind you) would jump at the possibility of forcing said Jewish (or other minority) businesses to provide them with whatever services said businesses offer. The business would be helpless, and the government would side with the customer or risk inconsistency; the minority suddenly becomes a wide-open, perfect target. So, while the commenter was right in saying that "Nazi don't shop for Jewish wedding planners" before this ruling, the ruling now incentivizes Neo-Nazis to demand business from their target. That's what the homosexual couple did in Arizona. That's what anyone can do to anyone now, minority or majority, right or wrong.
Lent Post: Three-in-a-Day: White House Briefing
Salvete.
I was thinking to myself about the several topics that I could talk about. I finally settled on three of them. You're welcome.
I learned (or confirmed) today on The Blaze that White House press conferences are staged. I'm sad to say that I'm not surprised, but I now consider said conferences a propaganda wing. It's weird that a propaganda wing would contradict itself and stage its own debates, but, then again, the press never gives Carney astounding questions anyway. Perhaps the point of the press conferences are to make the press, playing the part of the mild conservative, look inferior to the administration. It seems like the best explanation, given what we know as fact. Nonetheless, I don't really care much about the mouth of the administration either. The actions of the administration tell more.
I was thinking to myself about the several topics that I could talk about. I finally settled on three of them. You're welcome.
I learned (or confirmed) today on The Blaze that White House press conferences are staged. I'm sad to say that I'm not surprised, but I now consider said conferences a propaganda wing. It's weird that a propaganda wing would contradict itself and stage its own debates, but, then again, the press never gives Carney astounding questions anyway. Perhaps the point of the press conferences are to make the press, playing the part of the mild conservative, look inferior to the administration. It seems like the best explanation, given what we know as fact. Nonetheless, I don't really care much about the mouth of the administration either. The actions of the administration tell more.
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
Lent Post: You're Wrong, Robert Reich
Salvete.
I was going to blog about the waning mystery behind the missing Malaysian aircraft, but minutes ago I watched part of the liberal documentary Inequality for All with my conservative grandfather, and we were both equally disgusted. I went on the website to find Robert Reich's name, and the website itself made me feel unclean. Anyway, I'm going to do some of the dirty work and exert my opinion against that of the former Secretary of Labor.
The whole argument that Inequality for All makes is that government spending for the people is good; the bigger the corporation is, the worse; and the common man is under the boot heel of Big Business. I personally believe this is easily refutable, but, seeing as I've only seen a tidbit of the full movie, I will try to make this short and vague, and perhaps I'll continue this tomorrow or the day after.
Big Business is not the problem, like I've said several times before. Big Government is, but that's another story. My opponents have emphasized that there is never a way out for the middle and lower classes, and that they cannot afford the opportunity to leave their jobs or make a decent living. This is bogus on several levels. For one, people and society need to learn the meaning of frugality. It is sad to see that our society considers luxuries as necessities, such as cell phones, restaurants, and so many more extraneous things. For another, it is a bald-faced lie that there is no way to escape business. If people had any marketable talent, they could start their own business. It wouldn't be as easy, and the pay wouldn't be as good, but it is a safe way out of undesired employment. Especially in this day and age, a single man with code-writing skills could develop a software company worth hundreds of thousands of dollars at least. There is no cage in employment but the one that the liberals want you to imagine.
I was going to blog about the waning mystery behind the missing Malaysian aircraft, but minutes ago I watched part of the liberal documentary Inequality for All with my conservative grandfather, and we were both equally disgusted. I went on the website to find Robert Reich's name, and the website itself made me feel unclean. Anyway, I'm going to do some of the dirty work and exert my opinion against that of the former Secretary of Labor.
The whole argument that Inequality for All makes is that government spending for the people is good; the bigger the corporation is, the worse; and the common man is under the boot heel of Big Business. I personally believe this is easily refutable, but, seeing as I've only seen a tidbit of the full movie, I will try to make this short and vague, and perhaps I'll continue this tomorrow or the day after.
