A friend posted this about Chiropractors. What can I say, I was inspired. ;)
1. A lawyer has a great mind. Enough said.
2. Lawyers know how to think outside the box, and accept that there is more to life than meets the eye.
3. It takes entrepreneurial nerve and skill to manage a successful legal practice.
4. Those in a “taking profession” like lawyers usually lack empathy, compassion, and need to be nurtured—qualities that go a long way towards making them a perfect fit for you.
5. It takes more than linear reliance on facts and figures to succeed as a lawyers—it requires intuition.
6. A successful lawyer must be a good listener—an essential skill among great lovers as well.
7. Do you believe the root cause of a problem is not always immediately obvious? A lawyer may agree with you it all depends on the underlying facts... etc...
8. Lawyers are probably afraid of physical intimacy but willing to learn and you of course are willing to help.
9. Lawyers care about the health and well-being of their clients and yours, if you happen to be their client.
10. Lawyers have horrible posture and could use all the help they can get.
11. He or she is trained to see the big picture and avoid oversimplification.
12. Lawyers know the importance of balance and alignment in life and could use all the help in the world in acheiveing it.
13. Lawyers have spent years convincing you of their training, which demonstrates persistence and dedication—always good qualities to look for in a potential partner.
14. Someone who chooses a career in lawyer is a masochist and welcomes criticism.
15. Got an annoying client problem? You know who to call.
10.07.2013
My Solution
I have a simple solution. Let me make sure we first agree on some facts. The Republicans and the Tea Party hate taxes, they hate government (Grover Norquist once famously said that he wanted to drown the government in his bath tub), they want government out of their hair and they love their liberties. Any arguments so far? No... okay well here is what I suggest.
Here is a link to a past post called secession. The gist of it is that red states take more from the federal government than they pay in. The information simply shows that the blue states are givers and the red states are takers. So far the blue states have been patient and willing to give. If you are going to hold the government hostage than as constituents of red states you have the right to be free of that government.
Here is a link to a past post called secession. The gist of it is that red states take more from the federal government than they pay in. The information simply shows that the blue states are givers and the red states are takers. So far the blue states have been patient and willing to give. If you are going to hold the government hostage than as constituents of red states you have the right to be free of that government.
The solution as I see it, is that we allow each state to vote on constitutional amendments outlining the following steps
1. The residents of any state that votes for the amendments gets a phaseout on federal taxes. 33% cut this year, 66% the next down to 0%. No federal taxes.
2. The federal government stops spending federal dollars in those states based on a phaseout 33% less this year, 66% less next year.. you get the point
3. No Obamacare, no medicare, no medicaid, no social security nothing after three years. The states Any current red state resident has to wait nine years before they can get residency in a state that did not vote for the amendment.(To keep some states from having to take in all the "takers" from the other states)
4. No EPA, FDA, FAA, etc... after three years. After all private companies are better in the minds of republicans they can tax their own residents and pay them.
5. The federal government will simply bill the states that opt out of taxes proportionally based on population for defense and border patrol costs which the states can pay from their own budgets.
Republicans specially tea party members should be jumping at this idea. It gives them everything they want total and complete freedom from the "government and taxes."
( Yes what is above is silly, but the House of Republicans(certainly does not seem representative to me) tried over 40 times to kill a bill that has already passed and is now law, which the Supreme Court upheld. When none of that worked they forced a government shut down, and now are threatening the country with default... and I seem silly???) [***2016 addition, and now the Republican Party's front runner is Donald Trump, and I seem silly???***]
Some Stats
Saw something that made me wonder. It is pretty clear what side of the aisle I tend to lean on. Rather than write a long blog about what I believe etc... I thought it might be interesting to just throw out some statistics
Top Income Tax Rates (adjusting for inflation)
1965 70% on any income over $1.42 Million
2011 38% on any income over $388,000
Unemployment Rate
1970 - 4%
2013 - 7%
Poverty Rate
1965 - 15%
2013 - 15%
Top 1 % (Wealth)
1970 - 24%
2013 - 40%
Reducing taxes creates jobs which should in turn decrease poverty. Heard that one before? Obviously this is simplifying it but it would seem to me the rich have gotten richer. The poor... well they are still poor. Jobs well we have fewer of those oh and they pay less in real dollars than in the past. Oh and tax brackets haven't dropped for everyone in real dollars people in the 70's who made over $388,000 would have probably paid 38 % on that income but as they made far over that amount they paid a higher percentage. The only change is the really rich don't pay like they used to. The current distribution is more like feudal times where a few lords make most of the money and own everything... It's not corporations its the 1% that owns 50% of the shares of those corporations.
