KnowledgeSpace

Shakespeare got it wrong!

2009-04-26T15:08:00.000-07:00

In As You Like It, one of Shakespeare's characters, Jacques, said:

"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages."

Shakespeare was almost right. The world is not a stage it is a sales call. Even a newborn recognizes very quickly that crying outburst bring him food and attention. Any parent that has had children go through the "terrible two's"will testify to the fact that two year olds know that throwing temper tantrums brings rewards (i.e. getting what you want). This is a child's crude way of selling her/his point. This behavior continues throughout our lives as teenagers trying to be accepted, compromising with your parents and teachers, negotiating with your spouse and children and continue until the time we die. We are constantly in sales mode throughout life.

There is not one instance in our lives that we are not negotiating for something from someone. Everything we do in our lives is governed by how well we negotiate (or communicate) our position to get someone to do something for us that we need that they might not otherwise do for us. The problem, however, is that we are poor equipped with the basic selling skills necessary to win most of the negotiations that will be presented during our lifetime.

In all our of relationships business, personal, family, religious, and social we are constantly selling. I use the word "selling" in the sense that if the world is a sales call we are always, by definition, selling. In this competitive world refining and honing your communication skills or selling skills will help you advance in all areas of your life. The next time you are tyring to convince someone to do something or to get you something try using basic selling skills. Learning basic selling skills may help you effectively convey your wishes and have someone act on those desires. And see if this starts changing your life by getting all you ask for out of life.

Remember the world is a sales call.

Too Big To Fail!

2009-03-31T11:23:00.000-07:00

The current and past administrations have and are still using a theory that they believe is a fact that there are certain companies (i.e. enterprises) too big to fail. Their failure would result in catastrophic economic harm across the world. These enterprises include financial institutions, manufacturers, insurance companies and others.

What is the basis of this theory becoming fact? Why is bigger better and is there really any company too big to fail? We have a habit in America to "super size" everything. Big, in our American culture, has always been associated with good, with the exception of weight gain. It is not just french fires and soft drinks but in the early 60's we started to see a transformation to big stuff. As we entered the golden age where everyone could attain upper middle class living the concept of bigger is better became the course de jour for everything. We witnessed audio speakers getting bigger and bigger. Cars and trucks getting bigger. This cultural identity unique to the American perspective started spreading beyond appliances, audio equipment, and cars and soon included houses, schools, malls, airports, buildings.

So here we are with schools that encompass blocks and blocks and house thousands of students pretending that there is some magical financial maneuvering that suggest big is good because it is less expensive. Then we build huge airports where it takes longer to get through to the gate than the trip from your home to the airport. The malls went from local servicing of a community to state and then regional service capability. Wal-Mart ate up small town America because big is good and small is bad. Economies of scale was the battle cry.

We became a nation obsessed with bigger is better and this eventually spilled over to our business culture where we started building bigger and bigger companies. We rationalized it as a war in the competitive battle for global markets. If we are to win this battle big is good. We can be everywhere for everyone providing everything.

Was MCI too big to fail? Was Enron too big to fail? Was American Steel too big to fail? Was Sperry too big to fail? Is GM too big to fail? Is AIG too big to fail? Is Citi too big to fail? Is Fannie Mae too big to fail?

Failure is good. It is the counter balancing effect to capitalism. The fear of failure is what puts the fear of GOD on anyone starting or managing a business. I think the global meltdown has answered my question of is bigger better. And the answer is no. Being bigger did not prevent the meltdown or insulate these large behemoths from drowning in red ink. I think the bigger is better experiment as it relates to capitalism is dead. Big is slow. Small is fast. In complex markets speed to change and adapt is more important than size. Size is a hindrance when speed is a large part of the new market dynamics.

Chavez at it again!

2009-03-02T12:51:00.000-08:00

In December of 2007 I wrote a blog called "Watch out for Chavez". A basic wake up call to The US to quit ignoring the politics south of our border. Interesting how we pay more attention to countries literally a world away and ignore our own back yard. At that time Chavez was trying to change the constitution to allow him to serve for life. This failed and at that time Chavez vowed to continue the fight. Fast forward to 2009 and we watch, almost unnoticed, Chavez got one step closer to become a monarch for life by having laws passed to remove presidential term limits effectively keeping him in office until 2021.

If the US does not take him out (or anybody take him out for that matter) we have to deal with a mad "commie" that sells us 40% of our oil requirements. Not only do we make him richer every day we also give him more power over a region we need to protect and defend. With a new administration I hope they pay attention to the affairs a little closer to home.

School vouchers

2009-02-04T07:25:00.000-08:00

When you ask any parent that has a child in a public school about the quality of their child's school they inevitably determine that the school is of high quality. If all parents believe this where are the bad schools? I happen to live in a state that the performance of the state schools are at the bottom rung of the educational ladder. They have been like this for over 75 years and they keep blaming everyone to everything for their dismal rankings.

