Salvete.
ISIS. ISIS ISIS ISIS. This is a fun one to talk about.
For one, ISIS is not a political entity that we have seen in the past century. Let me explain. Since 1900, I'd say a good ninety percent of countries have been formed out of peace. WWI is over; let's create Estonia. We need to establish peace in a region; let's create South Sudan. Many were created and then thrust headfirst into war, such as Israel and potentially like nations such as North Korea and South Sudan. All of these examples had clear support, and powerful nations like the United States or the Soviet Union were able to pave the way to a region's own sovereignty.
ISIS, however, had no direct help, nor did it request any. It was formed because a terrorist group wanted power for its fanatic beliefs, got a few weapons, and carved out their own territory. It was born directly through war, it was bred for war, and it will likely die from war. ISIS has a stable economy, controlled territory, a set of trade networks, and a compatible system of government, so it would seem like a country. The world hasn't seen this kind of aggression since the Korean or Vietnam Wars, perhaps since the dawn of WWII. Thus, no traditional nation on Earth today knows how to handle it. No one can recognize ISIS's sovereignty since ISIS and the rest of the world have no respect for each other, and they regard each other as evil incarnate.
Personally, a nation that is to war what America is to liberty should be dealt with in kind. If ISIS is allowed to live, the entire Middle East and former caliphate would be thrown into a diplomatic frenzy; Iraq, Syria, and Libya would no longer have control of their own nations and would have to put up with this "non-state." Some nations would want to (and currently do) make trade agreements with ISIS for the oil that they control. ISIS would be, for all practical purposes, a nation, just like Jordan or Turkey. The only difference is that ISIS would try to seize its neighbors like a power-hungry Germany before WWII. The economic and diplomatic flurries would never end. Destroy them now, if only to save the diplomatic hassle later.
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
Lent Post: Guys, I Think NBC Is Dying
Salvete.
Yes, it is the day before Lent starts, but I might as well get started.
When I watched the Superbowl, I was looking forward to all the new Superbowl commercials. In the most recent Superbowls, good commercials were few and far between, but perhaps this year would be different. While there were several good commercials, I found a surprising number of NBC commercials for NBC shows- on the NBC football channel. I had heard on The Blaze that NBC was running out of profitable enterprises and thus could potentially go out of business, but I didn't realize the gravity of that statement. When I saw the endless ads for The Blacklist, however, I came to grips with reality: NBC is desperate for views. Whether The Blaze made a self-fulfilling prophecy or whether NBC just didn't make as much profit this year, it didn't seem to matter.
Let me explain. If I were a media company (say, PNC, the Plaustrum News Company) in charge of filming the Superbowl, I would have a good chunk of time to use as needed. If my shows were doing successful, I would use the time and sell it to large companies, gain millions of dollars in revenue, and help fund the already-popular shows. Had I used the time to promote the shows to the masses, it would have meant lost opportunity and lost revenue. If my shows were doing poorly, however, and my company was thus going out of business, I would use the Superbowl to promote my own company. I would have to sacrifice an enormous short-term benefit to stay afloat in the long run. Given the context, it seems like NBC is in the latter position.
It could've been an overreaction. An anomaly, albeit the Superbowl, was possible. The SNL forty-year reunion, however, helped to confirm the theory. NBC poured its heart and soul into the anniversary, inviting all the big stars from the show and having a whole hour-long red carpet with about a three-hour-long episode. It... wasn't funny. Sure, the Jeopardy sketch was ok, but the Californians sketch went on for far too long, and shortly after my family and I turned off the television to go to bed and do other things. I think that the anniversary special was part of NBC's last stand; SNL was NBC's flagship program, and even it failed. Why else would NBC celebrate the 40th anniversary as the must-see event rather than save the grandeur for the 50th?
It's tragic to see such a large corporation plead for help, but it could be possible that NBC will take its last breaths in a few years. Or it could get bailed out like all the other corporations this day and age. What a time we live in.
Yes, it is the day before Lent starts, but I might as well get started.
When I watched the Superbowl, I was looking forward to all the new Superbowl commercials. In the most recent Superbowls, good commercials were few and far between, but perhaps this year would be different. While there were several good commercials, I found a surprising number of NBC commercials for NBC shows- on the NBC football channel. I had heard on The Blaze that NBC was running out of profitable enterprises and thus could potentially go out of business, but I didn't realize the gravity of that statement. When I saw the endless ads for The Blacklist, however, I came to grips with reality: NBC is desperate for views. Whether The Blaze made a self-fulfilling prophecy or whether NBC just didn't make as much profit this year, it didn't seem to matter.