Top Income Tax Rates (adjusting for inflation)
1965 70% on any income over $1.42 Million
2011 38% on any income over $388,000
Unemployment Rate
1970 - 4%
2013 - 7%
Poverty Rate
1965 - 15%
2013 - 15%
Top 1 % (Wealth)
1970 - 24%
2013 - 40%
Reducing taxes creates jobs which should in turn decrease poverty. Heard that one before? Obviously this is simplifying it but it would seem to me the rich have gotten richer. The poor... well they are still poor. Jobs well we have fewer of those oh and they pay less in real dollars than in the past. Oh and tax brackets haven't dropped for everyone in real dollars people in the 70's who made over $388,000 would have probably paid 38 % on that income but as they made far over that amount they paid a higher percentage. The only change is the really rich don't pay like they used to. The current distribution is more like feudal times where a few lords make most of the money and own everything... It's not corporations its the 1% that owns 50% of the shares of those corporations.
9.30.2013
Congress should be fired... period. ALL OF THEM Pt. 2
The first part was in relation to a practical concern, Student Loans. Intelligent people I am sure could disagree on that, not sure that is the case this time.
Take a ride with me for a second. I propose that we all start a company. Like other corporations we will be run by a Board of Directors and the board will have ultimate corporate authority. I propose we hire employees pay them less than other private sector employees but give them all excellent benefits, hours etc... To finance our operations we will be taking on a significant amount of debt (corporations do this all the time). Next I propose we charge our customers what they think is fair, not what we think it costs for our services/products. Fast forward a few years. Over the last few years we have been losing money every year, and there are no positive projections in sight. In their ultimate wisdom a minority of the directors have held on tooth and nail to get their point across. About once a year this minority forces the doors of our business to be closed and our employees to go without pay. Along with the shutdown the minority refuses to approve any corporate resolutions. The accounting department has recommended the resolutions are pretty much the only way to keep from defaulting on our debt.
What happens to these directors? My guess, besides being fired some of them would probably face lawsuits for breaches of fiduciary duty, etc...
Now back to reality. Welcome to America. We have a Board of Directors (Congress) The government is the single largest employer in the country. We certainly have a whole lot of debt. We keep having tax cuts (Bush era and otherwise) and our services keep costing more (Healthcare, Medical etc...). The fast forward part, since Clinton left office we have blown through our surplus and have an unprecedented level of debt. In their wisdom the Republicans think its a good idea for us to have shutdowns. Yet again it seems the government will shut down. Oh and their is the looming prospect of the Republicans refusing to raise the debt ceiling. And yes the Republicans are a minority stake, they lost the Presidency and the Senate. The Congressional Budget Office and Treasury have recommended raising the ceiling but that doesn't seem to matter to the Republicans. Default and shutdowns are their way of holding on and getting their point across.
To my Republican friends I have a few admittedly redundant questions.
Are Republicans the party of business?
Is playing with the debt ceiling and default good for business?
Is a shutdown good for the economy?
When a company is running in deficit, they explore increasing revenue and decreasing expenses. Why does that seem so foreign to Republicans?
Lastly Democrats in Congress, you don't get off that easy either. If while in power you can't get the other side to work with you, or legislate with you then you are failing at your job. In case you were wondering legislating is your job.
Take a ride with me for a second. I propose that we all start a company. Like other corporations we will be run by a Board of Directors and the board will have ultimate corporate authority. I propose we hire employees pay them less than other private sector employees but give them all excellent benefits, hours etc... To finance our operations we will be taking on a significant amount of debt (corporations do this all the time). Next I propose we charge our customers what they think is fair, not what we think it costs for our services/products. Fast forward a few years. Over the last few years we have been losing money every year, and there are no positive projections in sight. In their ultimate wisdom a minority of the directors have held on tooth and nail to get their point across. About once a year this minority forces the doors of our business to be closed and our employees to go without pay. Along with the shutdown the minority refuses to approve any corporate resolutions. The accounting department has recommended the resolutions are pretty much the only way to keep from defaulting on our debt.
What happens to these directors? My guess, besides being fired some of them would probably face lawsuits for breaches of fiduciary duty, etc...
Now back to reality. Welcome to America. We have a Board of Directors (Congress) The government is the single largest employer in the country. We certainly have a whole lot of debt. We keep having tax cuts (Bush era and otherwise) and our services keep costing more (Healthcare, Medical etc...). The fast forward part, since Clinton left office we have blown through our surplus and have an unprecedented level of debt. In their wisdom the Republicans think its a good idea for us to have shutdowns. Yet again it seems the government will shut down. Oh and their is the looming prospect of the Republicans refusing to raise the debt ceiling. And yes the Republicans are a minority stake, they lost the Presidency and the Senate. The Congressional Budget Office and Treasury have recommended raising the ceiling but that doesn't seem to matter to the Republicans. Default and shutdowns are their way of holding on and getting their point across.