There is plenty of blame to go around. Critics blame the legislature, the teachers' union, the teachers, the school board, the federal government, and in the last few years the immigrant population. They are the reason for overcrowding and under performance. Forget about the last 40 years when they weren't here. But they are convenient to blame and don't speak great English anyway so how can they argue back less fear of deportation. Everyone gets blamed, but like the rest of our government, no one is held accountable. Let us not forget the parents and the students who have the most to gain and the most to loose by squandering an education. This,to me, is the root cause of failure - lack of respect and discipline for a system designed to move you forward through education a critical key to success.

So here comes the voucher discussion. The debate has long centred on issuing vouchers (i.e. taxpayer money) for school choice (i.e.private schools) to force schools to compete or else loose students thus tax payer funding. This is a free market idea. I am not a fan of government being in the free market business (look at our banks)mainly because they are so bad at how they form and deliver services, hence bad public school policy leads to bad schooling. Diverting funding from already cash-strapped schools is a no no to most if not all public school advocates. Their claim is public education is critical to the bedrock of democracy and should be supported.

There are numerous studies that indicate public schools perform just as well as private schools and moving kids to private schools does little to enhance their opportunity. We can get lost in the minutia of the debates. but my issue is one of taxation without representation. If you choose to send your child to private school why are you required to pay taxes for a system you do not use? Secondly, why can you not get a tax credit for double paying for education - tuition and taxes? Thirdly, schools are overcrowded today what would happen if all the private schools kids entered public schools? Public schools are saving millions due to the fact that private schools kids do not attend and if they did new investments would have to be made. There is a lot of public money saved due to kids attending school elsewhere. So why not give a little back. For those that believe more money for schools is the answer ignore the fact that there is no correlation between more money and smarter kids. Just as there is no correlation between money and happiness.

What happened with the banks?

2009-01-15T13:49:00.000-08:00

Imagine if you will that the federal government believes all Americans have the right to home ownership as an inalienable right as the pursuit of happiness. So in its infinite wisdom instructs the largest mortgage purchaser in the world, Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), to require banks to loosen lending requirements to sub-par borrowers to make the dream of home ownership a reality to those who otherwise could not afford a home. As a sweetener Fannie Mae provided liquidty to insure banks and mortgage companies had plenty of easy money for what would later become and known as toxic loans. The risk was cut out of the equation by Fannie Mae's backing and so went the oversight. Loan committees that recommend granting loans for its borrowers to its bank board of directors no longer had to evaluate risk or health of the borrower. Fannie Mae would bear the brunt of the risk.

But what if CitiBank or any other AAA credit-rated company decides to do just that. Lend to people that qualify by merit (financially capable)and lend to people that do not qualify to satisfy a dream of home ownership with a quota backed by Fannie Mae. So, Citi Bank, that is AAA rated bundles the good loans with the bad loans (now known as toxic loans)to create a loan package that is sold to investors, funds, etc. The loan portfolio has a AAA rated credit grade on it due to Citi Bank even though the loans in the loan portfolio when blended (package) is sub-par at best and certainly not AAA rated loans.

Along comes Lehman Brothers who purchase the loans and leverages them 30 times against their value for borrowing purposes and at the same time have them insured by AIG which became easy because AIG believes the loan portfolio to be AAA rated quality but it was not. So as a result Lehman borrows huge sums of money aginst the bad loans. As the loans become uncollectable the market punishes Lehman and starts putting pressure on them to reduce thier lending. And eventually they run out of money. The loans are brought into question and as the market value of homes erode so does the value of the portfolio. As the loan value dimminishes more pressure is put on Lehman to shore up the portfolio usually by putting up more cash. Cash it does not have because it cannot borrow. So the cycle continues. Lehman seeks insurance releif thorugh it's policy with AIG. Now AIG unravels insuring loans that were toxic. An so does Fannie Mae.

Welcome to the free market. Where is the oversight? Where is the Congress? Where are the internal and external auditors? With freedom comes responsibility. Where are the fiscal hawks when you need them?

Political (in)experience

2009-01-05T14:10:00.000-08:00

Caroline Kennedy is making her pitch to be the next senator of NY replacing Hillary Clinton as she moves to a cabinet position. I do not know whether or not Kennedy is qualified or not. This is not the topic I want to discuss but rather the schizofrenia of the American public and how short our memory is in relation to politics and the problems associated with it.

The big question "Is she qualified?" This seems to be the question the media and the pundits are fixated on. I really don't get it. We just went through 8 years of a congress receiving its lowest approval ratings from the public since inception. We had a president that has over 68% of Americans dis-approving of his job performance and we just elected a new president that only had 2 years of Seante experience. Is experience really an issue?

How can the public forget so easily? We, as Americans, want term limits to bring in fresh blood. We want to stop corruption and graft that make so many politicians wealthy ( see Bob Dole - poor Kansas farmer and came out of the senate a millionaire). We hate anyone in office that sets records for the amount of time they spent in the game. We have too many old white guys that have been at it too long but yet when it coms to what we need - a fresh, inexperienced voice- we reject it on the grounds of inexperience.

If its experience we want then recruit or elect the same hacks that have brought us to the brink of economic collapase, made us the bullies of the world, and have harmed our reputation maybe beyond repair. America, please make up your mind. We need different results by bringing in new and different prespectives. We can not get new results from the same old thing. WAKE UP!

