Yes, immigrants do many of the jobs Americans don’t want. But I think the better question is why are there jobs Americans don’t want to do? When did we as American decide that we don’t want to pick strawberries, clean houses, cook food in kitchens or dig holes for new homes? I think the answer to that is to ask, when did working class Americans determined it was easier or more profitable to make a living somewhere else. I’ll point to two areas in our society that have provided alternate methods of income for working class Americans, illegal trafficking and welfare. I’ll focus on welfare.
Our society is a product of our economy. We live in a moderated capitalist economy with social stilts. The American dream does live on. People in American have more opportunity then any country in the world to change their economic class. There are people stumbling blindly into fame, future and wealth every day. I should also point out there are more people then ever competing for those opportunities, so overall the chance are more numerous, the possibility is probably less then it was 100 years ago. In our growing economy we have created a class of entitled poor. Our poor citizens in the United States live in a world 100 times better then poor in the poorest third world countries. I’d like to point out a whole lot of lazy people are sitting around watching Jerry Springer on cable from the comfort of their air conditioned government housing. We have created an alternate opportunity for our citizens to turn down low paying or physically demanding jobs in return for lazy government support. People are people and without an economic motivator this will not change.
This entitled serfdom is the answer to the part of the question, “jobs Americans don’t want.” If there was no social reform to provide our poor with necessitates they need, then one of two things would happen. They would either violently revolt or they would change their opinions of jobs they “don’t want” and begin to work as cleaner, field workers, cooks and hole diggers.
I know this isn’t part of the question, but I wonder is it good for American that immigrants are doing the jobs we don’t want. I believe there will always be poor in every society. Primarily because I believe in the faults of man and we are in general a very lazy people. If it wasn’t for our intelligence, we would probably be extinct. After all it was our laziness that invented the wheel, the fire, the spear, the gun, the ship the car and so on. It’s our intelligence that says, I don’t like this and I want to change it. How can I do this another way? There will always be people who push us a species forward and those that pull us backwards. Is it good that we as a country are exploiting the services of people from a poorer country just because we don’t want to do these jobs? These jobs exist because we need them. We need holes, cleaning and cooking to grow. This sounds a lot like a spoiled child that doesn’t clean up because, “I don’t want to.”
I have always argued that social reforms are often necessary evils, but evils all the same. That in a perfect world, we would let free markets determine the fate of our people. In a completely free market there would be no welfare and no black markets. All goods and services would set their prices based on market demand. Individuals would either work or not work. They would live or not live. And if picking strawberries in the hot sun was so terrible that no one wanted to do it, someone would invent the Strawberry Gin.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Monday, September 22, 2008
Should You Vote?
There's a lot going on in the Race to the White House for 2008. I love politics and the presidential elections are my favorite. Did you you know as a voter, you are actually more influential in non presidential election. Anyway, one question I always hear people ask is, "should I vote in the next election?"
No, you should NOT vote in the next election. It really isn’t worth it. If you have to ask the question, then the founding fathers were correct in their plans to create a political system simple enough to empower people to manage a country's future while complex enough to deter ignorant citizens from screwing things up. I love this debate. We all have heard the campaigns to "get the vote out" or "rock the vote." We've been told since small children that our founding fathers rebelled against the oppression of “taxation without representation” so that we would hav the right to vote and choose our representation. And my favorite, “many Americans have died to give us the right to vote.” Things are not as they seem. First, I don’t believe it was ever the intent of our founding fathers to let everyone vote. In fact I know they didn’t since they excluded blacks and women. Was that wrong? Yes and no. Yes it is wrong to discriminate a person from voting solely on their sex or race. We as a society have evolved and taken action, thanks to the Constitution to changes this. However, I believe early requirements for voting we truly directed to empower land owning educated white men to vote in the elections. Why? Were our founding father’s racist women hating supremacist? No, I believe they were realist that understood government’s purpose is to provide basic services to the citizens and protect them from other governments. They also recognized that the best examples of government were those that did not empower a king or small group of individuals to manage the affairs of the state, rather a representative sampling of the people who were educated and would act in the best interests of their communities. Imagine, the chaos if every man and women in the newly formed country possessed the equal power to vote. I would argue that if our current system for selecting our leadership existing then as does today. England would only have to spend a lot of money advertising an attractive presidential leader and we would have never rebelled. You do realize at the start of the revolution conservatively 50% of the colonists were loyal to the King and if given a fair election would have elected to NOT rebel. Lucky of us, I guess, a large group of educated men believed it would be better in the long run to first fight for freedom before asking the general, yet limited, population to select a new leader.