To my Republican friends I have a few admittedly redundant questions.
Are Republicans the party of business?
Is playing with the debt ceiling and default good for business?
Is a shutdown good for the economy?
When a company is running in deficit, they explore increasing revenue and decreasing expenses. Why does that seem so foreign to Republicans?
Lastly Democrats in Congress, you don't get off that easy either. If while in power you can't get the other side to work with you, or legislate with you then you are failing at your job. In case you were wondering legislating is your job.
9.17.2013
Ms. America
I will get into more detailed thoughts but for now...
So this whole Miss America thing is obviously crazy but its amazing how many South Asians are all of a sudden bothered. Seems we are a lot more bothered because she is Indian...? I mean none of my Indian friends congratulated the last Ms. America and I think she was "American" too. The constant celebratory messages for her success are understandable but are we celebrating the fact that she is American or that she is South Asian...
So this whole Miss America thing is obviously crazy but its amazing how many South Asians are all of a sudden bothered. Seems we are a lot more bothered because she is Indian...? I mean none of my Indian friends congratulated the last Ms. America and I think she was "American" too. The constant celebratory messages for her success are understandable but are we celebrating the fact that she is American or that she is South Asian...
8.16.2013
A few reasons you should get married
Before anyone gets offended this is an excerpt from a funny conversation on the drive home from a Vegas Trip.
A few reasons a guy should get married
You need someone to talk to your mom when she calls
Someone has to cook and clean
Ironing is just not your thing
You need a tax write-off
All those +1 invitations are starting to kill you
You are tired of having sex
A female friend came up with these for why a girl should get married
You need someone to hold the bags while you shop
You could use some extra closet space and a roommate that doesn't need it
Someone has to mow the lawn
Who is going to help me buy the TV for my place
My car is out of warranty and needs some repair work
The damn faucet keeps making a weird noise
You need a tax write off
All those +1 invitations are starting to kill you
Anyone got things to add to the list?
A few reasons a guy should get married
You need someone to talk to your mom when she calls
Someone has to cook and clean
Ironing is just not your thing
You need a tax write-off
All those +1 invitations are starting to kill you
You are tired of having sex
A female friend came up with these for why a girl should get married
You need someone to hold the bags while you shop
You could use some extra closet space and a roommate that doesn't need it
Someone has to mow the lawn
Who is going to help me buy the TV for my place
My car is out of warranty and needs some repair work
The damn faucet keeps making a weird noise
You need a tax write off
All those +1 invitations are starting to kill you
Anyone got things to add to the list?
8.05.2013
What stands before you
Words do not define my purpose
Struggle doesn't define the way
Prose cannot capture the journey
of what stands before you
the destination is the present
the gift is the future
the past illuminates the reality
of what stands before you
The path has been hard some say
others that it is beautiful
The struggle is the fun part
of what stands before you
My ambition is a gift of the past
My purpose a facet of the present
Glory is a mere moment, a mere part
of what stands before you
I like my car, I want a house
but neither is the pulse of my being
These things are the mere possesions
of what stands before you
Words do not define my purpose
Struggle doesn't define the way
Prose cannot capture the journey
of what stands before you
Struggle doesn't define the way
Prose cannot capture the journey
of what stands before you
the destination is the present
the gift is the future
the past illuminates the reality
of what stands before you
The path has been hard some say
others that it is beautiful
The struggle is the fun part
of what stands before you
My ambition is a gift of the past
My purpose a facet of the present
Glory is a mere moment, a mere part
of what stands before you
I like my car, I want a house
but neither is the pulse of my being
These things are the mere possesions
of what stands before you
Words do not define my purpose
Struggle doesn't define the way
Prose cannot capture the journey
of what stands before you
7.18.2013
What i find disturbing
 |
| Picture of the Bomber on the cover of Rolling Stone |
 |
| Boston bombings suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on April 19 as he emerged from a boat stored in a Watertown, Mass., backyard. The red dot of a police sharpshooter's laser sight can be seen on his forehead. |
There has been a lot of backlash to the image of Dzokhar Tsarnaev on the cover of Rolling Stone. I am not sure that the backlash is not deserved, I am not sure what reaction is right or wrong. What occurred was horrific and a whole hosts of different reactions to the image are/should be expected. The image above was released by Sergeant Sean Murphy of the Boston police department in response to the image on the cover of Rolling Stone. He wanted people to know what Dzokhar really looked like, not the images of someone "fluffed and bluffed for the cover of Rolling Stone magazine."
Both images are disturbing in their own rights and both need to be out in the public hemisphere or at least that is my opinion. What I find more disturbing than either image alone is the juxtaposition of them against each other. How did this happen how did the kid/guy in the first image become the guy in the second. Who failed? if that is even the right question. His parents? Other family? School? Society at large? None of us are happy about what happened, and we don't want it to happen again. Understanding the answers to those questions may help us prevent it from happening again... What disturbed him so much that he threw all he had away...