Big Business is not the problem, like I've said several times before. Big Government is, but that's another story. My opponents have emphasized that there is never a way out for the middle and lower classes, and that they cannot afford the opportunity to leave their jobs or make a decent living. This is bogus on several levels. For one, people and society need to learn the meaning of frugality. It is sad to see that our society considers luxuries as necessities, such as cell phones, restaurants, and so many more extraneous things. For another, it is a bald-faced lie that there is no way to escape business. If people had any marketable talent, they could start their own business. It wouldn't be as easy, and the pay wouldn't be as good, but it is a safe way out of undesired employment. Especially in this day and age, a single man with code-writing skills could develop a software company worth hundreds of thousands of dollars at least. There is no cage in employment but the one that the liberals want you to imagine.
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
The Daydream: Part 2
Salvete.
Every clash of wits is a fierce battle. It may be refined or it may be savage; the debaters may be exercising their minds or trying desperately to crack their opponent. The result is a fierce battle regardless. It welds people together in alliances and breaks friendships in a fiery display.
Debate is not always necessary. Many ideas that work, like fiscal conservatism, speak for themselves, and now it has reign over the minds of the people. Christianity certainly does not need defense or even the future support of mankind to reign supreme in the end. Social conservatism needs defense, but social conservatives won't give up their beliefs at the drop of a hat. Opponents are advancing, but we have our ground that we will always be able to keep. Then why debate?
I enjoy debating. I enjoy being in the thick of battle. It keeps the mind open and exercises it on a constant basis. It may do me more harm than good, but it is addicting, to say the least. We are all eager soldiers on the battlefield, or we wouldn't be soldiers at all. The defenders would keep shut in the castle, afraid or perhaps wise enough to venture out and fight on the battlefield. Me? My battalion is stationed at the very front, beyond the barrier of protection. I advance my men to counter the advances of my opponent.
The key is to never lose your cool. I am notorious for not caring, for not heating up in stress. I guess one way to do this is to challenge yourself never to cede an inch without your will. Any part of my mind who wavers returns to the fray like the rest or is shot.
My opponents will push with all their strength and might. They desire more to win than to debate, and thus they attempt pathos and ethos to state their case in addition to logos. I either hold every assault or am broken in two. Either way, I am battered, shattered, but prouder than they.
It is in the thick of the battle that I believe that war is glorious, that I have nothing to fear, though I am outnumbered and outgunned. Frustrated, my opponent returns to harry my forces and strike fear and doubt into my heart. Sure, there is doubt aplenty, but it is always mollified by reason, perhaps the best remedy for doubt. I fight on, and will continue to fight until there be no more ground to fight for.
"And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day."
-William Shakespeare, Henry V, Saint Crispin's Day speech
Every clash of wits is a fierce battle. It may be refined or it may be savage; the debaters may be exercising their minds or trying desperately to crack their opponent. The result is a fierce battle regardless. It welds people together in alliances and breaks friendships in a fiery display.
Debate is not always necessary. Many ideas that work, like fiscal conservatism, speak for themselves, and now it has reign over the minds of the people. Christianity certainly does not need defense or even the future support of mankind to reign supreme in the end. Social conservatism needs defense, but social conservatives won't give up their beliefs at the drop of a hat. Opponents are advancing, but we have our ground that we will always be able to keep. Then why debate?
I enjoy debating. I enjoy being in the thick of battle. It keeps the mind open and exercises it on a constant basis. It may do me more harm than good, but it is addicting, to say the least. We are all eager soldiers on the battlefield, or we wouldn't be soldiers at all. The defenders would keep shut in the castle, afraid or perhaps wise enough to venture out and fight on the battlefield. Me? My battalion is stationed at the very front, beyond the barrier of protection. I advance my men to counter the advances of my opponent.
The key is to never lose your cool. I am notorious for not caring, for not heating up in stress. I guess one way to do this is to challenge yourself never to cede an inch without your will. Any part of my mind who wavers returns to the fray like the rest or is shot.
My opponents will push with all their strength and might. They desire more to win than to debate, and thus they attempt pathos and ethos to state their case in addition to logos. I either hold every assault or am broken in two. Either way, I am battered, shattered, but prouder than they.
It is in the thick of the battle that I believe that war is glorious, that I have nothing to fear, though I am outnumbered and outgunned. Frustrated, my opponent returns to harry my forces and strike fear and doubt into my heart. Sure, there is doubt aplenty, but it is always mollified by reason, perhaps the best remedy for doubt. I fight on, and will continue to fight until there be no more ground to fight for.