I could argue that there will never be and can never be a euphoric world where everyone is equal and therefore all equally educated with the matters of state they cast their vote in support. I know this sounds terrible to the idealist that truly believes this euphoria can exist like the world we see on TV in Star Trek. This is a separate debate. However, my point is simply this. When our country was founded it was founded by mostly white, wealthy Protestants who were rebelling against a government that didn’t understand the challenges they faced in the New World. These men wanted to put a government in place that would allow for the creation of a republic that would be represented by white, wealthy, seemly educated Protestants. And in order to preserve this system of government had to empower people who would continue to elect them to power. When the dust settled they revolutionaries needed to expand this to white men who were at least educated enough to fight an embrace the challenges of the New World.
Now before I go one, I need to address the changes to the Constitution that ultimately gave every citizen the privilege to vote once they were 18. Was this a good thing? This increased the potential voters to include more seemly educated people who now include other races and both genders. (Did you ever wonder how hermaphrodites were treated before 1920? Could they vote?) However, why 18? Why not 13 or 16 or 30? I suspect this is because someone had to draw a line and set an estimated place where we could judge the individuals ability to think and reason as an educated voter. This is why in my opinion the people who should vote and select the leader of our country should have some idea of the issues they are casting their support for. These people, regardless of races, religion or gender, should not be ignorant of the system they are participating in. There for if you have to ask the question, “should I vote in the next election?” I say no. You’ve just proven your ignorance of the system and there fore should remove your self from what must seem like a complicated burden.
Doesn’t it just piss you off when we as a country elect a complete idiot who is so far removed from the problems of our world? Isn’t even worse when we do it twice! Why? I believe this is directly a cause of the question I’m answering. Our election system has become a joke. There are numerous reports that show that approximately 35% of voters vote regularly. Most voters can argue intelligently a single issue they claim to be voting for. In general, voting is too complex for the average American to grasp. And that is because politician aren’t raising money to argue issues or discuss the complexity of energy prices versus over safety aboard, they only need to flash something in your mind that will inspire you to take about an hour out of your ordinary Tuesday to cast your vote in their support. It’s no surprise our elections are popularity contests. I firmly believe this was not the indent our founding fathers had when they wrote the Constitution, at least not the ignorant voter part.
Do you know why the Roman Republic ruled the civilized world for so many years? They didn’t let everyone vote. I believe you’ll see that only Roman citizen, no surprise men only, elected Senators to represent them and their interests in the Senate. At the time, most of the Citizens clearly supported wealthy male aristocrats as Senators. These Senators would decide the important issues of the Republic and later appointed two consuls. Potentially corrupt, but efficient in providing that educated men shared ideas of government without burdening the average Roman with the complexity of grain supplies from the eastern region. This advanced government enabled the Roman Republic with efficient rule across a very vast dominion. What was the first crack in the Roman foundation? I would argue the dilution of educated voters electing Senators. Although it’s hard to prove since the Republic was replaced by an Emperor until it crumbled to outside pressures.
The United States is at that point in history where we too are beginning to show cracks in our system. How can a man be elected to office for a second term and then laugh in the face of the legislative body that empowers him? Why is money the most important resource in determining our future leaders? I say too many ignorant voters. This is why I cringe when I see a campaign to “get out the vote.” Why do we spend money encouraging people to take time out of their lives to just go vote? This is like telling a child to pick up a loaded gun. It’s dangerous. I wish we lived in a world where people were left alone to make their own decisions. Where they decided if voting was important to them or not. Where they researched the issues and candidates and then supported whom they felt would best represent them. But that’s my own euphoric dream. We live in a country where my vote is just as equal as the idiot who’s laid off from work sitting on welfare playing Xbox and decides he needs to get an “I voted” sticker.