7.08.2013
Really???
*Let me preface this by saying I am not a scholar nor is it my intent to offend anyone. I just find the irony of this whole situation to be perplexing and yet somewhat comedic*
A friend posted this and of course I had the need to respond.
1400+ years of the Islamic Calendar and we still can't agree on moon sighting methodology? Anyone else curious why this only seems to be an issue at the beginning and end of Ramadan. You figure a day here a day there on an annual basis for 1400+ years (354 or 355 days every year) we should have multiple versions of what the Islamic date is today. Yet we seem to have one version with only one standing dispute when Ramadan starts and when Eid is celebrated every year. Otherwise... no one seems to bother... interesting...
6.20.2013
Congress should be fired... period. ALL OF THEM
If Congress approves an increase on Student Loan rates this session, they should all be fired.... period. ALL OF THEM. It makes no sense, there is no rhyme or reason to it. The banks were all lent money by the government at little or no interest. The current fed rate is between 0.0 and .25%. I won't get into the specifics of the fed funds rate. A simple explanation is that it is the rate at which banks borrow from each other. The prime rate is 3.25% and Congress is proposing raising student loan interest rates to 7.6%. At a time when many young people have astronomical student loan debt, bleak job prospects, it seems wise to these guys to raise the student loan interest rate? Yes student's took these loans knowing they would have to pay them back. But you have to be kidding me if you think Major banks are cleaner actors in our economy than students taking loans to get an education... Just my rant for the day. Obviously I am personally effected by student loans and this whole fiasco is frightening, disheartening, and pathetic.
Oh and another side note while we are at it. Did you know that any of you single individuals that make over 80K are more than likely, not going to be able to get any tax deduction for your student loan interest payments.
Oh and another side note while we are at it. Did you know that any of you single individuals that make over 80K are more than likely, not going to be able to get any tax deduction for your student loan interest payments.
6.10.2013
GOAT - Greatest of all time.
With the NBA Finals on tv this week a lot of discussions have taken place between a number of my guy friends about Jordan, Kobe, Lebron ... you get the point. One of these guys said it just seems unfair to compare players from different eras. His point was that we all do make these comparison but the game changes, rules change, etc... Which makes it hard to compare one era to the next. To a large degree I agree so I thought why not compare the players to their own era to see where they stand. I figured a simple analysis of one factor although flawed in its own rights might shed some light on the discussion. What the team's performance was the year after the star player left, or how much did a team's performance improve once the player joined. I figure recapping the world champions starting from the 90's would be a good idea to refresh our memories.
1991 - Chicago Bulls
1992 - Chicago Bulls
1993 - Chicago Bulls
1994 - Houston Rockets
1995 - Houston Rockets
1996 - Chicago Bulls
1997 - Chicago Bulls
1998 - Chicago Bulls
1999 - San Antonio Spurs
2000 - Los Angeles Lakers
2001 - Los Angeles Lakers
2002 - Los Angeles Lakers
2003 - San Antonio Spurs
2004 - Detroit Pistons
2005 - San Antonio Spurs
2006 - Miami Heat
2007 - San Antonio Spurs
2008 - Boston Celtics
2009 - Los Angeles Lakers
2010 - Los Angeles Lakers
2011 - Dallas Mavericks
2012 - Miami Heat
Based on the list I think a few players should be looked at, of course Jordan, and Lebron. Beyond that Shaq is a player that is easy to analyze. Kobe is hard to analyze based on the provided parameters, since he has been on the same team the whole time. Shaq is one way to look at the impact of Kobe since he left the Lakers while Kobe was still there.
Jordan
Jordan left the Chicago Bulls twice first in 1993 and then again in 1998. The 1993 squad had a record of 55-27. In 1994 the record was 47-35 and in 1995 it was 47-35. In 1994 and 1995 the Bulls made the second round of the playoffs. In contrast, in 1996 when Jordan came back their record was 72-10. In 1998 the record was 62-20, in 1999 ... it was 13-37.(It was a shortened season) Coach Phil Jackson, Jordan, Pippen, Dennis Rodman and Steve Kerr all left the team in 1999.
Lebron
Lebron won with Miami but obviously took his talents there after jumping ship from Cleveland. Cleveland's record in 2010 was 61-21. Without Lebron the record the next year was 19-63. Miami's record 2010 was 47-35 and with the addition of both Lebron and Bosh the record the next year was 58-24
Shaq
Shaq played for the Magic, the Lakers and the Heat during his career. In 1996 the Magic had a record of 60-22 and the next year after Shaq's departure the record was 45-37. The Lakers record in 1996 was 53-29 and the next year it was 56-26. The 2004 Lakers had a record of 56-26, the next year the record was 34-48. In 2004 the Miami Heat had a record of 42-40 and the next year the record was 59-23.