"And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day."
-William Shakespeare, Henry V, Saint Crispin's Day speech
Monday, March 17, 2014
Lent Post: The Daydream
Salvete.
I had a daydream in church yesterday. It's probably not a vision, since I don't believe it comes directly from God but rather from my own imagination. It was interesting to reflect on, and I'd like to share it with you.
I imagined myself on a battlefield. I commanded a battalion of men, and we were at the front lines of a massive battle. The entire battalion represented my mind, my beliefs, and thoughts. In my mind, I was shouting a warning to the soldiers of my battalion: "I shoot the man who wavers!"
As the church service when on, I elaborated a bit in my mind. I imagined a army of millions surrounding and protecting a castle. I imagined an army of billions surrounding the defense. For every defending army on the front, there were three armies assaulting. There was a dome surrounding the defense, and the castle was impenetrable. We would not die out. We may, however, be defeated on multiple fronts, as the enemy forces relentlessly pounded against our defenses.
I had a friend with me. We shook hands, we were brothers, we were allies. Together our forces held evil back. We trusted each other, no neither side relented. The brawl was bitter, the brawl was eternal, but the he held them back. Neither side made headway so long as we stood our ground.
Why do I bother telling this daydream to you? The answer comes tomorrow.
I had a daydream in church yesterday. It's probably not a vision, since I don't believe it comes directly from God but rather from my own imagination. It was interesting to reflect on, and I'd like to share it with you.
I imagined myself on a battlefield. I commanded a battalion of men, and we were at the front lines of a massive battle. The entire battalion represented my mind, my beliefs, and thoughts. In my mind, I was shouting a warning to the soldiers of my battalion: "I shoot the man who wavers!"
As the church service when on, I elaborated a bit in my mind. I imagined a army of millions surrounding and protecting a castle. I imagined an army of billions surrounding the defense. For every defending army on the front, there were three armies assaulting. There was a dome surrounding the defense, and the castle was impenetrable. We would not die out. We may, however, be defeated on multiple fronts, as the enemy forces relentlessly pounded against our defenses.
I had a friend with me. We shook hands, we were brothers, we were allies. Together our forces held evil back. We trusted each other, no neither side relented. The brawl was bitter, the brawl was eternal, but the he held them back. Neither side made headway so long as we stood our ground.
Why do I bother telling this daydream to you? The answer comes tomorrow.
Sunday, March 16, 2014
Lent Post: Sunday
Salvete.
Like on most Sundays, I am pressed for time. It's a shame; Sundays should be a day of rest.
Anyway, big post coming up tomorrow. Passing the blog along for continuity purposes. Apologies for the lack of content.
Like on most Sundays, I am pressed for time. It's a shame; Sundays should be a day of rest.
Anyway, big post coming up tomorrow. Passing the blog along for continuity purposes. Apologies for the lack of content.
Saturday, March 15, 2014
Lent Post: Screw World Wars, Let's Talk about the Economy
Salvete.
Whereas I was going to talk about World Wars for the weekend, I've had a heavy concern as of late about Republican and Democrat policies in terms of the economy. So, I'll be talking about the economy.
As of late, I've been hearing from at least one of my liberal friends that Democrat policies boost the economy more than Republican ones. So today, I started to research the economy under Republican conservative and Democrat liberal policies. For the time being, we will set aside personal liberties and focus strictly on the economy. This was the first site I analyzed:
http://www.davemanuel.com/2010/08/03/us-gdp-growth-by-president-1948-2009/
It seems biased, but I'm taking its statistics for facts. Both Reagan and Eisenhower had some of the worst and some of the best years for economic growth. Under an analysis of this website alone, it seems like each of the presidents has had quite decent economic growth, and Obama simply sucks as a president.
Now let's go into national debt:
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
Now, this site is clearly biased, but it shows similar results: Republicans and Democrats have had their on and off days (for example, Roosevelt and Truman), and Obama sucks as a president. (This site is quite less biased: http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm)
Now, let's take a step back and look at other similar charts:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_gdp_history
http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/http:/truthfulpolitics.com/comments/u-s-national-unemployment-by-political-party-president/
These charts both show a far more fluid movement than just "Republicans suck at the economy, Democrats are far better." Rather, they show that the economy has never truly went away and has been exponentially increasing at a steady pace, that is, until Obama showed up.
