Politcs

concession

2008-12-08T16:53:00.003-05:00

This year has been an exciting and important year. So many unprecedented things are in play this year. It is important not to get too wrapped up in all of the excitement and bandwaggons that are out there, but rather one should just look at the policies. The election is over. Barrack Hussien Obama is the president-elect of the United States of America. Who knows what the next four years will hold. I hope, for the sake of our great country, that I am wrong about my assumptions based upon his campaign and his past tendencies in Illinios politics.

Stop Obama

2008-07-08T22:25:00.002-04:00

I have never been a fan of McCain but I would gladly take him over Obama any day. when I am faced with the options it is the clear choice that McCain is by far the lesser of two idiots. I cannot stand by and let Obama become the leader of the free country. I am a firm believer in personal responsibility and fiscal policies that are pro free market and not socialism in disguise.

Volunteer

2008-01-09T18:28:00.000-05:00

I am currently putting in hours volunteering for Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign here in Myrtle Beach and it has been an experience. In South Carolina and specifically in the first district (which includes Myrtle Beach) Giuliani's campaign has been focused on a grassroots, spread the word and get out to vote drive. There has been countless phone banks and dials to past Republican primary voters and door to door meetings as well, assembling yard signs and placing them in strategic spots around the area, handing out literature, and all sorts of other tasks. Several events have been planned only to be yanked from the vision because of either schedule demands, security or what not. While this is not only disappointing but also frustrating I am constantly reminded by those who have done this before that staying flexible and moving on to the next task is basis for campaigns for similar to this one. All in all it has been a wonderful experience and I am looking forward to the debates tomorrow and then the primary on the 19th.

Political Beings that we are.....

2007-11-08T23:11:00.001-05:00

Politics are awesome. I say that because you can bring up any political issue at any occasion and you have got yourself a debate. For example you can bring up Iraq and of course everyone has an opinion. Or you can bring up 9/11 and someone has something to say. These days gay marriage and abortion also have people jumping to give you their opinion. That's good. Either way, whether they are right or wrong at least they are talking. Me, being the politics major that I am, I get all sorts of people wanting to voice what they think about everything. I love it!! I love debating people and them thinking about what they said and why they said it. That is what it is all about. We are all different, and while we all have our opinion, I think there is a correct answer. It is not just a value but also a fact. We are all in search of that answer and some are right and some are wrong. Someone once told me (big props to Mom) that opinions are like butt holes, we all have them and unfortunately some stink. I didn't understand it then, but that is right. At least we live in a country where we can voice that opinion. That is what politics is. That is good. The more people think about something the closer they come to the truth. I love reason, that is one thing that humans have other living creatures do not. So use that reason, you lovely rational being and think for once about things that effect us all..... I LOVE IT.