Finally, I want to dispel the belief that our soldiers who died in conflict all died for our right to vote. This is a tricky one to explain. So let me first tell you I appreciate every US soldier, their families and their mothers who have made the ultimate sacrifice so I could sit in my office type on this blog ranting my opinion on the internet. These men and women died to protect our rights against foreign nations who might have taken these rights away from us if given the opportunity. Most of them at least, regardless I thank them. Many of our soldiers have been told this lie, when in reality they died for lesser reasons. But that’s a different topic and was not their decision. The point I’d like to make is that killing Muslims in the desert of Iraq isn’t protecting my right to vote. It should influence my vote, but not preserve it. Attacking countries in Asia during the Cold War didn’t protect my right to vote either. Why? First the Muslims in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East that we are waging a war against don’t care about political systems, they are fighting a war of religion. In their minds all Muslins can vote all they want as long as the only choices are those that Allah and more specifically, fundamental Allah, would give them to choose from. To make this a little more clear, if we could stop all the fighting and all the people of the middle east could vote in a fair election, they would overwhelming elect a person very much like Osama Bin Laden. Then in an overwhelming opinion poll they would vote to raise the price of oil. Why? I would again argue this is the problem when everyone has the right and exercises their vote. Ironically our government knows this too. We as a nation tremble in the thought of any nation, including our own, setting up a true democratic society. After all this new true democratic country could elect the next Hitler, Osama Bin Laden or George Bush. A true democratic society could and has elected communist or socialist economic systems. Remember in a true democracy the power of the people is pure and if the people say round up the X people or we’re going to share all the Y resource, then that is the law of the people. It’s basically mentality of the mob.
This brings me to the argument of communism spreading in during the Cold War. I would like to remind you no country was knocking at our door saying, “would you like to try a little communism for dinner?” Communism was spreading because after the Second World War many small Asian nations were without the Imperial European Nations spoon feeding their economies or assisting with their recovery after the fall of Japan and Germany. Western civilization didn’t have the time or resources to rebuild these third world countries. The concept of people working together as a community to share natural resources under a communism made more sense at the time then opening McDonalds and trying a capitalist system with no support from other free markets. I know communism was taught to us as an absolute opposite to the wonderful democracy will live in. However, in my opinion comparing the two is like comparing apples to jars. Democracy is a form of political government as is a republic, or dictatorship or theocracy to name a few examples. Communism to me is an economic condition similar to feudalism, socialism or capitalism. Our political system is the jar that creates our borders and our economy are the resources we contain in those jars. Don’t worry the same people who taught us about communism and democracy also believe we live in a democracy. I could go on about this argument, but the point is that seldom do our soldiers die in conflict abroad to preserve our right to vote here in the United States. More often they die to preserve more jars for us to fill with apples. And even if you want to believe me and say they did, I say they probably didn’t intend on that vote being wasted by ignorant voters who have to ask, “Should I vote in the next election? Is it really worth it?” Do us all a favor and if you have to ask, stay home and do something else. Maybe watch the History Channel.
No, you should NOT vote in the next election. It really isn’t worth it. If you have to ask the question, then the founding fathers were correct in their plans to create a political system simple enough to empower people to manage a country's future while complex enough to deter ignorant citizens from screwing things up. I love this debate. We all have heard the campaigns to "get the vote out" or "rock the vote." We've been told since small children that our founding fathers rebelled against the oppression of “taxation without representation” so that we would hav the right to vote and choose our representation. And my favorite, “many Americans have died to give us the right to vote.” Things are not as they seem. First, I don’t believe it was ever the intent of our founding fathers to let everyone vote. In fact I know they didn’t since they excluded blacks and women. Was that wrong? Yes and no. Yes it is wrong to discriminate a person from voting solely on their sex or race. We as a society have evolved and taken action, thanks to the Constitution to changes this. However, I believe early requirements for voting we truly directed to empower land owning educated white men to vote in the elections. Why? Were our founding father’s racist women hating supremacist? No, I believe they were realist that understood government’s purpose is to provide basic services to the citizens and protect them from other governments. They also recognized that the best examples of government were those that did not empower a king or small group of individuals to manage the affairs of the state, rather a representative sampling of the people who were educated and would act in the best interests of their communities. Imagine, the chaos if every man and women in the newly formed country possessed the equal power to vote. I would argue that if our current system for selecting our leadership existing then as does today. England would only have to spend a lot of money advertising an attractive presidential leader and we would have never rebelled. You do realize at the start of the revolution conservatively 50% of the colonists were loyal to the King and if given a fair election would have elected to NOT rebel. Lucky of us, I guess, a large group of educated men believed it would be better in the long run to first fight for freedom before asking the general, yet limited, population to select a new leader.