So what does this mean, and why would the anti-corporation policies of Democratic liberals be on par with the pro-business policies of Republican conservatives? The answer lies in the public and private sectors. While the economy will always be there (unless you're Obama), the ratio of public sector to private sector will vary immensely. People will always get the service they need, and there will always be a fairly stable economy.
So why would the Republican strategy be favorable? The answer lies in personal and corporate freedom. Sure, the government might be able to provide the services people need (though there will be tremendous inefficiency, corruption, and regulation), but the citizens who function outside of the government industry will never be able to earn a living from starting a business independently.
In addition, governmental interventionist policies are incredibly inflexible. If the public sector gains too much power and funding, it could potentially solidify a monopoly in its sphere of influence. This is quite risky; as we've seen in the Great Depression and the current recession, the whole system collapses under Democratic policies, even though they work about as well as Republican policies in stable economic climates. Republican conservative policies, on the other hand, ensure that businesses function relatively independently of each other. This is optimal for any turmoil in the economy, whether or not conservative policies have a slight disadvantage in economic "peacetime" (which they don't). Because it is almost impossible to determine when a large recession will strike, it is both safer and freer to have Republican conservative policies.
Oh, and also:
http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/http:/truthfulpolitics.com/comments/u-s-national-unemployment-by-political-party-president/
Obama really sucks.
Whereas I was going to talk about World Wars for the weekend, I've had a heavy concern as of late about Republican and Democrat policies in terms of the economy. So, I'll be talking about the economy.
As of late, I've been hearing from at least one of my liberal friends that Democrat policies boost the economy more than Republican ones. So today, I started to research the economy under Republican conservative and Democrat liberal policies. For the time being, we will set aside personal liberties and focus strictly on the economy. This was the first site I analyzed:
http://www.davemanuel.com/2010/08/03/us-gdp-growth-by-president-1948-2009/
It seems biased, but I'm taking its statistics for facts. Both Reagan and Eisenhower had some of the worst and some of the best years for economic growth. Under an analysis of this website alone, it seems like each of the presidents has had quite decent economic growth, and Obama simply sucks as a president.
Now let's go into national debt:
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
Now, this site is clearly biased, but it shows similar results: Republicans and Democrats have had their on and off days (for example, Roosevelt and Truman), and Obama sucks as a president. (This site is quite less biased: http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm)
Now, let's take a step back and look at other similar charts:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_gdp_history
http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/http:/truthfulpolitics.com/comments/u-s-national-unemployment-by-political-party-president/
These charts both show a far more fluid movement than just "Republicans suck at the economy, Democrats are far better." Rather, they show that the economy has never truly went away and has been exponentially increasing at a steady pace, that is, until Obama showed up.
So what does this mean, and why would the anti-corporation policies of Democratic liberals be on par with the pro-business policies of Republican conservatives? The answer lies in the public and private sectors. While the economy will always be there (unless you're Obama), the ratio of public sector to private sector will vary immensely. People will always get the service they need, and there will always be a fairly stable economy.
So why would the Republican strategy be favorable? The answer lies in personal and corporate freedom. Sure, the government might be able to provide the services people need (though there will be tremendous inefficiency, corruption, and regulation), but the citizens who function outside of the government industry will never be able to earn a living from starting a business independently.
In addition, governmental interventionist policies are incredibly inflexible. If the public sector gains too much power and funding, it could potentially solidify a monopoly in its sphere of influence. This is quite risky; as we've seen in the Great Depression and the current recession, the whole system collapses under Democratic policies, even though they work about as well as Republican policies in stable economic climates. Republican conservative policies, on the other hand, ensure that businesses function relatively independently of each other. This is optimal for any turmoil in the economy, whether or not conservative policies have a slight disadvantage in economic "peacetime" (which they don't). Because it is almost impossible to determine when a large recession will strike, it is both safer and freer to have Republican conservative policies.
Oh, and also:
http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/http:/truthfulpolitics.com/comments/u-s-national-unemployment-by-political-party-president/
Obama really sucks.