So what does all this mean. My take away is that all these great players including Kobe won when they had great supporting casts and didn't fare so well otherwise. The Jordan less Bulls made the 2nd round of the playoffs, and his return meant championships. The Shaq less Lakers didn't make the playoffs. The Lebron less Cavaliers didn't seem like an NBA team. Shaq won titles with two different teams and was a part of three teams going to the NBA Finals. In the one year Kobe didn't have a Shaq, or a Gasol on his squad his team won 34 games and Jordan on the Wizards... well we all know that story.
At this point I want to mention two players mostly because they exemplify great play and great character. Duncan has only played for the Spurs and through his career he has never asked for a trade, asked for more pay, argued the team doesn't have enough talent, etc... If they win the current NBA finals Duncan will have five titles in three decades. Another note, is that Duncan has made the playoffs every year he has been in the league.
The other is Olajuwon who is a favorite of mine to shed some light on his career I have included below the career stats of Shaq, Duncan and Olajuwon, just keep in mind these are career averages. The stats speak for themselves but here are a few simple thoughts. Olajuwon is ninth all time in points, twelfth all time in rebounds, first all time in blocks(he has six hundred more career blocks then number two Dikembe) and eight all time on the steal list. Like Duncan Olajuwon never asked for trades, created strife in the locker rooms... He simply just played. I hope you guys enjoyed the information. Looking forward to your comments.
1991 - Chicago Bulls
1992 - Chicago Bulls
1993 - Chicago Bulls
1994 - Houston Rockets
1995 - Houston Rockets
1996 - Chicago Bulls
1997 - Chicago Bulls
1998 - Chicago Bulls
1999 - San Antonio Spurs
2000 - Los Angeles Lakers
2001 - Los Angeles Lakers
2002 - Los Angeles Lakers
2003 - San Antonio Spurs
2004 - Detroit Pistons
2005 - San Antonio Spurs
2006 - Miami Heat
2007 - San Antonio Spurs
2008 - Boston Celtics
2009 - Los Angeles Lakers
2010 - Los Angeles Lakers
2011 - Dallas Mavericks
2012 - Miami Heat
Based on the list I think a few players should be looked at, of course Jordan, and Lebron. Beyond that Shaq is a player that is easy to analyze. Kobe is hard to analyze based on the provided parameters, since he has been on the same team the whole time. Shaq is one way to look at the impact of Kobe since he left the Lakers while Kobe was still there.
Jordan
Jordan left the Chicago Bulls twice first in 1993 and then again in 1998. The 1993 squad had a record of 55-27. In 1994 the record was 47-35 and in 1995 it was 47-35. In 1994 and 1995 the Bulls made the second round of the playoffs. In contrast, in 1996 when Jordan came back their record was 72-10. In 1998 the record was 62-20, in 1999 ... it was 13-37.(It was a shortened season) Coach Phil Jackson, Jordan, Pippen, Dennis Rodman and Steve Kerr all left the team in 1999.
Lebron
Lebron won with Miami but obviously took his talents there after jumping ship from Cleveland. Cleveland's record in 2010 was 61-21. Without Lebron the record the next year was 19-63. Miami's record 2010 was 47-35 and with the addition of both Lebron and Bosh the record the next year was 58-24
Shaq
Shaq played for the Magic, the Lakers and the Heat during his career. In 1996 the Magic had a record of 60-22 and the next year after Shaq's departure the record was 45-37. The Lakers record in 1996 was 53-29 and the next year it was 56-26. The 2004 Lakers had a record of 56-26, the next year the record was 34-48. In 2004 the Miami Heat had a record of 42-40 and the next year the record was 59-23.
So what does all this mean. My take away is that all these great players including Kobe won when they had great supporting casts and didn't fare so well otherwise. The Jordan less Bulls made the 2nd round of the playoffs, and his return meant championships. The Shaq less Lakers didn't make the playoffs. The Lebron less Cavaliers didn't seem like an NBA team. Shaq won titles with two different teams and was a part of three teams going to the NBA Finals. In the one year Kobe didn't have a Shaq, or a Gasol on his squad his team won 34 games and Jordan on the Wizards... well we all know that story.
At this point I want to mention two players mostly because they exemplify great play and great character. Duncan has only played for the Spurs and through his career he has never asked for a trade, asked for more pay, argued the team doesn't have enough talent, etc... If they win the current NBA finals Duncan will have five titles in three decades. Another note, is that Duncan has made the playoffs every year he has been in the league.