Playing the race card

2009-01-05T13:48:00.000-08:00

It has been a while since I decided to write again and much has happened. We have a new black president and many believe this to be good. I think so too but also see this change bringing in a lot of discussion. As part of a story I saw some interesting items with the newsheads in relation to the Illinois Senate seat vacated by Obama. With the Illinois governor possibly headed to jail his choice for the senate has been greeted with less than enthusiasm. But my issue isn't the governor it is the injection of race into the conversation. This discussion really sums up the differences between Blacks and Hispanics and the differences in our value systems. I am not sure who brought up the race card but I have heard it from many sides. Side A say it has to be a Black because a Black held the seat. (so what?) Side B says it should be the most qualified, which makes me think about another senate seat in New York where one of the Kennedy's is vying for top pole position.

Why does this situation define differences between Blacks and Hispanics is because there is another senate seat be given up due to another appointment in Colorado held by a Hispanic, Senator Ken Salazar, yet he is being replaced by a white person by a white governor. Should Hispanics be playing the race card? Are Hispanics playing the race card and insisting on a Hispanic replacement so as not to add to the white washing of the senate? According to what I see and hear this is not the case. As a matter of fact there is little discussion in the "liberal" press or the conservative press. (I liked it much better when we only had one press). Does this mean that Hispanics have no power to command and demand a Hispanic replacement? Or does this mean that whites and blacks do not really care what Hispanics say and do with no one paying attention or cares? In either case Hispanics just do not play the race card a lesson all can learn.

The Religion of money - Prosperity Gospel

2008-01-06T07:20:00.000-08:00

Religious conservatives are up in arms after Sen. Charles Grassley, ranking member of the Senate Finance committee, asked for financial records from mega churches selling a version of the bible to their flock known as The Prosperity Gospel. The creed promises that the Almighty rewards the faithful with not only spiritual but material bonuses. In other words, by walking with Jesus wealth comes with it. The power of Jesus has the power to make you rich because God provides for all that seek him. This has been a powerful message for the lambs that are lead to slaughter and the only ones getting rich are the ministers of this message that would make Jesus, who usually rode a donkey and gave up all earthly possessions to preach the word, strike these men down as agents of the unholy.

With the money donated from their flock they purchase private planes, jewelry, and mansions looking more like Hip-hop mega stars or captains of industry rather than God-inspired preachers with messages of hope and everlasting in the after-life. It isn't enough that God, through his son Jesus, promised us eternal life. We want the richness that God has promised us today and we want it in the form of material possession and wealth. And of course the more God loves us and we follow him the more he will reward us with the riches of life. Somehow our fellow preachers lost sight of the message of love, peace, and forgiveness which are the real messages of god and Jesus. These are the rewards God promises us but today they are not enough. We can measure how much god loves us by our W-2 statement, the size of our home, and by how many cars we have.

The message today is that you do not have to wait for the after-life to get redemption and a life of eternal happiness but we can get it all now. We can start this life now and enjoy the pagan luxuries in the immediate consumer world. The only cover charge is a small donation, of course, to my ministry to demonstrate your love for God, and God will reward you because through believing in me you believe in Him. This warped message is being delivered to the poor, distraught, and unfortunate who buy into this. Does their lot in life change? This is a subject for later discussion. My main reason for bringing up this topic is because we are in the midst of selecting a new president. With the Democrats painted as liberals and the Republicans as religious conservatives. I do not believe the faithful belong to only one party exclusively. This brings other dangers when you have one issue voters and deny any other issues facing America are more daunting than spreading Christianity.

Here is the rub: Churches and religious organizations pay no taxes and have no accountability of the money they receive. The defenders of this gift ( remember they do not pay taxes so this means our taxes benefit them) are insistent that the First and Fourth Amendment that preserves religious freedom and separation of church and state allow them to do whatever they want, preach whatever they want, and collect money and spend it however they want. We now know, after 9/11, that religious and charitable organizations actually funded terror campaigns. Would we feel the same way if these were Muslim churches and there was suspicion that they were using their funds for financing terror? But broader issues remain.

The leading Republican candidates are being driven by the conservative right that fights for school prayer, ban on abortion, adding creationism to school science study, and others demanding this country was founded on Christian ideals. Not really but they sell it anyway. Mike Huckabee calls for " take back this nation for God". How do we reconcile the drive towards theocracy with the invasion on these churches finances? Why do we allow churches to deliver political speeches at the pulpit and bus members to political rallies when, as part of their tax free status, they are to refrain from such behavior?

We can not have both in the US. A system that allows churches, whatever their affiliation, to receive tax breaks and operate freely from government intervention and scrutiny and then have leaders of our government bring their religion into the public forums. This leads to electing officials and appointing judges that manage with their religious zeal rather than their knowledge of the constitution and what it stands for. We have seen, in other parts of the world, where the Bible (Koran) is used as the main resource to drive law and rule a nation. This has never been good and has only lead to war on both sides and the degradation of women and displacement of the poor.