I could argue that there will never be and can never be a euphoric world where everyone is equal and therefore all equally educated with the matters of state they cast their vote in support. I know this sounds terrible to the idealist that truly believes this euphoria can exist like the world we see on TV in Star Trek. This is a separate debate. However, my point is simply this. When our country was founded it was founded by mostly white, wealthy Protestants who were rebelling against a government that didn’t understand the challenges they faced in the New World. These men wanted to put a government in place that would allow for the creation of a republic that would be represented by white, wealthy, seemly educated Protestants. And in order to preserve this system of government had to empower people who would continue to elect them to power. When the dust settled they revolutionaries needed to expand this to white men who were at least educated enough to fight an embrace the challenges of the New World.
Now before I go one, I need to address the changes to the Constitution that ultimately gave every citizen the privilege to vote once they were 18. Was this a good thing? This increased the potential voters to include more seemly educated people who now include other races and both genders. (Did you ever wonder how hermaphrodites were treated before 1920? Could they vote?) However, why 18? Why not 13 or 16 or 30? I suspect this is because someone had to draw a line and set an estimated place where we could judge the individuals ability to think and reason as an educated voter. This is why in my opinion the people who should vote and select the leader of our country should have some idea of the issues they are casting their support for. These people, regardless of races, religion or gender, should not be ignorant of the system they are participating in. There for if you have to ask the question, “should I vote in the next election?” I say no. You’ve just proven your ignorance of the system and there fore should remove your self from what must seem like a complicated burden.
Doesn’t it just piss you off when we as a country elect a complete idiot who is so far removed from the problems of our world? Isn’t even worse when we do it twice! Why? I believe this is directly a cause of the question I’m answering. Our election system has become a joke. There are numerous reports that show that approximately 35% of voters vote regularly. Most voters can argue intelligently a single issue they claim to be voting for. In general, voting is too complex for the average American to grasp. And that is because politician aren’t raising money to argue issues or discuss the complexity of energy prices versus over safety aboard, they only need to flash something in your mind that will inspire you to take about an hour out of your ordinary Tuesday to cast your vote in their support. It’s no surprise our elections are popularity contests. I firmly believe this was not the indent our founding fathers had when they wrote the Constitution, at least not the ignorant voter part.
Do you know why the Roman Republic ruled the civilized world for so many years? They didn’t let everyone vote. I believe you’ll see that only Roman citizen, no surprise men only, elected Senators to represent them and their interests in the Senate. At the time, most of the Citizens clearly supported wealthy male aristocrats as Senators. These Senators would decide the important issues of the Republic and later appointed two consuls. Potentially corrupt, but efficient in providing that educated men shared ideas of government without burdening the average Roman with the complexity of grain supplies from the eastern region. This advanced government enabled the Roman Republic with efficient rule across a very vast dominion. What was the first crack in the Roman foundation? I would argue the dilution of educated voters electing Senators. Although it’s hard to prove since the Republic was replaced by an Emperor until it crumbled to outside pressures.