The other is Olajuwon who is a favorite of mine to shed some light on his career I have included below the career stats of Shaq, Duncan and Olajuwon, just keep in mind these are career averages. The stats speak for themselves but here are a few simple thoughts. Olajuwon is ninth all time in points, twelfth all time in rebounds, first all time in blocks(he has six hundred more career blocks then number two Dikembe) and eight all time on the steal list. Like Duncan Olajuwon never asked for trades, created strife in the locker rooms... He simply just played. I hope you guys enjoyed the information. Looking forward to your comments.
4.17.2013
The Party of Family Values...
I needed a break from finals studying so here goes. This is comic relief for me and I hope it gives at least a few of you a laugh as well.
Party of Family Values
When you think family values, how many of you think Republican? Yeah, me too. I don't think they have better family value policies but that is certainly their brand. Let's explore this a little bit.
Mitt Romney - member of a religion that promotes polygamy... hmmm
Arnold Schwarzenegger - love child...
Newt Gingrich - Two divorces, three wives... sanctity of marriage everyone...
Pete Dominici - Some of you may not have heard of him. Former Senator who led the charge against Bill Clinton oh and guess what just recently admitted that he had a love child with the daughter of another Senator.
The icing on top - Mark Sanford - Remember hiking the Appalachian Trail... well he just won the Republican primary for a South Carolina House seat.
You got to give it to them. Politicians in general on both sides provide plenty of fodder, Spitzer, Bill Clinton, Anthony Weiner, but for a party that prides itself on "family values" it just makes you chuckle a little louder.
Back to Finals studying... but before I go just another unrelated note. The state of North Carolina is looking to pass legislation to declare a state religion. These guys love their 2nd Amendment but somehow the 1st Amendment is just lost on them...
Party of Family Values
When you think family values, how many of you think Republican? Yeah, me too. I don't think they have better family value policies but that is certainly their brand. Let's explore this a little bit.
Mitt Romney - member of a religion that promotes polygamy... hmmm
Arnold Schwarzenegger - love child...
Newt Gingrich - Two divorces, three wives... sanctity of marriage everyone...
Pete Dominici - Some of you may not have heard of him. Former Senator who led the charge against Bill Clinton oh and guess what just recently admitted that he had a love child with the daughter of another Senator.
The icing on top - Mark Sanford - Remember hiking the Appalachian Trail... well he just won the Republican primary for a South Carolina House seat.
You got to give it to them. Politicians in general on both sides provide plenty of fodder, Spitzer, Bill Clinton, Anthony Weiner, but for a party that prides itself on "family values" it just makes you chuckle a little louder.
Back to Finals studying... but before I go just another unrelated note. The state of North Carolina is looking to pass legislation to declare a state religion. These guys love their 2nd Amendment but somehow the 1st Amendment is just lost on them...
3.16.2013
DRONES
Alright here is a shocker for most of you I am sure. I am generally not a fan of the Republican party...there I admitted it. Having said that, I have to admit Rand Paul deserves some credit. His thirteen hour filibuster brought attention to a topic many in the media, and otherwise have pretty much ignored. First, let me address another issue quickly, the way Mr. Paul used the filibuster is admirable. In today's Congress where nothing gets done, all too often congressional loop holes are used to defer debate, and where debate seems to be generally discouraged. Mr. Paul put some skin in the game, he found that the issue was important and he remained on the Senate floor for an extended time to get his point across. He didn't use the threat of it, or try any other tricks he just did it. Phew... that is out the way.
So drones... I have some major concerns with the whole idea but the issue breaks down into two major ones for me. First, as american citizens should the recent leaked White House memo that says that drones can be used on our own soil scare us. It scares me, although I am not sure that one can argue that the use would be illegal. If the United States government deems one of us an immediate terror threat they can certainly use guns or any force they deem necessary, drones are no different I suppose. It still scares me though that a robotic device can eliminate targets here or abroad without any due process what so ever. This does not even get into the ability of drones to spy on the population, 1984 anyone? Drones probably fall outside the traditional search and seizure Jurisprudence. It's certainly something we should be aware about. And, lest anyone forgot the current White House is run by a Democrat. We should all be scared by the extra judicial nature of this whole drones scenario.
My second concern, to a large extent we are one of the only countries with drones capable of carrying out military strikes. That means this is an area of first impression and we are making the rules. We have used this power to carry out attacks abroad often without getting permission from host countries. Our government decides that someone is a threat to America and sends an unmanned aircraft violating foreign airspace and carries out an attack. I have had this argument with some people and they contend that it is the only way to capture or kill some of these terrorists. The ends justify the means in their minds and I can see a lot of appeal in that logic. But, we have to be careful. We are setting an example that other nations may soon follow.