When a presidential candidate suggest that you can not have democracy without religious freedom you have to wonder why we are in Iraq. Is religious freedom a prerequisite of democracy? Maybe but it surely doesn't mean that the majority of worshippers can force their religion unto others. We need to look at all churches to insure they follow the rule of law and do what they need to be doing to receive the tax breaks they do receive. Political rallies, endorsing candidates, bringing religion into government should be denied and any church doing so should be stripped of their status and demand taxes be paid. If they want to rally for riches, be a political influencer, or merely be someone taking from the disadvantaged every time the collection plate is passed they do not need chruch status. It is time for Christians who have gotten lost following Jesus to step up and follow God instead.

Invoking the name of God should not be enough to receive secular tax breaks. If the preachers believed half of what they preached they would not need the tax breaks to survive because they would be rewarded, like their flock, by living the Gospel of Prosperity.

Why we can not solve the immigration issues and have a meaningful debate?

2007-12-30T13:28:00.000-08:00

As America is attempting to find solutions to the immigration conflict some guiding principles of fairness, logic, and process need to be put in place in order to properly frame the content of the conflict. I use the term "conflict" because the the debate has gone beyond civil and entered the realm of disparagement, hate and bigotry. The arguments are so far divided that compromise seems remote. A significant problem on both sides of the debate is the divide is caused by the lack of validity of the information being put forward thus creating the conflict. Also once the term illegals is associated with criminals and pounded into the minds of Americans over and over through the news outlets the fairness of the debate goes out the window - because criminals have no rights. Well they do and they have.

Not long ago reporting of the news was accomplished by trusted organizations on TV and in print. This changed over time to produce what we have today in the news rooms which is biased and politically motivated news commentary feeding a small portion of the public that align themselves with such broadcasts. We no longer live in a world where news reporting is accurate, true and fair starting at 6:00 PM and fed to the nation as a whole allowing each individual to determine how she or he felt about it. Today we are lead like cattle to slaughter towards pre-ordained conclusions that feed a righteousness that makes us believe we are more American for feeling this way. It is almost impossible for the average American ( 5th grade reading level) to separate the wheat from the chaff.

The Internet has, in a short time, spawned a society that may not possess the mental fitness, the time, or interest to determine what information going around the Internet is true, accurate, and fair. It is now easy, at the speed of light, to send information, many regard as news, throughout the globe. Add email where people of similar thought can reinforce their ideals with emails representing their position and circulate them as gospel. This rapidly spreads hate, bigotry, and superiority thus creating what we see now in America with over 80% of Americans not wanting to discuss any solution for reform of our immigration policy. The discussion for most of these Americans can only begin with "round them up and ship them back then put up a big wall". This high percentage of Americans against immigration leads politicians to acquiesce in to their wishes and begin shaping policy trying to make the 80% happy - surely a justified reaction by politicians hoping for re-election.

The problem with today's debate is we are on a steady diet of opinions and we virtually skip over the gathering, validating, verifying, and disseminating data phases. And when you consider where these opinions are initially formed it becomes very scary once you realize how small groups in America are shaping policy on immigration. This leads to an "anyone can say what they want" mentality with no challenge. This could then lead to information which is defined by the way one party decides to interpret the data. The information is then subject to emotion, religion, or any other matter of the heart that one deems necessary to involve to come up with varying opinions. These opinions are used to make policy. With the technology to move information at the speed of thought there are certain responsibilities that come with this new found method to disseminate information that are not enforced.

A wild wild west type of journalism, like the child predators that uses the anonymity of the Internet to entice young children, radical ideas on immigration by supremacist, hate groups, ethnic cleansers, and bigots using the same anonymity. Combine the anonymity with the speed of data dissemination and one can easily turn these absurd ideas on immigration into American mainstream thought. This approach only serves to confuse the masses and stirs radical emotion and the production of more radical content and its related behavior. As a result 70-80% of Americans are against immigration ( really against Mexicans).

The source of the problem is all this has as its root - bad data and information. Once the politicians started looking at solving the problem they immediately saw they could not solve it the way most Americans would like it solved. So they punted and did nothing. The reason they could not solve it and make Americans happy was because when presented with validated data and information on immigration issues the solutions would have been contrary to the "street talk" that began the discussion on immigration and the original shaping of the policy. This has put a lot of politicians in a quandary. The good and honest ones ( may be an oxymoron when referring to politicians) have punted and been quiet on the issue which leaves the morons and bigots to lead the political debate.

This is a confusing time in America where we fight for democracy and human rights around the world and at home we throw the baby out with the bathwater. We, as a country, oppose ethnic cleansing, but at home we encourage it when it comes to Hispanics. We fight around the world for the helpless, poor and defenseless but at home we attack them, we use abusive language, and fail to recognize immigrants are what made this country great and will continue to make it great. America needs to be honest in this discussion to come up with practical and reasonable solutions to our immigration policy.

With many conservatives opposing immigration they need to ask themselves what would Jesus do?

the assassination of Bhuto - misplaced terrorism

2007-12-27T12:00:00.000-08:00

RAWALPINDI, Pakistan - Pakistan opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was assassinated Thursday in a suicide bombing that also killed at least 20 others and plunged the nuclear-armed country into chaos ahead of a general election she had hoped to win. (source MSNBC News Services)

Be clear this was not a suicide bomber but a homicide bomber. A murderer that does not deserve the mention of his name. A coward at the end. But this unfortunate event triggered a series of responses from our government. Bhuto supporters continue to riot demanding the Musharraf regime explain how this could happen with elections a little over 2 weeks away.