The United States is at that point in history where we too are beginning to show cracks in our system. How can a man be elected to office for a second term and then laugh in the face of the legislative body that empowers him? Why is money the most important resource in determining our future leaders? I say too many ignorant voters. This is why I cringe when I see a campaign to “get out the vote.” Why do we spend money encouraging people to take time out of their lives to just go vote? This is like telling a child to pick up a loaded gun. It’s dangerous. I wish we lived in a world where people were left alone to make their own decisions. Where they decided if voting was important to them or not. Where they researched the issues and candidates and then supported whom they felt would best represent them. But that’s my own euphoric dream. We live in a country where my vote is just as equal as the idiot who’s laid off from work sitting on welfare playing Xbox and decides he needs to get an “I voted” sticker.
Finally, I want to dispel the belief that our soldiers who died in conflict all died for our right to vote. This is a tricky one to explain. So let me first tell you I appreciate every US soldier, their families and their mothers who have made the ultimate sacrifice so I could sit in my office type on this blog ranting my opinion on the internet. These men and women died to protect our rights against foreign nations who might have taken these rights away from us if given the opportunity. Most of them at least, regardless I thank them. Many of our soldiers have been told this lie, when in reality they died for lesser reasons. But that’s a different topic and was not their decision. The point I’d like to make is that killing Muslims in the desert of Iraq isn’t protecting my right to vote. It should influence my vote, but not preserve it. Attacking countries in Asia during the Cold War didn’t protect my right to vote either. Why? First the Muslims in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East that we are waging a war against don’t care about political systems, they are fighting a war of religion. In their minds all Muslins can vote all they want as long as the only choices are those that Allah and more specifically, fundamental Allah, would give them to choose from. To make this a little more clear, if we could stop all the fighting and all the people of the middle east could vote in a fair election, they would overwhelming elect a person very much like Osama Bin Laden. Then in an overwhelming opinion poll they would vote to raise the price of oil. Why? I would again argue this is the problem when everyone has the right and exercises their vote. Ironically our government knows this too. We as a nation tremble in the thought of any nation, including our own, setting up a true democratic society. After all this new true democratic country could elect the next Hitler, Osama Bin Laden or George Bush. A true democratic society could and has elected communist or socialist economic systems. Remember in a true democracy the power of the people is pure and if the people say round up the X people or we’re going to share all the Y resource, then that is the law of the people. It’s basically mentality of the mob.
This brings me to the argument of communism spreading in during the Cold War. I would like to remind you no country was knocking at our door saying, “would you like to try a little communism for dinner?” Communism was spreading because after the Second World War many small Asian nations were without the Imperial European Nations spoon feeding their economies or assisting with their recovery after the fall of Japan and Germany. Western civilization didn’t have the time or resources to rebuild these third world countries. The concept of people working together as a community to share natural resources under a communism made more sense at the time then opening McDonalds and trying a capitalist system with no support from other free markets. I know communism was taught to us as an absolute opposite to the wonderful democracy will live in. However, in my opinion comparing the two is like comparing apples to jars. Democracy is a form of political government as is a republic, or dictatorship or theocracy to name a few examples. Communism to me is an economic condition similar to feudalism, socialism or capitalism. Our political system is the jar that creates our borders and our economy are the resources we contain in those jars. Don’t worry the same people who taught us about communism and democracy also believe we live in a democracy. I could go on about this argument, but the point is that seldom do our soldiers die in conflict abroad to preserve our right to vote here in the United States. More often they die to preserve more jars for us to fill with apples. And even if you want to believe me and say they did, I say they probably didn’t intend on that vote being wasted by ignorant voters who have to ask, “Should I vote in the next election? Is it really worth it?” Do us all a favor and if you have to ask, stay home and do something else. Maybe watch the History Channel.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
How Do We Get Out of Iraq?
How to end the Iraq war? First, all the soldiers take down their tents and pack them into the big bags they put on their backs. Then they put those bags into the big trucks they drive in the desert. Then all the soldiers get into those trucks and drive them to the ports or airports where they load them on to planes and boats and then they leave. Simple, isn’t it. No, it isn’t that simple. But when the time comes and I hope it comes sooner then later, that is how it will happen. Unfortunately, I think the bigger problem is how do we save political face in a global community and bring our soldiers home safely with the least risk of having to return. I am personally less interested in the global importance and more interested in preserving our safety at home and preventing us from doing this again.