Friday, March 14, 2014
Lent Post: More on World War
Salvete. I believe this weekend's posts will be devoted to World Wars future and past.
I was debating with some of my friends on whether or not we should have intervened in World War I. My argument was that nonintervention in World War I would balance the sides out and prevent World War II. Their argument was that America needed the technological advancement for future wars and that WWI would have become far more cataclysmic and continued for decades longer.
Since unfortunately I don't know their side of the argument as well as my side, here I present my argument. Feel free to argue against it as you will.
World War II was caused by the aggression of Germany and Japan, caused largely by the ambition of their nationalist socialist governments. Their aggressions, however, were caused for different reasons. Germany was driven by a nationalist socialist government with an unreasonable amount of hubris. Japan, on the other hand, was a century behind on the imperialist stage and desperately wanted territory of her own.
Were these effects the direct result of World War I and its aftermath? My argument for Germany is yes, while my argument for Japan is less clear. Germany's loss in World War I led to impossible debts, which led to hyperinflation, which led to chaos in the streets, which led to the rise of the Nazi regime over the Weimar Republic that caused the mess, which led to "hypernationalism" and the aggression of World War II. Japan's story is different. Japan had always wanted to be an imperial power ever since the shogunate was overthrown. Her imperial powers could not be quenched easily, but if World War I was continuing on, both Japan and America would have time to sit back and watch. Granted, Japan's peacetime military growth would be larger than that of America's peacetime military growth, but at least we would be wary of Japan, just as we are wary of China and Russia in the present. More on this tomorrow.
I was debating with some of my friends on whether or not we should have intervened in World War I. My argument was that nonintervention in World War I would balance the sides out and prevent World War II. Their argument was that America needed the technological advancement for future wars and that WWI would have become far more cataclysmic and continued for decades longer.
Since unfortunately I don't know their side of the argument as well as my side, here I present my argument. Feel free to argue against it as you will.
World War II was caused by the aggression of Germany and Japan, caused largely by the ambition of their nationalist socialist governments. Their aggressions, however, were caused for different reasons. Germany was driven by a nationalist socialist government with an unreasonable amount of hubris. Japan, on the other hand, was a century behind on the imperialist stage and desperately wanted territory of her own.
Were these effects the direct result of World War I and its aftermath? My argument for Germany is yes, while my argument for Japan is less clear. Germany's loss in World War I led to impossible debts, which led to hyperinflation, which led to chaos in the streets, which led to the rise of the Nazi regime over the Weimar Republic that caused the mess, which led to "hypernationalism" and the aggression of World War II. Japan's story is different. Japan had always wanted to be an imperial power ever since the shogunate was overthrown. Her imperial powers could not be quenched easily, but if World War I was continuing on, both Japan and America would have time to sit back and watch. Granted, Japan's peacetime military growth would be larger than that of America's peacetime military growth, but at least we would be wary of Japan, just as we are wary of China and Russia in the present. More on this tomorrow.
The Brakes Fall Off: The Death of the Social Conservative and the World's Grim Future
Salvete. My apologies for not posting on my political blog; I posted on my gaming blog instead. Consider this a makeup post. The World War post will come soon.
As you all know, I am a social conservative, and I can defend the case of the social conservative as much as the next guy. I'm sad to realize that the social conservative is a dying breed. We are the force of resistance, the brakes to the car of society. We have a crucial role for the safety and culture of society.
There has always been a balance between radical and conservative. They were the gas, and we were the brakes. We never sped too fast to lose our sanity and reason, and we never moved too slow to stagnate. In America, we had a firm grasp on both sides, so we had the greatest start of any faction in the world. We shrugged as the French mimicked us and fell into utter chaos, and we were glad to be free of the tyranny of the European monarchies. Our revolution was supported by all classes, all religions, all genders, and all ethnicities, and we sprang forth together and actually managed to pull it off.
During all this time, the brakes and the gas despised each other, and we wished that our opponent was out of the picture. They just never had enough influence or ruthless ambition to cross the line. Sometimes, there was more gas, while sometimes there were more brakes, and America kept moving at a steady pace.
