Part One


On 8 August 2008 at 10 am Russia officially attacked the Republic of Georgia.
I don't think any explanation is necessary here.


CNN article


Timeline

Recently a man called the Police on a subway because he was dissatisfied with his sandwich. Apparently he order an Italian BMT with the works and was angry when it didn't contain mayo and mustard, even though Subway lists what is included in "the works." He ended up calling them twice. When they finally came they took him to jail(good for 'em). Calls like this are a waste of our emergency resources. An operator could be dealing with an actual emergency instead of a sandwich. Unfortunately, these types of calls are fairly common.

CNN recently reported that Russia and Cuba are trying to reestablish relations including establishing a Russian nuclear weapons base in Cuba. This is the cold war all over again. In 1962 US spy planes caught the Soviets installing missile silos in Cuba. After this information was found out, the US and Soviets entered an intense series of negotiations to remove the weapons. The Soviets agreed to remove their weapons on the condition that the US remove its missiles from Turkey. Now we're doing again except that this time I think it may be our(the US fault). The US recently installed a set of missile launch pads in Eastern Europe(former members of the Soviet Union). We said that the missiles were designed to go against possible rouge nations like Iran and Pakistan. The Russians didn't believe us. They feel the missiles to be a direct threat to them. In fact, before the deal to install missiles in E. Europe was even signed Russia warned that they may have to take counteraction. Well, they are. Hopefully we can reach a peaceful agreement to end the conflict again. A Nuclear War between the US and Russia can literally destroy the planet. Both counties house over 5,000 warheads. In fact, each respective country caries more warheads than every other country of the world combined! Hopefully, in the coming year we elect a president who can handle this situation as coolly and decisively as J. F. Kennedy did.


edit 8 August 2008: see Cold War II: Part Two

In recent years the Bill of Rights has come under attack from our own government leaders. This attack is, surprisingly, the only thing that is done in the modern day Congress in a bipartisan fashion. The Democrats and Republicans, collectively the "Republicrats," are stepping on our rights. They are purposely destroying the constitution bit by bit. Why aren't we, the people, stopping them? Ignorance. Unfortunately, most Americans know nothing about the constitution or the bill of rights, so they wouldn't even know that their rights have been taken. I'm sure you've seen the movie Super Size Me where a group of Americans asked to do the pledge of allegiance and can't complete it, but they are able to list the ingredients of the Big Mac like it was nothing. So, back to the point, I was searching online through Google and came across the Modernized Bill of Rights over at Kmareka. You'll quickly notice that it accurately describes the situation that we are in.

I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

II. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall no be infringed.

III. No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner; nor in the time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

IV. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

V. No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service, in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy o life or limb; nor shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of the law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

VI. In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and casue of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favour; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.

VII. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved; and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of the common law.

VIII. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

IX. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That is it. This is our world. And as time progresses more of our rights are being crossed off of the Constitution. It doens't look like it's going to be any better. The Republicrats seem bent on destroying the Bill of Rights. That's why I support Bob Barr and the Libertarian Party.

A new ad by presidential nominee Bob Barr. It focuses on how over the last 220 years our rights, as in the bill of rights, have been stamped on and denied.

We've known for a couple of years now that America was basically the fattest country on earth. In fact, over the past two years since this research was published, the size of the Average American got bigger [insert fat joke here]. In 2005 when the research was first published only 23.9% of Americans were Obese(as in so fat that it causes health problems). By 2007 the number had grown to 25.6%. This is pathetic. The worst part about this isn't that a quarter of American are Obese. It's that after we found out about it, instead of losing the weight, we gained more. That's what doesn't make sense to me. Meanwhile, people are wondering why their healthcare costs are rising and why they can't get insurance. Well, look at yourself. By this, I don't mean metaphorically reflect on your behavior; I mean get a mirror and look! What are the causes of this epidemic? Well I think there are a few causes. One is that we have lots of food. Let's face it. In many other countries, particularly those in the former 3rd world, it would be impossible eat that much because there ain't that much food. Another reason going along with this is a type of old world mentality. In areas were food was scarce, being fat was a status symbol. It showed that you could afford food. But in modern US almost everyone can afford food, so being fat means nothing status-wise. The third reason I believe is the "fat acceptance movement." Everyone has their own movement for equal rights; I believe in that. But's that not what this movement is about. It's not about voting or having basic rights as in the civil rights movement of the 50-60's or women's rights movement of the 10's and 20's. This is about spreading the idea that being fat is perfectly healthy for you. And it's gaining ground. Rather than looking to lose weight and become healthy, people are simply saying that people who act against them are prejudice, against the fat. I'm sorry my dear, but if you are more likely to become hospitalized, you should pay more in health insurance. Now let's make this clear right now. Im not against fat people. It's just not healthy. I also think that smokers and heavy drinkers should pay more in health insurance for the same reasons. We shouldn't try, as a nation, to cover up our problems by saying "this is natural"; we should instead attack the problem directly. Let's get active. We all love sports why don't play them for real instead of on XBox?