I am not a specialist or expert in Pakistani political events and neither does our own government seem to be. Backing a military dictator that spits in the eye of democracy and yet only receive lukewarm support only by giving his regime billions of dollars per year as a political payoff. Is he our best bet?

There is little doubt, in my mind, our government thought the frying pan (Musharraf) was better than the fire (Bhuto) and did all it could to point the finger towards terror activity rather than the Musharraf regime. El Qaida or the Taliban surely must have been involved according to our presidential hopefuls and the administration. Supporting Musharrof will only continue to drive a wedge between America and the Pakistani people.

And now we have a woman hailed as a great democratic savior where, she, herself was impeached and forced into humiliating exile. Was she any better than Musharraf? Is she the beacon of light that was bringing democratic principles to Pakistan? If this were true why is our own government, staunch defenders of democracy, siding with Musharraf? Has our government been making payments to a regime not committed to democracy? How can we justify spending billions in Iraq to build a democratic nation when the friends we side with are no more democratic than Iran or North Korea?

And now look at our political candidates for President falling all over themselves condemning terrorism and repeating that same old tune we have to "continue the fight on global terror" . Of course, at this time, less than a day after the assassination, there is no evidence that el Qaida or the Taliban had anything to do with this but yet they sing the same old refrain.

The administration would love nothing better than to blame terrorist. Why? First it takes the heat off their boy Musharraf, who commands a volatile country that he has little control over. Second, if you do not have a war on terror you have to create one. This is great news to be spun so fast that your head spinning couldn't keep up. The political war machine in bed with the industrial war complex using our tax dollars to profit. Now we can allocate more tax revenue to a more ardent fight on terror. According tothe adminsitration this event confirms that we can not be vigilant enough. More money to build more bombs to fight somebody with no country, no uniform, and no honor. Fight the war on terror before it reaches here.( Even though they have already indicated we will be hit not if but when and they have already given up on soft targets - that means you and me).

But the looming question for me is is this really about terror or just another power hungry mad man doing all he can to stay in power? Or is it simply a lack of opportunity for people, under repressive and corrupt governments, to get the basics of life. Consider Pakistan with its largest city reaching over 16 million inhabitants. Twelve million cannot find work and are in extreme poverty but yet their government is corrupt and spends on military equipment versus human needs. Bhuto, herself, was run out of the country on two occasions for corruption and bilking millions from state coffers. The second time in 1996. She ended up spending 4 years in prison. Can a former convict really be a beacon for democracy? How can we defend ourselves when we pump billions in war and not in economic opportunities for the these people? Isn't obvious given the poverty that any offer to strap on a bomb for a payment to the family can be easily justfied. If we do not impove the human condition stopping the war on terror will never be won.

This is a form of economic terrorism created by their government. Economic terrorism survives through graft, corruption, spending on the military complex versus basic needs. This prevents people from entering the economy in a meaningful way. As a result they suffer and can not make enough to survive. This in turn creates mayhem and starts bringing down the fundamental underpinnings of democracy. Democracy is hard pressed to survive without economic freedom, the creation of meaningful employment, and peace to allow you to move and flourish in your environment. This makes it easy for people like Chavez and Musharraf to take control and rule with an iron fist. It also enables anyone with promises to stir enough emotion to have major outbreaks of civil disobedience that eventually lead to the downfall of governments and democracies.

Our government hands out money to these dictators to spend on war equipment and not to help its people be creating jobs, living free from repressive authority, and living in peace. This is what democracy and economic leadership can bring but instead in these countries the powerful survive at the expense of the poor.

Immigrants Pledge

2007-12-16T16:33:00.000-08:00

While many immigrants can not stay here nor can they leave here kind of stuck in a political limbo riddled with government inaction. As our government and nation wrestle with the immigration issue I advise immigrants to make a pledge so Americans can see that the majority are hard working, GOD-loving, and family value based people.

With all the mud slinging going on in this debate most Americans do not know what to beleive. Do they pay taxes? Do they want to learn English? Are they the reason for overcrowding of our schools? Should we also blame them for our health-care crisis? And the list goes on. Are these valid gripes or just diversionary tactics used by our government and interest groups to sway our focus away from the real pressing issues of the day.

Shifting blame also seems to be an agenda item for those that feed the media distribution network. I believe immigrants, regardless of documentation, want the same things all people, inlcuding Americans want which include safe neighborhoods, able employment, good schools, freedom to worship, freedom to work hard, and freedom to love. To that end I am propsoing an Immigrant's Pledge to be given by immigrants to the American People as a symbol of his/her respect for this country and the desire to make a better place for all that are here and coming.