Now, it's unfashionable to be the brakes. Why should we be the evil, racist, greedy rich guy when we could be the "underdog," the guy who bucks the system and demands change? Well, however you spin the deal, the Republicans and the conservatives are now the underdog, and the Democrats and the liberals are now "the machine." And yet the gas pushes harder, despite the steady brakes of the system.
We've passed our destination. We're at the point where the amount of liberty makes sense. Any further would lose more liberty than it gains. This is the part where the brakes should press hard, stopping the car of society before it falls further into chaos. And yet, it is unfashionable to do so. Christians are mocked, and there is no respect for God anymore. Coal and fracking are the two worst possible societal sins. If you don't want to force businesses to cater to people with whom the business disagrees, you are a homophobe, a racist, and the works.
For sure, there are plenty of conservatives, but they're all fiscal conservatives. They found the social side of conservatism too vulnerable and indefensible, so they abandoned that side. They want change as much as the next guy; they just want the economy as a free market. And don't get me wrong, I'm a fiscal conservative as well as a social conservative. I just find myself far more alone as a social conservative, when there is a sound, logical case for my opinion. Will the social conservative die? Will we become extinct, and will society senselessly speed into oblivion? I do not and cannot know. But I understand that, in terms of mortals, I am alone, that the people who side with me are backed into a corner. I will support the fiscal conservative until my dying day. But the social conservative needs my support.
As you all know, I am a social conservative, and I can defend the case of the social conservative as much as the next guy. I'm sad to realize that the social conservative is a dying breed. We are the force of resistance, the brakes to the car of society. We have a crucial role for the safety and culture of society.
There has always been a balance between radical and conservative. They were the gas, and we were the brakes. We never sped too fast to lose our sanity and reason, and we never moved too slow to stagnate. In America, we had a firm grasp on both sides, so we had the greatest start of any faction in the world. We shrugged as the French mimicked us and fell into utter chaos, and we were glad to be free of the tyranny of the European monarchies. Our revolution was supported by all classes, all religions, all genders, and all ethnicities, and we sprang forth together and actually managed to pull it off.
During all this time, the brakes and the gas despised each other, and we wished that our opponent was out of the picture. They just never had enough influence or ruthless ambition to cross the line. Sometimes, there was more gas, while sometimes there were more brakes, and America kept moving at a steady pace.
Now, it's unfashionable to be the brakes. Why should we be the evil, racist, greedy rich guy when we could be the "underdog," the guy who bucks the system and demands change? Well, however you spin the deal, the Republicans and the conservatives are now the underdog, and the Democrats and the liberals are now "the machine." And yet the gas pushes harder, despite the steady brakes of the system.
We've passed our destination. We're at the point where the amount of liberty makes sense. Any further would lose more liberty than it gains. This is the part where the brakes should press hard, stopping the car of society before it falls further into chaos. And yet, it is unfashionable to do so. Christians are mocked, and there is no respect for God anymore. Coal and fracking are the two worst possible societal sins. If you don't want to force businesses to cater to people with whom the business disagrees, you are a homophobe, a racist, and the works.
For sure, there are plenty of conservatives, but they're all fiscal conservatives. They found the social side of conservatism too vulnerable and indefensible, so they abandoned that side. They want change as much as the next guy; they just want the economy as a free market. And don't get me wrong, I'm a fiscal conservative as well as a social conservative. I just find myself far more alone as a social conservative, when there is a sound, logical case for my opinion. Will the social conservative die? Will we become extinct, and will society senselessly speed into oblivion? I do not and cannot know. But I understand that, in terms of mortals, I am alone, that the people who side with me are backed into a corner. I will support the fiscal conservative until my dying day. But the social conservative needs my support.
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Lent Post: Russia, Germany, and the Chess Game of the Ages
Salvete.
Well, the chess tournament ended this morning; congratulations to Super Grandmaster Li Chao for winning the tournament. Now, back to work (as I listen to more chess).
I've had German friends and I've had Russian friends. I'm friends with an immigrant who was born in Moscow; I've had a friend going into the navy, about whom we've always joked about him defecting to the German navy. I know Germany and Russia well enough to give my honest opinion about one of Yahoo's most recent articles: "Cold War kids Merkel and Putin square off over Crimean crisis."