Yep. I love talking about taxes. Why? Cause it's my f@#king money. The tax system as we now know it is a very bad system. We lose up to 40% of our income each year to the federal government. In fact the average American family works 3 months a year just to pay the fed. That isn't right. My previous post on the the Fair Tax was meant to be a possible solution to that. Instead of paying the fed from income we instead had a 23% national sales tax. Rebates would be given for lower income families, so that they will have more money to buy food, housing, etc.
Today, I want to talk about another plan the Automated Payment Transaction Tax. It was created by Edgar L. Feige a Professor Emeritus (aka retired professor) of Economics at U of Wisconsin. The APTT is similar to the fair tax in some respects. It eliminates the IRS and proposes a system that taxes financial transactions instead of income. Unlike the fair tax, however, it taxes every financial transaction not just sales. Because of this, lower rates can be charged. In fact, the tax rate will be dropped to .3% or 3/1000. How? This new tax levies against any transaction. Here's an example:
Your family makes $50k a year. For the sake of simplicity we will say that you get paid it all in one lump sum at the end of the year. When your check comes in you would pay .3% in taxes: $150. Now the company that you guys work for also has made a transaction, giving you money, so they pay $150 in taxes. And also for the sake of simplicity you spend every cent of your $50k income every year. So you pay another $150 for spending your money, and the corporations that receive your money pay $150. All in all you pay $300, and the companies work with pay $300 for a total of $600.
Now, I'm sure you're wondering, "where does the money come from then?" Well the APTT taxes all transactions. So, you go to McDonald's and spend $5 on a combo, You pay $.015 in tax and McDonald's pays $.015 in tax. Now you go to the bank and take out $500 to pay a bill. You're taxed $1.50 in tax, the bank pays $1.50. But still, this isn't the bulk of the taxation. The bulk of the taxation occurs and stock trades, and foreign transactions. That's right. Under the current system stocks and foreign transactions aren't taxed like normal income. Because of this many leaders of hedge funds and stock trading companies only pay 15% in current income taxes. That's right. We pay a third of our cash, while the richest people in the world pay 15%. In fact, foreign transactions aren't taxed at all. The APTT will begin to charge people from converting their cash from Euros to dollars or vice versa. Also, due to the transaction fee, all US stocks owned by foreign entities will now be taxed. Under the current system only US citizens pay tax, so a foreigner can have all of his investments in US assets and not pay any taxes. These two things will provide for the bulk of the revenue under the APTT. Also, by taxing transactions, we essentially create progressive tax system. The poor, who won't have many assets to transact, pay less tax. Those with multimillions, and multibillions in stocks will now pay the brunt of the taxes, even though it will still only be a tax of 3 cents on every $10 you make, so it won't even dent their pockets. Not bad.
The main problem that could arise here is the question of whether people will continue trading stocks like the used to. Well, if for example stock trades drop to half as much as they are now, then it's already been worked out by Professor Feige that we will just pay twice the tax or .6%. Still not that much money. In addition to this, the use of this tax system will also save the government billions of dollars a year. How? Well, under the current system we have to pay for the IRS and all of its workers. If we eliminate the IRS then we eliminate the money we have to pay for it. Even under the fair tax, we would have to pay some government agents to give out rebates and prebates, and someone has to process all the paperwork for them. With the APTT, however, we won't even need that. Once we program the cash registers to automatically send .6% to the fed(.3 from you and .3 from the company), we won't have to worry about it anymore. We wouldn't even have to fill out forms. In fact, we would end up saving even more millions of dollars on paper and ink, because we would no longer need the forms. Not to mention checking for errors, distribution, and processing. Basically, the APTT would do it all for us. So I that is why I think everyone should check out the APTT.