To me the problem with Iraq, like Vietnam and Korea, and Cuba and so many other countries we have invaded is we never should have been there in the first place. Never! Even if the sovereign country of Iraq was building weapons of mass destruction, it is not our right as another sovereign country to invade and take away the ability of any sovereign country to prepare for war or govern their people as they wish. This is what defines a countries sovereignty. We also have no right to invade a country simply because they don’t treat their women with the respect and freedom we treat ours. Any country that takes military action to alter or change the political or economic system cannot justify that decision with an argument of preventive protection. This is the same as foreseeing an unwanted child or problem in a woman or sovereign country and deciding the United States or the state should abort the problem before it grows up. Do you remember the Prime Directive in Star Trek?
“The Prime Directive, Starfleet's General Order #1, is the most prominent guiding principle of the United Federation of Planets; The Prime Directive dictates that there be no interference with the natural development of any primitive society, chiefly meaning that no primitive culture can be given or exposed to any information regarding advanced technology or the existence of extraplanetary civilizations. It also forbids any effort to improve or change in any way the natural course of such a society, even if that change is well-intentioned and kept completely secret. 'Primitive' is defined as any culture which has not yet attained warp drive. Starfleet allows scientific missions to investigate and move amongst pre-warp civilizations as long as no advanced technology is left behind, and there is no interference with events or no revelation of their identity. This can usually be accomplished with hidden observation posts, but Federation personnel may disguise themselves as local sentient life and interact with them.”
If we are so right about the freedoms we share amongst our people to practice different religions, assemble and debate, express their opinions on internet sites, then we most be more civilized then those that are not as free and therefore, we should never have invaded Iraq. Should someone have died for the attacks on September 11th, 2001? Yes, but that’s another topic.
To end the Iraq War we need to orderly exit the country and establish our own Prime Directive. We should leave “no advanced technology behind” and go home. We were forced to do this in Vietnam in 1975 and many people said then it was the wrong thing to do. Many believed that communism would roll in and soon all of Asia would fall to the Red Tide. It didn’t happen that way, but we thought it would. Many people argued that we need to spill more American blood in the jungles of Vietnam just to help stabilize the government. When people were clamoring that Iraq would be our Vietnam they weren’t wrong. Unlike Vietnam, we won the war but just like Vietnam, we don’t know how to leave.
Please bring our troops home Mr. Bush.
To me the problem with Iraq, like Vietnam and Korea, and Cuba and so many other countries we have invaded is we never should have been there in the first place. Never! Even if the sovereign country of Iraq was building weapons of mass destruction, it is not our right as another sovereign country to invade and take away the ability of any sovereign country to prepare for war or govern their people as they wish. This is what defines a countries sovereignty. We also have no right to invade a country simply because they don’t treat their women with the respect and freedom we treat ours. Any country that takes military action to alter or change the political or economic system cannot justify that decision with an argument of preventive protection. This is the same as foreseeing an unwanted child or problem in a woman or sovereign country and deciding the United States or the state should abort the problem before it grows up. Do you remember the Prime Directive in Star Trek?
“The Prime Directive, Starfleet's General Order #1, is the most prominent guiding principle of the United Federation of Planets; The Prime Directive dictates that there be no interference with the natural development of any primitive society, chiefly meaning that no primitive culture can be given or exposed to any information regarding advanced technology or the existence of extraplanetary civilizations. It also forbids any effort to improve or change in any way the natural course of such a society, even if that change is well-intentioned and kept completely secret. 'Primitive' is defined as any culture which has not yet attained warp drive. Starfleet allows scientific missions to investigate and move amongst pre-warp civilizations as long as no advanced technology is left behind, and there is no interference with events or no revelation of their identity. This can usually be accomplished with hidden observation posts, but Federation personnel may disguise themselves as local sentient life and interact with them.”
If we are so right about the freedoms we share amongst our people to practice different religions, assemble and debate, express their opinions on internet sites, then we most be more civilized then those that are not as free and therefore, we should never have invaded Iraq. Should someone have died for the attacks on September 11th, 2001? Yes, but that’s another topic.