First off, in terms of diplomacy, Germany runs circles around America. Yahoo apparently knows this. How else would it manage to rise to the top of the European Union? Thus, Putin is far more likely to enter negotiations with Merkel. Yahoo knows this as well.
The problem that I see here is the tenseness and the historical significance of this. At no point in history since WWII could Russia and Germany look each other straight in the eyes and call each other equals. Even still, Russia could wax Europe like no tomorrow, like they attempted in Ukraine before diplomacy slowed them down. So now you have the head of Europe and the head of the former Soviet Union together in the same room. Either they will come to an agreement, which means that America will have less of an ally and more of an enemy, or things will take a turn for the worse, which means WWIII may happen the day after. This time, we would probably side with mainland Europe.
So now it seems like the only countries with sizable diplomatic sway are Great Britain, America (maybe), Germany, Russia, and China. (France doesn't count because France is France) Note that, besides India, I have listed the strongest nations of the world, and replace China with Japan, and you have the power players in World War II. We have an ambitious Axis and submissive Allies. How long do you think it is until WWIII? And how long do you think America will wait until we get into this one?
More on World Wars tomorrow.
Well, the chess tournament ended this morning; congratulations to Super Grandmaster Li Chao for winning the tournament. Now, back to work (as I listen to more chess).
I've had German friends and I've had Russian friends. I'm friends with an immigrant who was born in Moscow; I've had a friend going into the navy, about whom we've always joked about him defecting to the German navy. I know Germany and Russia well enough to give my honest opinion about one of Yahoo's most recent articles: "Cold War kids Merkel and Putin square off over Crimean crisis."
First off, in terms of diplomacy, Germany runs circles around America. Yahoo apparently knows this. How else would it manage to rise to the top of the European Union? Thus, Putin is far more likely to enter negotiations with Merkel. Yahoo knows this as well.
The problem that I see here is the tenseness and the historical significance of this. At no point in history since WWII could Russia and Germany look each other straight in the eyes and call each other equals. Even still, Russia could wax Europe like no tomorrow, like they attempted in Ukraine before diplomacy slowed them down. So now you have the head of Europe and the head of the former Soviet Union together in the same room. Either they will come to an agreement, which means that America will have less of an ally and more of an enemy, or things will take a turn for the worse, which means WWIII may happen the day after. This time, we would probably side with mainland Europe.
So now it seems like the only countries with sizable diplomatic sway are Great Britain, America (maybe), Germany, Russia, and China. (France doesn't count because France is France) Note that, besides India, I have listed the strongest nations of the world, and replace China with Japan, and you have the power players in World War II. We have an ambitious Axis and submissive Allies. How long do you think it is until WWIII? And how long do you think America will wait until we get into this one?
More on World Wars tomorrow.
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
Lent Post: More Chess
Salvete.
I understand that there are many things that I could be blogging about, and the Malaysia airplane fiasco has been requested. I believe I shall respond to this topic fairly soon, but for now, I'm satisfied to enjoy the peaceful yet challenging game of chess. It truly gives players a sensation of calm and deep thought unlike any other activity. I truly recommend it for anyone with stress issues.
Today, the commentators brought in some of the grandmasters playing in the tournament to interview and dissect recent victories. It was amazing to see how generally nice and relatively social they were, no matter their background. The world should start playing chess more often.
I understand that there are many things that I could be blogging about, and the Malaysia airplane fiasco has been requested. I believe I shall respond to this topic fairly soon, but for now, I'm satisfied to enjoy the peaceful yet challenging game of chess. It truly gives players a sensation of calm and deep thought unlike any other activity. I truly recommend it for anyone with stress issues.
Today, the commentators brought in some of the grandmasters playing in the tournament to interview and dissect recent victories. It was amazing to see how generally nice and relatively social they were, no matter their background. The world should start playing chess more often.
Monday, March 10, 2014
Lent Post: Chess
Salvete.
If you guys didn't know, I'm a chess guy. Today I found out that there was a huge chess tournament in Reykjavik. It's sad to see that hosting chess is the biggest thing that Iceland can boast. Sochi having finished, I figured I could spend the new amount of available time following the tournament. I always found it shocking the number of draws and relatively-early resignations the higher-ranking players executed. I guess it takes a skilled player to know when you've lost a mile away.
So yeah. Chess.