Yeah, that's right the fair tax. What is that? The fair tax is a new way for the federal government to collect taxes other than the income tax. Proponents of the fair tax say that it will make a "fair" substitution for the federal income tax. Instead of paying taxes on income instead the fed would levy a national sales tax of 23%. This means that instead of having to pay up to 35% in taxes per year before you even receive your money, instead money will be taxed on how you use it. If you spend a lot and buy a lot of stuff then you will, in turn, pay a lot of taxes. Conversely, if you don't spend money you won't have taxes. Unlike under the current system, you will not be taxed for saving.
What's the problem then? Why dont we use the fair tax now? Well there are a few reasons. One is ignorance. Most people don't know about the fair tax. How could we implement it if we don't know about it? The second major reason is a question of what is "fair"? It seems like a tax break for the rich and a burden for the poor similar to a flat tax. That, however, is not true. The fair tax is "fair." While those in higher income brackets will pay a flat 23% sales tax, those in lower incomes will receive tax rebates and prebates against the fair tax. So they will not receive an unfair burden of taxation as in the flat tax. In fact much like the current system the poor pay less than the rich. The major difference is that it taxes expenses rather than income.
Proponents of the fair tax says this is a good thing. Taxes on expense rather than income will also encourage Americans to improve themselves as people. It will encourage Americans to save more money because only consumed income is taxed. If you save, you get to keep your money. It also serves to simplify the tax code by levying a flat 23% tax instead of varying strata. This saves time in completing taxes, because they are all 23%, and the money the governments spends looking over taxes. In fact the entire Internal Revenue Service Administration(IRS) could(and will) be abolished. Also the current tax system rewards underreporting of financial figures and underachievement e.g.: by our current tax system if a single person makes $77,100 he will be taxed at 25%, but if he makes on dollar more $77,101 he will have to pay 28% in taxes. When calculated mathematically this causes a net loss in income of $2312.28 for making only a dollar more per year. That just doesn't make sense. And that's why we need fair tax. Because being taxed $2312.28 for a dollar just aint' right.

Basically the argument in this blog is that it's time for an end to the reign of the Republican and Democratic Parties. They have grown old and corrupted; they need to be stopped. When America was founded our great leader George Washington warned against the formation of political parties that could stifle the growth of America due to partisan bickering. Unfortunately, we didn't listen. Only 4 years after the ratification of the constitution(immediately after Washington's first terms) the first parties were formed. They were the Federalists(Adams) and the Anti-Federalists AKA Democratic Republicans(Jefferson). Adams tried to follow the advice of Washington. He appointed Jefferson to be his Vice President, but Jefferson only used the position to poison him politically. This began the long history of partisan bickering known as American politics. Luckily, in the beginning the argument was constructive. We were making the base for a country: argument was necessary to make the best decisions. I actually have nothing against it. The problem is the current lack of debate. No one even listens to the issues anymore; they just vote down the party lines. Nothing ever gets done this way. This is not how it was originally. In the beginning we did have political parties, but they were not the voting machines they are now. They lasted for a few years and after the argument was over; they disappeared. The Federalist lasted form 1792 until 1816. By this time the people of America had come together in consensus with the Democratic-Republic Party which became the main party of the US. By the late 1820's this was no longer true. The Democratic Republicans once again split into the Jacksonian Democrats and the National Republican Party. Once again opening the floor for honest debate in America. By 1833 the National Republicans had joined the Whig party. Meaning it was now Whig v. Democrats. An honest battle. Once again debate caused the Whig party to split into the Whig and the Republican party(1854). Basically what Im saying here is that we lost our diversity of ideas, and the desire to truly improve America. The Federalists, Whigs, and National Republicans each lasted for less than a quarter-century. They did their work and dissipated. The new mega-parties have lasted for over a century and a half. That's fully 6 times as long as the other parties. They have grown so accustomed to ruling that they work more to gain power than to improve America. Do you that there only 2 Senators out of 100 that aren't strictly Democrat of Republican. One of these 3 Joe Lieberman, actually a Democrat but has the fortitude to not follow the party bosses. The other is a self-described Democratic Socialist. None of the 435 members of the House of Representatives is independent. See what I mean? When everything is done by partisanship, and there are only two parties we always get a stalemate. By introducing new parties, even if they do vote along party lines, new ideas will be spread and work can be done. Imagine if the Democrats and the Republicans had to fight over that tie-breaking 10% of the congress each time a vote came up instead of having an automatic stalemate. They have to submit ideas that actually made sense and would work. That's why I say vote Libertarian or Green or whatever. Just get some fresh blood in congress and we can finally get some work done.

This is just an update on the economy and how each of the presidential candidates views it. First of all we are in a recession; some say the worst recession since the Great Depression. This means we need to nip this "economy" thing in the bud NOW. We cant afford to go any deeper in the whole than we are now. I believe the economy is the most important issue to the US now. Some say it's healthcare, social security, or the war in Iraq. I say, they are right. The economy is affected by all of these things, so I always address all of them when I refer to the economy. First I'll give a brief summary of each candidate's views.