Let me explain. If I were a media company (say, PNC, the Plaustrum News Company) in charge of filming the Superbowl, I would have a good chunk of time to use as needed. If my shows were doing successful, I would use the time and sell it to large companies, gain millions of dollars in revenue, and help fund the already-popular shows. Had I used the time to promote the shows to the masses, it would have meant lost opportunity and lost revenue. If my shows were doing poorly, however, and my company was thus going out of business, I would use the Superbowl to promote my own company. I would have to sacrifice an enormous short-term benefit to stay afloat in the long run. Given the context, it seems like NBC is in the latter position.
It could've been an overreaction. An anomaly, albeit the Superbowl, was possible. The SNL forty-year reunion, however, helped to confirm the theory. NBC poured its heart and soul into the anniversary, inviting all the big stars from the show and having a whole hour-long red carpet with about a three-hour-long episode. It... wasn't funny. Sure, the Jeopardy sketch was ok, but the Californians sketch went on for far too long, and shortly after my family and I turned off the television to go to bed and do other things. I think that the anniversary special was part of NBC's last stand; SNL was NBC's flagship program, and even it failed. Why else would NBC celebrate the 40th anniversary as the must-see event rather than save the grandeur for the 50th?
It's tragic to see such a large corporation plead for help, but it could be possible that NBC will take its last breaths in a few years. Or it could get bailed out like all the other corporations this day and age. What a time we live in.
Thursday, January 1, 2015
2015: Analogies and Hopes
Salvete. It is the dawn of 2015. The legislative branch is now fully in the hands of Republican leadership, yet California remains a Democratic hellhole for another two years. The country has just gone through a phase of anti-police sentiment. I've been growing a beard. After skipping most of November and all of December, I sit down to finish working on the promised 100th post.
Now, it's both a 2015 post and an important milestone, so a double feature is in order. First, what I've been planning for a while:
I came up with a few political analogies; I hope that they will be useful in explaining conservative positions and in arguments.
The Palestinian-Israeli crisis is like two brothers who shared a home, who for the sake of this analogy we will call Joseph and Levi. They both lived peacefully with one another, and they both owned half of the house. Levi is wrongly convicted of murder and is dragged away to prison, presumably to spend his life there. Joseph, seeing as his brother has not returned for years, raises a family and takes his brother's half of the house for his descendants. Meanwhile, Levi can't think of anything but home, and leaves the prison years later due to his good conduct. He comes home a changed man but finds that not only has his brother failed to keep his half of the house ready for his arrival but that his brother has taken over his half of the house. Joseph and Levi both erupt in a fury over who deserves the house; sharing is no longer an option. Joseph's neighbors almost unanimously side with him, while the mayor of the town and the legal offices side with Levi. In name, Levi owns the house, but Joseph defends his claim to the death.
Saying that guns or video games are the only contributing factor is like saying that cacao and sugar are the only contributing factors to a chocolate cake. Sure, there could be a lot of both ingredients, and it wouldn't be a chocolate cake without either of those two ingredients, but there are far more factors involved. Besides, each of those ingredients are useful for many other recipes; eliminating sugar and cacao altogether would have tremendous consequences outside of simply stopping chocolate cakes from being made.
The topic of illegal immigration is like watching people cut in line at the DMV. You don't hate the guy who cuts in line, but you'd wish that the DMV security would do something about it, especially considering all the people who have to wait to get in line.
To say that "education is a right, not a privilege" is like saying that a customer has the right to take an apple from a store. Yes, the customer (store manager willing) has the right to purchase the apple, but the store owner simply cannot hand the apple over to the customer. No matter how desperately the customer wants or needs the apple, it would be simply foolish to assume that the customer has a right to take the apple from the store without purchase. Education is an investment, a product; it is not a right. That said, people have the right to educate themselves, just like a customer can purchase seeds and grow his/her own apples.
Those are the analogies that I've put aside for about a year. Now, for my hopes and blessings for 2015:
To the Republican Party: May you accept change from the outside while still holding your core values. May you put the legislative to good use, and may you find strength to challenge the executive. May you find unity in a single, virtuous candidate and cease your division for the better.