If you guys didn't know, I'm a chess guy. Today I found out that there was a huge chess tournament in Reykjavik. It's sad to see that hosting chess is the biggest thing that Iceland can boast. Sochi having finished, I figured I could spend the new amount of available time following the tournament. I always found it shocking the number of draws and relatively-early resignations the higher-ranking players executed. I guess it takes a skilled player to know when you've lost a mile away.
So yeah. Chess.
Sunday, March 9, 2014
Lent Post: Convalescent Home
Salvete.
I used to sing for a convalescent home ministry when I was younger. Now that I'm older, I don't seem to have the time, but today I managed to clear enough time to go there. It was good to be back, and no one can match the gratefulness of these elderly folk. They were full of energy today, and many of them seemed young and vibrant. It gave me time to reflect.
This ministry came from my old church. Unfortunately, most of the folks from my old church didn't care so much, so only two or so people went besides me and my family. Not much as changed in particular, it's still our small band, only that my family has moved churches. Needless to say, there were awkward moments, but it's good to converse with old friends. Our group pastor, about the same age as many of the convalescent home residents, gave his sermon as usual.
I admit that I felt uncomfortable as he was giving the sermon, even though I had no need to. It felt like the stereotypical, traditionally Christian sermon, and among the topics covered were how tolerance and political correctness were bad. I just feel uncomfortable whenever I see politics being dragged outside its sphere of influence. Don't get me wrong; inside the political sphere of influence, I'm as bold and as ambitious as possible. I just don't like conversations without politics suddenly being force-fed politics, especially when I disagree with the political views presented. It's not like that's a bad thing, though; politics is the study of the fate of the world, and so it naturally applies to everything on this earth. Besides, the Bible supports a lot of conservative values, such as intolerance to other faiths and boldness in the face of political correctness. Regardless, I felt uncomfortable. Perhaps that's a weakness of mine when it comes to defending my beliefs and voicing my opinion. Perhaps it's a strength.
There was a surprisingly large number of folks at the convalescent home. At face value, this seemed like a great thing; more people were at the service. After reflection and conversation with family, though, it turned into a bad thing. Either families had so little respect for their elders or were pressured so much by the twists and turns in the economy (many of them caused by liberals) that they neither had the time nor money to care for their elderly. Either way, society has taken a turn for the worse. Nonetheless, I will continue to sing at the convalescent home.
I used to sing for a convalescent home ministry when I was younger. Now that I'm older, I don't seem to have the time, but today I managed to clear enough time to go there. It was good to be back, and no one can match the gratefulness of these elderly folk. They were full of energy today, and many of them seemed young and vibrant. It gave me time to reflect.
This ministry came from my old church. Unfortunately, most of the folks from my old church didn't care so much, so only two or so people went besides me and my family. Not much as changed in particular, it's still our small band, only that my family has moved churches. Needless to say, there were awkward moments, but it's good to converse with old friends. Our group pastor, about the same age as many of the convalescent home residents, gave his sermon as usual.
I admit that I felt uncomfortable as he was giving the sermon, even though I had no need to. It felt like the stereotypical, traditionally Christian sermon, and among the topics covered were how tolerance and political correctness were bad. I just feel uncomfortable whenever I see politics being dragged outside its sphere of influence. Don't get me wrong; inside the political sphere of influence, I'm as bold and as ambitious as possible. I just don't like conversations without politics suddenly being force-fed politics, especially when I disagree with the political views presented. It's not like that's a bad thing, though; politics is the study of the fate of the world, and so it naturally applies to everything on this earth. Besides, the Bible supports a lot of conservative values, such as intolerance to other faiths and boldness in the face of political correctness. Regardless, I felt uncomfortable. Perhaps that's a weakness of mine when it comes to defending my beliefs and voicing my opinion. Perhaps it's a strength.
There was a surprisingly large number of folks at the convalescent home. At face value, this seemed like a great thing; more people were at the service. After reflection and conversation with family, though, it turned into a bad thing. Either families had so little respect for their elders or were pressured so much by the twists and turns in the economy (many of them caused by liberals) that they neither had the time nor money to care for their elderly. Either way, society has taken a turn for the worse. Nonetheless, I will continue to sing at the convalescent home.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)