Barack Obama:
This kid is a rookie. He's only been in the senate since 2005. That said, his plan is surprisingly mature for someone with only two years of experience(I won't count his last year since it was spent campaigning). He is and has been against the war in Iraq since even before it started. He plans to remove all combat troops from Iraq by 16 months after inauguration. He also boast numerous plans to better social security for seniors. He supports increasing social security taxes on the rich. By current laws only the first 102k a person makes per year can be taxed by social security. He also plans to eliminate taxes for seniors who make less than 50k a year. This will all bring in more revenue for seniors. As far as healthcare, Obama believes in universal child healthcare and create an affordable voluntary plan for everyone else. He also plans to lower taxes for the working class/lower middle class. He plans to increase taxes on the rich/upper middle class and industry to help compensate for some of these aims.

John McCain:
Old to congress. Very old in fact. His plan is essentially the opposite of Obama's. He calls for staying the course in Iraq while improving strategy so that we can actually win. His website is unclear on social security. For healthcare he promotes less government interference. He will repeal some of the regulations on private industry which would allow healthcare providers to lower their costs. He also plans to lower taxes on industry in general to promote innovation and creation of new technologies. He wants to keep the Bush tax cuts.

Bob Barr:
Old. Used to be a Republican. His plan for Iraq is a mixture of the above two. He does plan to leave Iraq, but he wants to do without an artificial time table. There will be a timetable, but it will be natural. Also it won't be publically revealed. His plan for healthcare is similar to McCain's: cut regulations and let the markets self regulate. Probably the most radical of his ideas is on social security. The Libertarian's Party's stance on social security is that it shouldn't exist. People should make their own savings. The LP even proposes giving Americans a tax credit for saving privately. He also plans to abolish the income tax and instead levy a federal sales tax.

Conclusion:
Who has the best plan. While the libertarian's of course. Obama's plan for healthcare and social security is comprehensive and it would help a lot of people, but how are supposed to pay for that. We're already in recession, and he claims he won't raise taxes. Also raises taxes on industry just hurts America. The companies just pass the extra fee on to the people. Next Iraq. We can't just leave in 16 months. That's giving the enemy a playbook. They'll just wait 16 mon and 1 day and then attack. McCain's view of Iraq is wrong also. We are wasting billions of dollars over there each year. If we want to fix the economy we will need that money for capital. That's why the LP wins on the war. They plan to withdraw, which makes financial sense, but not in a way that would definitely be harmful to the general public. And his plan on Social Security is also dead on. If we are going to fix the economy we need to save money somewhere. Social Security is the 3rd most costly thing according to the 2007 budget at $626.4 billion per year. Imagine what we could do with an extra $625 billion dollars a year! People were never supposed to live off of SS anyways. In the 1930's when this plan was created it was expected that you would die very soon after turning 65. No one was supposed to live into there 80's as is common today. Also there were less old people. Back then the ratio of taxpayers to old people receiving benefits was 16:1. Now it is 3:1 and soon becoming 2:1. With the baby boomer retiring soon we just won't be able to keep up. The same can be said with healthcare. We don't want to add even more debt to our economy as in Obama's plan. So, I say, for the sake of the economy
Bob Barrfor president2008

oh. and Im open for debate. Let's do this. There could be some good ideas out there. Particularly from some of the Romney people(he was my guy before he dropped out)

I read an article today. It was in the NY Times, and it was about gay marriage. Basically it said that in Massachusetts, where gay people have had the right to wed since 2004, no one is getting married anymore. Why? Well, they basically figured out that marriage is not all its cracked up to be. The rate of marriages has declined steadily since 2004 when most of the marriages were performed. In addition to this, many gay couples are now getting divorces just like in the general heterosexual public. One story sourced I found particularly interesting; it was about a lesbian couple. They married while one of them was pregnant. After marriage, the pregnant one decided she was straight! That's right she like-a the boys now. Another story covered a pair of gay guys one of whom just didn't want to marry his partner. The article also mentioned the burdens of marriage. Married couples have to pay higher tax percentages than single people. Also even though the people are "married" in Massachusetts they do not receive married people benefits such as Social Security from the federal government, who doesn't recognize their marriage. Also I found out that gay couples have problems securing adoptions internationally. People, particular those from third world countries, don't want to give a child to gay people. As a result gays have to file for adoptions as single. Then there are those who just don't want to be married. Some couple see marriage as an outdated patriarchal ritual. Basically, marriage sucks for the gays. Sorry.