Immigrants Pledge

As a visitor and awaiting the road map to legal status I remain an immigrant in this great country. While I am here I pledge the following:

Pay any and all taxes due respective governments as any citizen is required.
Make any and all efforts to assimilate into the US culture while maintaining my individual and ethnic identity
Obey and honor all laws in effect
I pledge I am not wanted by law enforcement or am I a refugee of the law in any other country
Do all I can to quickly and effectively learn the English language
Willing, and if, able to serve in the armed forces of this great country and inspire my children to do in kind
Make every effort possible my children go to school, stay in school, and learn in school to have the best possible chance to be a productive member of society.
Work as hard as I can to achieve the dream many Americans have before them and now I
Believe in one Almighty GOD
Make America proud of me with its legacy on immigration

Signed ______________________ Date ___________________

Wetback versus the "N" word

2007-12-13T18:07:00.000-08:00

Welcome to racist Americans in main stream politics. Georgia has to be one of the dumbest states in the country when it comes to electing its politicians or they are getting exactly what they ask for: dumb ass white ignorant racist that can't pick on blacks anymore move to Hispanics so they can continue the generational bigotry handed down with each Budweiser. If the state were a person the racism and ignorance it wreaks would demand a thorough washing of its mouth.

Unfortunately Georgia is headed by a governor that can only deal with illegal Hispanics only if they serve our country in the middle east and come back dead. Only then will he use this scene for a photo op and press conference and quickly promote them to citizen post mortem. How tacky is that? Then on deck they have Senator Chip Rogers teaming up with an avowed racist as a political consultant to help fast track legislation so Georgia can put up signs around the border "Immigrants not welcome, especially if they are Latino".

These guys are bad enough and certainly dumb enough but the clean up hitter just stepped out of the dugout and here is what this God fearing American had to say about his neighbors from the South: "It's going to get worse as the criminals move in from Atlanta and based on what I see, the wetbacks from down south, we're going to have more and more all the time," Head said.

82-year-old County Commissioner William Head said this at a meeting in Carroll County. If this wasn't enough he told Channel 2 he has no intentions of making an apology. He said, "They are illegal immigrants, they are wetbacks. I'm sure they don't like that terminology, I really don't care. I owe no one an apology. I stand by what I said."

First consider he was probably educated in Georgia which means he did not receive one and secondly, the education he did receive was handed down from his "daddy" - like son was probably also a racist. He has no idea he offended every Hispanic in the country and what makes matters worse is that the Black community in Atlanta, home of civil rights, took no offense to the word and did not mention it as a slur to human beings everywhere. I suppose in the US the only word that is considered repulsive is the "N" word. I do not use it out of respect but I wonder if the respect Blacks want is even paid back in kind.

Mr. Head should be removed from his position. Mr. Head should not have a public forum to teach our future leaders that ignorance and stupidity are qualifications for Georgia politicians. The people of Georgia should be embarrassed and horrified but they are not. The Hispanics of Georgia need to take note of this and stop allowing people to be mistreated and start expressing their anger and mis-trust of a government hell bent on using any method to re-install the new Jim Crow laws of yesteryear - Jose Crow. Being an "illegal" does not justify or make it right for another human to use cheap and abusive language particularly from community leaders. Wow what about asking him to speak to your kids at school.

The Black political machine can take out a sitting chairman in the US senate but they won't lift a finger to help defend basically poor, hard working, God-loving people.

These poor people literally get "taxed with no representation" and it is only cowards that go after defenseless people looking for hard work. The tax revenues are never separated in two piles one for legals and one for illegals so they can send this illegal money back from where it came from. No, they simply let it go into the one for "legals" coffers and spend it to attack and denigrate a whole group of people. This guy probably doesn't have a clue that a part of his paycheck comes from these "illegals".

The only good news is that taking pot shots at people that do not speak English works both ways. In one way it makes them an easy target because they can not defend themselves. In another way they did not understand what he said because they do not speak English but more importantly they were probably watching Telemundo and not channel 2.

Other words probably OK for Georgia leaders to put in practice are Kite, Jewboy, slope, chink, and dago. This way when they finish driving out all the Hispanics out of Georgia they can start on these. Then they can come full circle and start all over again with Blacks. This is what our boys are fighting for.

Head's fellow commissioner Randy Simpkins said he felt it was unfortunate Head made the comment but Head has been on the commission for 7 years and in that time he has never known him to be racist. Well Mr. Simpkins now you know!

Is this really a gun control issue?

2007-12-10T19:02:00.000-08:00

Ten people died in two shooting rampages on opposite sides of the United States on Monday night.

An 18-year-old carrying a shotgun, a handgun and ammunition opened fire on shoppers in a mall in Salt Lake City, the state capital of Utah.

There was no apparent explanation for the shooting spree, which killed five people and wounded four before police shot the teenager dead

In Philadelphia a gunman burst into a business meeting and killed three men and critically injured a fourth in what appeared to be a dispute over money.
He left two other men bound with duct tape but unharmed. Reports said the gunman killed himself after trading shots with police.

source: Ed Pilkington in New York Wednesday February 14, 2007 The Guardian

Some of the worst shooting incidents inside US schools and universities in recent years:

August 1966: Charles Whitman is one of the most notorious names among America’s mass killers. In August 1966 he climbed a 27-storey tower at the University of Texas in Austin and shot passersby on the campus below before being killed by police. Fifteen people were killed, including his mother and wife, whom he had shot the night before. An autopsy found he had been suffering from a brain tumour.
October 1997: A 16-year-old boy stabs his mother, then shoots dead two students at a school in Mississippi, injuring several others.