Let me take a stab at a very disconcerting parallel. Nuclear weapons, America is the only country to have used them in an attack. Ever since, the world has been back tracking from the use of nuclear weapons. North Korea, Pakistan, and Iran all worry us because at the push of a button these weapons could cause massive damage. What if Iran had drone capability and a rogue leader in Cuba allowed the Iranians to fly drones from Cuba. The Cubans believe that their latest leader was a target of an assassination attempt by the CIA and they know who the agent is.(They are correct in that the US attempted to carry out the assassination) An American spy tried to kill their leader certainly sounds like a threat that rises to the level of national security. The next day the Cubans/Iranians carry out a drone attack on a high rise in Miami where the CIA operative was believed to be living. Sound scary... it should... we have the power, what kind of example are we setting.
BTW this is an Obama problem not a Bush problem. The rate, frequency and sheer number of drone attacks under President Obama is far higher than under President Bush. I am interested to see what comments people have about this issue.
So drones... I have some major concerns with the whole idea but the issue breaks down into two major ones for me. First, as american citizens should the recent leaked White House memo that says that drones can be used on our own soil scare us. It scares me, although I am not sure that one can argue that the use would be illegal. If the United States government deems one of us an immediate terror threat they can certainly use guns or any force they deem necessary, drones are no different I suppose. It still scares me though that a robotic device can eliminate targets here or abroad without any due process what so ever. This does not even get into the ability of drones to spy on the population, 1984 anyone? Drones probably fall outside the traditional search and seizure Jurisprudence. It's certainly something we should be aware about. And, lest anyone forgot the current White House is run by a Democrat. We should all be scared by the extra judicial nature of this whole drones scenario.
My second concern, to a large extent we are one of the only countries with drones capable of carrying out military strikes. That means this is an area of first impression and we are making the rules. We have used this power to carry out attacks abroad often without getting permission from host countries. Our government decides that someone is a threat to America and sends an unmanned aircraft violating foreign airspace and carries out an attack. I have had this argument with some people and they contend that it is the only way to capture or kill some of these terrorists. The ends justify the means in their minds and I can see a lot of appeal in that logic. But, we have to be careful. We are setting an example that other nations may soon follow.
Let me take a stab at a very disconcerting parallel. Nuclear weapons, America is the only country to have used them in an attack. Ever since, the world has been back tracking from the use of nuclear weapons. North Korea, Pakistan, and Iran all worry us because at the push of a button these weapons could cause massive damage. What if Iran had drone capability and a rogue leader in Cuba allowed the Iranians to fly drones from Cuba. The Cubans believe that their latest leader was a target of an assassination attempt by the CIA and they know who the agent is.(They are correct in that the US attempted to carry out the assassination) An American spy tried to kill their leader certainly sounds like a threat that rises to the level of national security. The next day the Cubans/Iranians carry out a drone attack on a high rise in Miami where the CIA operative was believed to be living. Sound scary... it should... we have the power, what kind of example are we setting.
BTW this is an Obama problem not a Bush problem. The rate, frequency and sheer number of drone attacks under President Obama is far higher than under President Bush. I am interested to see what comments people have about this issue.
3.07.2013
Are Republicans Patriots?
Before I start. Let me point out that this is a rant. I did not do research about past Presidents so feel free to correct me if I am off base.
This is ridiculous. A few nights ago, the First Lady of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA not the the DEMOCRATS OF AMERICA came on the Oscars. She thanked the actors for their support of the arts, but honestly I don't care what she said. This constant criticism of anything the Obama's do is getting a little tiresome. Obama has a private golfing trip and the right wing media goes crazy. His life is tiring so the guy decided to play a private round of golf. The last guy was constantly on vacation in case you forgot. Obama's daughters were used in an ad by the NRA. SOME deference and respect would be nice. He has been called a liar at a State of the Union. Let's not forget he wasn't born here. I get challenging where he was born while he is running but once he is the President than there has to be some sort of level of respect for the office. Nothing he does is beyond reproach.
I understand that him and his family signed up for this, but civility should matter. I have differing opinions from my classmates sometimes starkly differing but I don't accuse them of anything that comes to mind. Have a principled argument and leave the other stuff alone... I am waiting... waiting for some prominent Republican to say look he is our President. But then again I am waiting for civility... have you seen our Congressional leaders (Democrats included) lately... what civility...
President Obama nominates Chuck Hagel, a REPUBLICAN, and now the Republicans don't like him. They confirmed him but not before threatening a filibuster. What kind of clout is Hagel going to have when he speaks on behalf of the nation abroad.