PC Regime

2007-11-08T11:28:00.000-05:00

The PC Regime

The regime that has emerged throughout the beginning of the twenty-first century is the "PC regime." While many would think that this is referring to the widespread use and dependability of the general population on personal computers and other technological advances such as cell phones, email and the sort, that is not what I am rendering as an earmark of the time. Rather I am stating that the rise of the idea of universally being politically correct has become one of the major steering devices in each and every citizens daily life and has evolved viewpoints and personal choices along the way.
The term political correctness emerged in the 1980s but has quickly spread and can be seen in every aspect of popular life. Throughout the end of the twentieth century and even more so through out the early years of the twenty-first century, ideas surrounding political correctness have quickly evolved into both written and unwritten laws observed within our national and numerous local communities. This is no longer just expected, but those who choose to transgress from the newly founded norm are often met with punishment and outrage. This new eruption has caused the view that the people and groups who are demanding equality and freedoms such as speech and assembly, are the same ones accused of verbally and sometimes even physically persecuting those who choose to speak in plain language without the safeguards of political correctness. The goal that political correctness hopes to achieve is simple and plainly put, is to prevent anyone from being offended.
The idea of being politically correct has directly corresponded into a number of economic, social and ideological disturbances throughout society which have lead to policy demands and measurable administrative and political changes. In the hopes of not offending anyone people have thoroughly debated the ideas of equality through out the areas of marriage, as well as for those that are mentally and physically challenged. These debates have opened a variety of areas of social regulatory policy that has been very controversial even in this politically correct era. The spread of the belief in the mass epidemic of obesity has sparked dialogue on diet reform policy and other health standards like never before in our history. The mass hysteria revolving around a once scientific but not political stance on human-induced global climate change (warming) has struck numerous initiatives and regulations.
The homosexual population in the United States has quickly been growing with the onset of acceptance by a more diverse population. The growth is also contributed to the beginning of use and belief that there should be equal rights not only for all religions or races, as battles in the past have centered on, but also equality regardless of sexual orientation. One key focus has been on the concept of legal and social acceptance of same-sex marriages and homosexual civil unions. Marriage and civil union regulations have been widely accepted as a states-right issue, meaning that the individual states have the constitutional right to set the various regulations involved in the union issue.
At the dawn of the twenty-first century very few states in this country allowed same-sex unions of any type. States often used terms such as bride and groom in their codes and statutes to prohibit homosexual unions without passing controversial binding legislation that expressly denied the right of marriage to anyone. These terms and the ideas in which they are rooted, have been socially proven to offend certain minority groups and therefore have been ruled politically incorrect. Many states now find that they must either allow same-sex marriages, pass initiatives and referendums that are viewed by many as discriminatory, or allow same-sex unions with limits but not marriage. Several equal rights activists have lobbied for a federal constitutional amendment or court precedent setting the bar for national acceptance of gay marriage and are winning because of the "PC" tide. It is suggested by the year 2030 that all states will have passed some type of legislation which allows legal unions within homosexual couples specifically detailing medical and death rights as well as adoption and insurance statutes. There are several large groups who oppose these types of legislation but they are often viewed as politically incorrect and derogatory.
The same-sex marriage debate has caused an uprising in strict conservatives and a counter rising in some liberals. These two sects from the popular Republican and Democratic parties constantly argue and have began taking similar stances on other issues such as abortion, polygamy, stem-cell research and the such. The root of these debates is the oxymoronic idea that more government equals more freedom.
With obesity surpassing smoking as the leading cause of preventable death, health standards started an uproar to help curve the epidemic through out the nation. The obesity dilemma started as a superficial issue where being fat or overweight was seen as ugly. This was fought with campaigns that make beauty something everyone has. Soon thereafter the negative health effects became the center of debate. The government is fighting this epidemic with incentives to lower morbid obesity rates like medicaid plans that pay for nutritionists, bariatic surgeries, and fitness programs for those who cannot afford to pay on there own as well as educational campaigns that help prevent becoming overweight. Body mass index (BMI) is a graded area that is reported on children’s progress reports in government and private schools through out the country. Insurance companies are beginning to penalize those who are ranked overweight by company health examiners and almost every state in the union has banned the use of trans-fat in public cooking. There has been an experimental drug developed by the leading pharmaceutical companies but has yet to be distributed to the public because of the patent and generic fights.
These types of policies have become a way for the government to regulate each citizen’s diet and therefore make the proper decisions that would otherwise not be made by most. This is yet another step towards the total decision making by the government in order to ensure that we all live happy, healthy, and politically correct lives.
The third policy area during this regime is the debate over man-made global climate change. The dilemma often called global warming started as a scientific study but took root as a political dilemma during the early parts of the twenty-first century. This controversy caused a deep split in ideological groups. The Green party quickly took control and fought for this cause. There has been many initiatives taken to reduce the effects of carbon emissions to the environment and the global climate. On the international level, there have been many efforts including the Tokyo Protocol and the more recent Quebec Incentive. This types of agreements are voluntary documents where each States’ government signs and work to lower emissions and try to promote a more environmental friendly approach to energy. These types of initiatives are showing up everywhere. "Congressional legislation to mandate reductions in CO2 emissions from power plants, autos, factories, farms and office buildings has line-jumped to the congressional agenda" and many people are approving because of the propaganda that is being publicized with every turn of the head.1 Ranging from proposed legislation to mandate the use of fluorescent light bulbs and state car emissions inspections to government regulation of corporations pollutants and the like.