December 1997: A 14-year-old boy kills three students in Kentucky.

March 1998: At Westside Middle School in Jonesboro, Arkansas, two boys aged 13 and 11 set off the fire alarm and killed four students and a teacher as they left the school.

April 1998: A 14-year-old shoots dead a teacher and wounds two students in Pennsylvania.

May 1998: A 15-year-old shoots dead two students in a school cafeteria in Oregon.

June1998: Two adults are hurt in a shooting by a teenage student at a Virginia high school.

April 1999: Two heavily armed teenage students, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, rampage through their school in Littleton, Colorado, killing 12 students and a teacher, as well as wounding 24 others, before committing suicide

May 1999: A student injures six pupils in a shoot-out in Georgia.

November 1999:A 13-year-old girl is shot dead by a classmate in New Mexico.

February 2000: A six-year-old girl is shot dead by a classmate in Michigan

March 2001: A pupil opens fire at a school in California, killing two students.

January 2002: A student who had been dismissed from the Appalachian School of Law in

Grundy, Virginia, kills the dean, a professor and a student, and wounds three others.

April 2003: A teenager shoots dead the head-teacher at a Pennsylvania school, then kills himself.

May 2004: Four people are injured in a shooting at a school in Maryland.

March 2005: Jeffrey Weise, a 16-year-old high school student guns down five students, a
teacher and a security guard at Red Lake High School in northern Minnesota before killing himself. He also killed his grandfather and his grandfather’s girlfriend elsewhere on the Chippewa Indian reservation.

November 2005: A student in Tennessee shoots dead an assistant principal and wounds two other administrators.

September 2006: Duane Morrison, a 53-year-old drifter, takes six female high school students hostage in Bailey, Colorado, after entering Platte Canyon High School, claiming to be carrying a bomb. He sexually assaulted them and then shot one, fatally, before killing himself when police arrived.

September 2006: Two days after the Bailey killing, a 15-year-old student kills his school’s principal in western Wisconsin after telling another student “you better run".

October 2006: Charles Roberts, a 32-year-old milk truck driver takes hostages and eventually shoots 10 girls girls aged seven to 13, killing five, before shooting himself. Roberts had indicated to his wife over the phone that he had dreams about molesting children.

April 2007: A gunman kills at least 31 people in a dormitory and classroom at Virginia Tech university before being shot dead himself.

source:Timeline: US shooting sprees By Tom Leonard in New York for Telegraph.co.uk

Is this really a gun control issue or are other forces at work that no one wants to address? With the exception of a shooting on an Indian reservation, all the other killings were, overwhelming for the most part, young white males. Should we be afraid of white males?

In this country when you turn to the immigration debate invariably the discussion turns to all the crime illegals create that have no business being here. It is easy to take isolated cases and play them throughout conservative radio and whip up their listeners ( overwhelmingly white) to continue to create the illusion that illegals continue to burden our country. When the fact remains many are law abiding people ( then they argue how can they be if they are here illegal? - a broken circle to be sure). I am not sure of the public relations commotion they want to create with the news of illegals committing crimes. Is it to turn the spotlight on illegals to continue the "march of the penguins" to get them out of our country. Or is it to hide the real perpetrators of crime white males? Statistics are like a whore, once you get them down you can do anything you want with them and pencil-whip them to produce the results desired. It is very common to see crime statistics reported in percentages. It is easy to sway the asses, I mean masses to believe the statistics based on percents leads them to believe that blacks and Hispanics commit more crimes than whites, do more drugs than whites, and generally, as mud people, are just simply undesirable at any level. With most educated by the public school systems they can not do the math to calculate what the percentages quoted by government and media sources to understand the numbers behind them.

From 1976 to 2005 --
86% of white victims were killed by whites
94% of black victims were killed by blacks

Of all homicides in the US 50.9% are committed by whites and 46.9% committed by blacks. Where are the Hispanics, probably under white but insignificant to break out. With 75% white on white and 75% black on black. Only 25% cross racial lines. source Department of Justice http://ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

The conclusion is that most people kill their own kind. But the other conclusion is that the crime issue is not a Hispanic one. The string of murders over the last 50 years committed by white males certainly sets a pattern that has to be recognized and discussed. There is some sort of meltdown in the social fabric within the white community that turns, far too often, teenagers into mass murderers. Why are we not alarmed? When is the focus of crime going to turn away from those who commit a small percentage of crimes to those that commit the bulk of them? America does not have to look towards the influx of minorities to blame for the rampant rise of crime when all it has to do is turn around and took a good look in the mirror to find those responsible for the degradation of the social fabric of America - good ole white America.

note: Most of my dear friends are white males. (Why wouldn't it be this way with over a 150,000,000 of them in the US.) Don't get me started about the onslaught of young white females raping young teenage boys in schools.

Is there more of Chavez to come?