I understand that the Republicans and Democrats disagree on a lot of things. A healthy debate is the center of a thriving democracy. Unfortunately lately it doesn't seem like a healthy debate. There is no debate... there is no progress and I for one seriously question the loyalty of Republicans to the United States of America. I am not suggesting that Joe Smith Republican in Iowa is not a patriot. He believes in his country and elected people to represent him. Part of the responsibility of that representation is to govern. For the last four years the Republican party's mission has been to make sure Obama did not get reelected, not to govern. That seems blatantly unpatriotic. They lost the last election (by popular vote they lost the House too, gerrymandering has served the Republicans well) and there has really been no change in their position.
Which brings to another issue I have with the Republican party. Although the right to vote is not explicit in the Constitution it is certainly implied. There is a fundamental concept that people should get to vote. The Women's suffrage movement, the Civil War certainly show that. How then does the party think it patriotic to no win elections by winning the vote but by restricting those that can. Voter fraud is just not that large of an issue. You have a better chance of being hit by lightning than discovering an incident of polling place fraud.
I understand that him and his family signed up for this, but civility should matter. I have differing opinions from my classmates sometimes starkly differing but I don't accuse them of anything that comes to mind. Have a principled argument and leave the other stuff alone... I am waiting... waiting for some prominent Republican to say look he is our President. But then again I am waiting for civility... have you seen our Congressional leaders (Democrats included) lately... what civility...
President Obama nominates Chuck Hagel, a REPUBLICAN, and now the Republicans don't like him. They confirmed him but not before threatening a filibuster. What kind of clout is Hagel going to have when he speaks on behalf of the nation abroad.
I understand that the Republicans and Democrats disagree on a lot of things. A healthy debate is the center of a thriving democracy. Unfortunately lately it doesn't seem like a healthy debate. There is no debate... there is no progress and I for one seriously question the loyalty of Republicans to the United States of America. I am not suggesting that Joe Smith Republican in Iowa is not a patriot. He believes in his country and elected people to represent him. Part of the responsibility of that representation is to govern. For the last four years the Republican party's mission has been to make sure Obama did not get reelected, not to govern. That seems blatantly unpatriotic. They lost the last election (by popular vote they lost the House too, gerrymandering has served the Republicans well) and there has really been no change in their position.
Which brings to another issue I have with the Republican party. Although the right to vote is not explicit in the Constitution it is certainly implied. There is a fundamental concept that people should get to vote. The Women's suffrage movement, the Civil War certainly show that. How then does the party think it patriotic to no win elections by winning the vote but by restricting those that can. Voter fraud is just not that large of an issue. You have a better chance of being hit by lightning than discovering an incident of polling place fraud.
We do however have an epidemic of a problem with voter turnout. The voter turnout in 2012 was 57.5% of all eligible voters. We need to find a way to increase the number of people that vote not decrease it.
Webster's defines a patriot as "one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests." Elected Republican officials need to look at the larger picture and support the country's interests. Calling President Obama a liar, chastising the First lady for an Oscar appearance, trying to reduce the voter rolls does not support the country's interests.
Webster's defines a patriot as "one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests." Elected Republican officials need to look at the larger picture and support the country's interests. Calling President Obama a liar, chastising the First lady for an Oscar appearance, trying to reduce the voter rolls does not support the country's interests.
1.28.2013
Tom's Shoes... Pig suede?
"TOMS shoes uses pig suede for the insole of their shoes. FAIL! Moslem friends, i'm sorry for being the bearer of bad news."
This was the status for one of my friends Google chat accounts. I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong with it but it got me thinking. Tom's uses pig suede in the insoles of their shoes, this is not a rumor it is confirmed on their website. You know what else is confirmed... for every pair of shoes you but from them they will give one pair of shoes to a poor child that is in need. The latter part sounds like a pretty Islamic idea albeit from a non-islamic company. I don't know if Muslims should or should not wear Tom's that I figure is everyone's own choice. There are some other facts that do give me pause though.
Nike was accused and has admitted to using Child Labor all over the planet. Sounds pretty unethical perhaps Muslims shouldn't wear Nike's.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1020-01.htm
Hershey has also been accused of Child Labor infractions, perhaps Muslims shouldn't eat Hershey's Chocolate. In fact most chocolate is probably the result of Child Labor.
http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2012/11/16/hershey-child-labor-suit/
http://theithacan.org/27273
Do you like Cotton? A lot of cotton production has been implicated in Child Labor violations.How about Diamonds? How about Rubber? Apple Ipad anyone?
Child Labor is just one cause that came to mind. I am no religious scholar but the status just made me wonder. Is the Almighty worried about the fact that a company that helps the poor uses pig suede? or that the national economy of a country like ours is predicated upon exploiting children for their labor? I am not suggesting that I have an answer, questions like this always puzzle me. The status just got my juices flowing and the rant you just read followed. The post is about Islam and Muslims but I think is applicable to most religious beliefs. Hopefully some of you have comments to share. Thanks for reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)