Afirmative Action

2007-11-07T15:13:00.000-05:00

The following is a work in progress for an assignment for my ethics class dealing with affirmative action programs such a preference programs and the normative questions raised through an utilitarian theory approach, (which I happen to agree with):

A Utilitarianism Critique of Preference Programs for Collegiate Acceptance

Is the use of programs that seek to redress for past discrimination through active measures to ensure equal opportunity in collegiate education ethical? The Supreme Court says it is ethical and needed in those cases where there is a compelling governmental interest. Grutter v. Bollinger was a case in 2003 in which the United States Supreme Court heard the issue of the constitutionality of affirmative action programs for collegiate programs. Justice O'Connor found that it was indeed constitutional and was needed for at least twenty-five more years. Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas all dissented from O'Conner's opinion and wrote that not only were such preference programs unconstitutional, but they were also detrimental to the evolution of the American society. However, assuming that because the courts or the law says that using these programs is ethical, it must be ethical would be committing the legalistic fallacy. Also saying that something is this way and therefore should be this way would be committing the is/ought fallacy. Both fallacies are not an appropriate way to logical reasoning. Using other approaches it can be argued that in fact the use of preference programs is unethical.
From a utilitarian approach the use of such affirmative action programs such as preference programs in fact lowers the overall net utility of a society as a whole because it lowers the education level that is being taught in collegiate schools; lowers the output of collegiate programs; and provides an atmosphere that systematically lowers the overall net happiness of a society; therefore making it unethical.
Affirmative Action programs cause a loss of net utility for a society in a long run because we will no longer have our best and brightest students graduating and entering the professional work force. Some of the best qualified candidates for collegiate programs will be declined because their spots will need to be filled with students that are preferred through the programs, even though these students may not have the best qualifications. This will cause the long-run net utility to decline. Yes, we will have a diverse professional workforce, but it will not consist of the best candidates. If the workforce did indeed consist of only the best candidates, whatever their race, gender, or socioeconomic status, there would be a rise in overall net utility for that workforce. The brighter the candidates, the brighter the workforce and therefore the brighter the output of that society will be. For example, if the best candidates for a medical school program happened to all be of the Asian race, all of the students should be accepted regardless of diversity or lack there of. This would in turn cause the best students to graduate from the program and therefore the best doctors to practice causing the most net utility possible for that particular society.
Preference programs will also lower net utility because the classes in colleges and other post-secondary educational facilities will need to be taught at a lower academic level. The main purpose of post-secondary education is to educate the students attended, and for that to be obtained the material needs to be at a level where most students can understand, in order to ensure that the facilities are successfully training graduates from the programs. These educational levels are likely to be lower than current ones. This would seem to be the case because people will be getting admitted to programs based on preference on things other than academic qualifications and may not be properly prepared to compete with other students. For example, if a student is admitted into a college with a lower SAT score and GPA because that student’s ethnicity is under represented at that institution the institution will be inclined to ensure that student can produce in classes. Therefore, more remedial courses and courses covering material that other students are already familiar with, will be need to be required in order to prepare these students. This in turn will cause the society as a whole to become less educated overall and therefore lower the long run utility of that society.
A society is a sophisticated interlinking of relationships that vary depending upon the various components that collectively build them. A diverse society helps everyone understand the various cultures that exist in our own society as well as in others. It is important to learn their values, goals, and practices that characterize them. This is a vital aspect of living in a community that has an overall long run net happiness. However given one race, ethnicity, gender, age-group or any other demographic preference may cause bitterness through out that society, therefore lowering the net happiness. If everyone is unhappy or holds resentment towards another group of people then, the utility of that particular society will also lower. Taking society's utility and subtracting the utility that will be lost without the use of preference programs (even though the society will still show a great amount of diversity) and adding the gained utiltiy from obtaining the most qualified candidates graduating and entering the workforce will yield a net utility that will be greater then one obtained with the use of the preference programs such as affirmative action. Therefore, race, gender, and socioeconomic status should not be considered in the selection of students. The students with the best qualifications, regardless of these demographic preferences should be chosen.