To end the Iraq War we need to orderly exit the country and establish our own Prime Directive. We should leave “no advanced technology behind” and go home. We were forced to do this in Vietnam in 1975 and many people said then it was the wrong thing to do. Many believed that communism would roll in and soon all of Asia would fall to the Red Tide. It didn’t happen that way, but we thought it would. Many people argued that we need to spill more American blood in the jungles of Vietnam just to help stabilize the government. When people were clamoring that Iraq would be our Vietnam they weren’t wrong. Unlike Vietnam, we won the war but just like Vietnam, we don’t know how to leave.
Please bring our troops home Mr. Bush.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Young American Rant
Hello. I'm a young American man. Everyday I watch the news or read the paper I think to myself, "this is crazy!" I can't believe the times we are living in and I worry about the future. I've been a father for two years and wonder if my own parents felt the same way I do today. I realize I'm not like everyone else. I consider myself a free thinker. I typically find myself disagreeing with the popular opinion and wonder why?
Politically, I'm a radical moderate. I voted for Bill Clinton and George Bush. I believe women should have the right to kill their unborn baby and I'm not going to sugar coat it and call it choice. I believe people who intentionally kill people should be sentenced to death. I believe we should put land mines on our borders and shoot to kill anyone illegally trying to enter the country. I believe Americans should do the work illegal immigrants are doing today. I believe every thing should be available in a free market. I believe in the freedom of religion and equally in no religion. I believe Americans should be free to do anything they want to themselves as long as they don't directly impact others. I believe all drugs should be legal. I believe smoking should be allowed in all public places. I believe everyone should have the right to a gun. In fact, I believe everyone should have the right to a rocket launcher too. I believe government should fear the people. I believe in freedom of speech even if it's hate. I don't believe in hate crimes or affirmative action. I don't care what my great grandparent did to yours. Suck it up and stop crying. I don't believe it takes a village to raise to a child. In fact, I don't care if your child doesn't have health care or an education. You should have worked harder or you shouldn't have had children. The government should only provide basics to maintain and protect a free market. Socialization is a bad word. I love America and I'm proud to be an American. However, American blood should never spill for foreign freedom. I'm against the conflict in Iraq. To quote George Washington, "Trade with all nations and have political ties with none." All Americans should have access to equal treatment, but we are not all created equal. Life, liberty and happiness are not guaranteed, they are available for pursuit.
That is my rant and this is my blog. I hope you're open minded enough to check back and listen to my arguments. I invite your comments and debate. My goal is to provide a different point of view and possibly open your mind even if it takes a crowbar. :)
Politically, I'm a radical moderate. I voted for Bill Clinton and George Bush. I believe women should have the right to kill their unborn baby and I'm not going to sugar coat it and call it choice. I believe people who intentionally kill people should be sentenced to death. I believe we should put land mines on our borders and shoot to kill anyone illegally trying to enter the country. I believe Americans should do the work illegal immigrants are doing today. I believe every thing should be available in a free market. I believe in the freedom of religion and equally in no religion. I believe Americans should be free to do anything they want to themselves as long as they don't directly impact others. I believe all drugs should be legal. I believe smoking should be allowed in all public places. I believe everyone should have the right to a gun. In fact, I believe everyone should have the right to a rocket launcher too. I believe government should fear the people. I believe in freedom of speech even if it's hate. I don't believe in hate crimes or affirmative action. I don't care what my great grandparent did to yours. Suck it up and stop crying. I don't believe it takes a village to raise to a child. In fact, I don't care if your child doesn't have health care or an education. You should have worked harder or you shouldn't have had children. The government should only provide basics to maintain and protect a free market. Socialization is a bad word. I love America and I'm proud to be an American. However, American blood should never spill for foreign freedom. I'm against the conflict in Iraq. To quote George Washington, "Trade with all nations and have political ties with none." All Americans should have access to equal treatment, but we are not all created equal. Life, liberty and happiness are not guaranteed, they are available for pursuit.
That is my rant and this is my blog. I hope you're open minded enough to check back and listen to my arguments. I invite your comments and debate. My goal is to provide a different point of view and possibly open your mind even if it takes a crowbar. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)