I watched C-Span again yesterday(yes people do actually watch that channel). It was a debate being held by a few members of the House of Representatives. There were a few topics that I saw. One was on the US gaining energy independence and the other was on the new NASA budget. Two completely unrelated things, yes? NO! They are very related. The debate over energy went by the usual strands. Republicans blamed the Democrats for the US's energy problems. The recent spikes in the cost of fuel for instance happened under the current Deomcrat Majority in Congress. The increase in the fuel cost in turn raises the prices of everything else because we must transport all of our goods: food, drinks, clothes etc. Basically the Democrats ruined the economy. How? They and the environmentalist refuse to let the US drill for its own oil in areas were protected species of animals live. Meanwhile, in places like California, they also limit the amount of fuel that can be made from things like coal, and oil and encourage more production of wind and alternative energy. Because of the lack of enough wind and alternative energy capacity, however, there are frequent rolling blackouts throughout the state. Democrats, unsuprisingly, blame the problems on the Republicans. After all the spike in gas prices did occur under a Republican president. One who comes from a family invested in the oil industry. He and his buddies in the oil industry are making record profits while the American people suffer. Also they site that American oil companies do not drill to their maximum potential. Instead of opening new grounds to be mined we should just us ALL of our currently available oil supplies. Who's right? As per usual they are both partially right, but not entirely right. The Dems are right. The American people did this to themselves. We bought and bought and we didn't even look towards the consequences. We became dependent on a very inefficient system. Now we have to buy overpriced fuel because we have no alternative. Encouraging alternative fuel was a good idea. Republicans are right also. Encouraging alternative fuels while limiting our current fuels leaves the American populous underserved. Where does NASA fit in? NASA was the one are where there was cooperation across the board, although not very many. They proposed increasing the budget for the usual reasons: military defense and as a show of American power. The last reason I saw was, or at least I think it was, the answer. Increase the NASA budget and use NASA to develop new fuel technologies. What that makes no sense! Use the Federal Administration that first put a man on the moon to create technology. I mean what did they invent. No one uses rockets and jet engines to go across the countries on "planes." Those computer things that NASA used to do math calculations, they'll never catch on. Wireless phone communication for the astronauts, useless; people would never carry their phones around with them. And we all know that NASA never works with agencies such as the Air Force or private companies like Boeing to create new technologies such as the NASA/Boeing X-48 prototype. We also know that this work with private industry never creates American jobs. After all, no one builds these things; they make themselves. No one has to design, build, or test it. And we of course no that NASA doesnt care about fuel costs. After all when someone only uses 2,857,805 lb of fuel per takeoff(the space shuttle) they don't care about fuel prices. It definately wouldn't save NASA billions of dollars per year to find alternative fuel sources. And of course places like the Air Force(which is one of NASA's biggest partners) aren't already working on the technology. So basically this is a horrible idea. We should instead create more drilling areas, which, of course, will not be operational for at least ten years. Or we should invest all of our time in wind, and starve the markest forcing us into energy shortages. Either that, or we can let the people who are literally rocket scientist figure out a solution.

    I went to the Visa website recently and I noticed an interesting fact. Those Visa people really know their audience. That is the people that they can entrap in the vicious cycle of credit card debt. How did I see it? The advertisements. The advertisements focused on one group of people: black people. Let me make it clear now, I am a black person. This is not hate speech. I'm just pointing out how the companies try to ensnare the innocent. Anyways back to the story. I saw four adds. Of the four, 3 of them were ads only containing black people. The other one was had people of several groups including black. All I'm saying is this. These adds are tailor made for one group of people. You mights say "hey, that's just a coincidence!" Well, is it? It does make sense to see an ad with black people in it. We make up a significant portion of the US population. Credit card companies obviously want to tap into this market too. But with six out of 9 people I saw in those ads being black(the first add had 3 people the fourth one had 4), that is not a representative number. We make up about 1/7(about 14%) of the US population but these ads were 6/9(67%) black. That doesnt add up. Even if we assume people for the ads were chosen randomly and not representatively, this still does not account for a 67% representation. The chances of that happening randomly is at about 0.048%. It's less than 1% chance. That's not very likely then. There is only one real explanation: it was planned. Or at least it is a 99.952% chance that it was planned. Basically what Im saying here is think before you act. Dont think that these companies are trying to you. They only mean to exploit you and make profits. Make responsible decisions. They're catering to us because they think we're too stupid to see their trap. Just think first. Dont become a slave to the corporations.

--Professor JP