Vote 2008

2007-11-05T12:33:00.000-05:00

I am first a conservative, second a libertarian and third a usual Republican voter. I take my civic privilege seriously. I vote when, and if, I am informed enough to vote. I voted for president in 2004 and now I am preparing myself to vote in 2008. I know it is early in the game but there are definitely some front runners in the contest right now. Several people have sparked my eyes in both good and bad ways.

B. Hussein Obama - (I stole that from Anne Coulter) He is a strong leader that may one day have potential to represent his follower's feelings, but at the moment he is neither experienced nor passionate enough to be head of state. I strongly disagree with his policies on Iraq and the big government platform he is running on. He may think he is capable, and maybe he is, but he has not proven to anyone, neither those that agree with him and especially not those in disagreement, that he can do the job. Basically all talk and nothing to prove he can walk.

He believes in the right to a woman's privacy, i.e. murder is OK when the innocent victim is two minutes from coming out of the womb. Really? Is it OK to stab the baby in the skull because you just decided you were being too inconvenienced to take responsibility for your actions? I mean come on. I know abortion is wrong. That is my view. However, that is not for the federal government to decide for anyone. States, yes. It is definitely a states rights issue. Its now wonder why the liberal elite and hollywood love this man so much. He does have some humanitarian traits in him, but for crying out loud he is trying to throw the traditional values at the heart of America out the window. For more on what Mr. B. Hussein Obama votes for look at his senate voting record.

He won Iowa and surprised the Billary camp, but lost in New Hampshire. He is still in this race and some say he can win. That is possible, but I fear an Obama administration. I have never been one to jump onto conspiracy theory, but I have heard too much negative information from his past jihad views to his superior black church. The man knows how to speak though. He gives great speeches that inspire and motivate people, a vast number of them who usually do not vote, specifically in the primary elections. There would be a good thing about him recieving the democratic nomination. Maybe then his past and his true beliefs will come under scrutiny (never by the mainstream media however) and we can finally know what this man stands for instead of him hiding behind his passionate speaches.

Hilliary Clinton - In my younger, yet uninformed days, I somewhat looked up to her. She seemed like a strong woman that was going places in the political arena. That was unitl I realized how she felt about things and discovered the socialist governement dependent ideology that she stands for. I absolutely despise her now. I'll save her personal life for another post, but her politics seriously frighten me.

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." H. Clinton Source: 7/3/04 New York Post, correction to AP story.

Remember socialism from our high school social studies classes? That quote definitely sounds familiar.

She is in it to win it and she is fighting. After a surprise loss in the Iowa Cacuases she fighting to maintain her once unchallenged title of "democratic frontrunner" Barry Obama is giving her a run for her money. Her ignrorant husband is hurting more than he his helping and her poll numbers are starting to fall.

www.stophernow.com

Rudy Guliani - At this time in our country we need a strong leader that will stick to his guns. Whether you agree with his stances 100% or not, he is undoubtedly the best leader by far. He has taken a side on the issues and will not waiver, he has experience, and he is the man I want leading my country. He is our best bet, and in my eyes the only chance.

There will never be a perfect candidate that will meet all of our needs. Our job is to not only pick the best candidate to represent us, but also to pick the candidate that can stand up best against a democratic candidate. I think that we are given two options - either get Giuliani nominated or face the fact that we may have to address either Obama or Hillary has president. That could possibly the most disastrous thing for our country and specifically for our troops.

He has a different strategy and I would caution anyone counting him out for the nomination so early. His aim is in Florida and he is still leading polls there. If he can win Florida's primary that is 57 winner take all votes they he collects and that would put him right back up there.

He has recently developed a new tax plan that is just what working people in America needs. He is tough on immigration reform and without closing our borders America will not survive.

Mitt Romney - Former Governor from one of the most liberal states in the nation. He is a big business type. He has Milton Freedman ideology written all over him. He has a free market answer to the health care dilema instead of the proposed socialized Hilliary-Care. Read his health care plan here. He has Reagan conservitive characteristics as well talking about his fiscal discipline. He seems like a good candidate. He claims he is against gay marriage (which to me is a state's rights issue as well) and says he will nominate judges that are pro-life. He is strong on terror and Iraq as well. He is a great conservative candidate, I just don't think he has what it takes to win the popular vote.

More to come...