To the Democrat Party: May you judge your presidential candidate neither by gender nor by race but by quality. May you learn to see the Republican perspective, and may you flourish on a more honorable platform.
To the Peace and Freedom Party: May you go away and never bother us again.
To America: May you have the courage to face Russia head-on in this upcoming debacle. May you set yourself as the immovable hegemony that you once seemed to be. May you never lose sight of your ultimate goal: to be a beacon of liberty, both within your borders and without.
To California: May you look beyond squabbles over water and focus on the true state of the system of California. May you see the sense in the Six Californias project. May your leaders have more wisdom than any previous California legislature (that's not saying much; you can do it).
To the American citizen: May you treat each other with decency and honor. May you learn more about politics and act accordingly. May you think deeply before protesting, and may you see more of the bigger picture.
And to myself: May I have the strength to do another 100 more of these posts over the course 2015 without taking month-long breaks. Happy New Year.
Now, it's both a 2015 post and an important milestone, so a double feature is in order. First, what I've been planning for a while:
I came up with a few political analogies; I hope that they will be useful in explaining conservative positions and in arguments.
The Palestinian-Israeli crisis is like two brothers who shared a home, who for the sake of this analogy we will call Joseph and Levi. They both lived peacefully with one another, and they both owned half of the house. Levi is wrongly convicted of murder and is dragged away to prison, presumably to spend his life there. Joseph, seeing as his brother has not returned for years, raises a family and takes his brother's half of the house for his descendants. Meanwhile, Levi can't think of anything but home, and leaves the prison years later due to his good conduct. He comes home a changed man but finds that not only has his brother failed to keep his half of the house ready for his arrival but that his brother has taken over his half of the house. Joseph and Levi both erupt in a fury over who deserves the house; sharing is no longer an option. Joseph's neighbors almost unanimously side with him, while the mayor of the town and the legal offices side with Levi. In name, Levi owns the house, but Joseph defends his claim to the death.
Saying that guns or video games are the only contributing factor is like saying that cacao and sugar are the only contributing factors to a chocolate cake. Sure, there could be a lot of both ingredients, and it wouldn't be a chocolate cake without either of those two ingredients, but there are far more factors involved. Besides, each of those ingredients are useful for many other recipes; eliminating sugar and cacao altogether would have tremendous consequences outside of simply stopping chocolate cakes from being made.
The topic of illegal immigration is like watching people cut in line at the DMV. You don't hate the guy who cuts in line, but you'd wish that the DMV security would do something about it, especially considering all the people who have to wait to get in line.
To say that "education is a right, not a privilege" is like saying that a customer has the right to take an apple from a store. Yes, the customer (store manager willing) has the right to purchase the apple, but the store owner simply cannot hand the apple over to the customer. No matter how desperately the customer wants or needs the apple, it would be simply foolish to assume that the customer has a right to take the apple from the store without purchase. Education is an investment, a product; it is not a right. That said, people have the right to educate themselves, just like a customer can purchase seeds and grow his/her own apples.
Those are the analogies that I've put aside for about a year. Now, for my hopes and blessings for 2015:
To the Republican Party: May you accept change from the outside while still holding your core values. May you put the legislative to good use, and may you find strength to challenge the executive. May you find unity in a single, virtuous candidate and cease your division for the better.
To the Democrat Party: May you judge your presidential candidate neither by gender nor by race but by quality. May you learn to see the Republican perspective, and may you flourish on a more honorable platform.
To the Peace and Freedom Party: May you go away and never bother us again.
To America: May you have the courage to face Russia head-on in this upcoming debacle. May you set yourself as the immovable hegemony that you once seemed to be. May you never lose sight of your ultimate goal: to be a beacon of liberty, both within your borders and without.
To California: May you look beyond squabbles over water and focus on the true state of the system of California. May you see the sense in the Six Californias project. May your leaders have more wisdom than any previous California legislature (that's not saying much; you can do it).
To the American citizen: May you treat each other with decency and honor. May you learn more about politics and act accordingly. May you think deeply before protesting, and may you see more of the bigger picture.
And to myself: May I have the strength to do another 100 more of these posts over the course 2015 without taking month-long breaks. Happy New Year.
Sunday, November 2, 2014
Vote Charlie Schaupp or Dan Logue: Why I Voted Mostly Republican During This 2014 California Election
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!
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!
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)