2007-12-09T18:04:00.000-08:00

After the December 2nd vote that denied Hugo Chavez the right to be dictator for the life you would have thought, given his propensity to be for the people, that he would have abided by the will (vote) of the people? I mean, after all, isn't that what dictators masquerading around as socialist do-do the will of the people? Even though it was a close vote 51% against versus 49% for (in sports whether you lose by one or one million it is still a loss) it was still defeated. But the ego of Chavez will not let this stand in the way of what he wants - ruthless power.

After the vote Chavez got up on national television with his army commanders in tow and conceded the vote and proceeded to tell the opposition that this defeat is "mierda". He said "mierda" three times to them telling them that he will still get what he wants this is merely a bump in the road (For those of you linguistically challenged, mierda means shit in English).

So the Chavez saga will continue. This is a sad commentary on leadereship around the world. It is clear to me that national leaders (mostly men) are driven by greed, power, and ego. It does not matter the side they are on what matters is the method in which they drive their agendas. Chavez clearly feels pwoerful only due to the fact that his country's coffers are getting full as the cost of each barrel of oil rises. Without the wealth Chavez wouldn't have any power hence no world stage. His people would see him for what he is but the graft built into the political and military infrastructure runs so vast and deep it didn't take much thinking to beleive Chavez with the money rolling in could easily buy the alligences of those that controlled the foot soldiers necessary to keep his stronghold on the people and fight back any resistance.

The fact that oil producing countries sponsor dictators, non-democratic elections, have human rights abuses, and endanger women it can be argued that anyone that uses the by-products of oil are also contributing and sponsoring these regimes. Oil profits are allowing what was once small and distant countries take command of the world stage and allowing radical politics and thought to become accepted.

As we continue to rely on foriegn oil, whether it be from the north of us, the south of us, or east of us, we will have to learn how to swallow "meirda" from these radical leaders with their new found power.

ZAPPA

2007-12-04T12:02:00.000-08:00

14 years ago Frank Zappa died on this day. Most people have never heard of Frank Zappa or of his music. I have been a fan ( I don't like the word fan because it is short for fanatical and I am not fanatical about anything but nevertheless) of Zappa's since the early 70's when kids I grew up with would sing out loud his rhyming lyrics precursor surely to today's modern rap. No one not even today, when it came to wordsmith, came close to matching the complex music with rhyming catchy stories of Frank Zappa. Take some time out today and play a little Zappa to remember a great musician who died before his time. He was 52.

R.I.P.

FRANNK ZAPPA

1941-1993

And don't forget "do not eat the yellow snow"

Chavez loses Venezuela wins

2007-12-03T18:06:00.000-08:00

Yesterday was a crucial day for the people of Venezuela. It has only been the last two-three days that our news media picked up on the story that Chavez was pushing for a change in the constitution that would have allowed him to rule for life. The people of Venezuela, with what appears to be with little help from the outside world, rebelled protested on the streets and screamed all the way to prison to shout down this awful display of egomania gone wild.

The popularity of Chavez in his country is simple but it may come at the expense of the future. It seems that Venezuela derives 90% of its export income from the sale of oil. 60% of the exported oil lands in the US which accounts for about 10-11% of our consumption. Does our need for his oil make us beholding to Chavez? Chavez then takes the income and drives it into social programs benefiting the populace of Venezuela and making fierce loyalists of the people he subsidizes, usually poor and low income. But what Chavez is forgetting is the capital cost to re-build a tired and aging oil infrastructure that if not attended to quickly Venezuela may find it hard to place any oil on the world markets.

Getting back to a December 2, 2007 being a historic day in Venezuela on two fronts. One was the defeat of the Chavez-for-life change to the constitution and second the first defeat for Chavez in his country. Is his control finally loosening? Congratulations to all the democratic forces in Venezuela that opposed Chavez. The fragility of democracy put to another test and won.

harboring terrorist

2007-12-01T18:05:00.000-08:00

In the fall of 2003, Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada, then president of Bolivia, ordered the deployment of soldiers to quell large protests against the export of Bolivian gas. Over several days from mid-September through mid-October, the troops fired into crowds in the city of El Alto, near La Paz, and allegedly used snipers to shoot at civilian protesters. Sixty-seven people were killed, including several children, and hundreds of others were injured. On October 17, 2003, Sánchez de Lozada and two of his ministers fled to the United States, where they remain.

(excerpt from WOLA website - see full story on WOLA.ORG

What interested me in this story was the fact that these men fled to the US where they remain. Does this bother anyone other than me? Why would our government harbor criminals? The US also allowed a convicted plane bomber from Panama into our country to allow his escape from justice. How do we as a nation justify going after Hussien ( a madman and a criminal bad doesn-t justify invasion see Dufar, Haiti, Venezuela, N. Korea, Cuba, Saudia Arabia, Iran, and more) when we do stupids things like this? What message are we sending?

Why our children do not listen to us about drugs - part 1

2007-11-30T18:50:00.000-08:00

I will not start with the obvious reason our children do not trust our guidance and wisdom when it comes to the use of drugs -the pervasiveness of alcohol through the very core of our society. Alcohol is a legal killer, hard to defend but socially and legally accepted. I'll save the discussion on alcohol for a later time.

How can we tell our children to not use drugs when we are a nation of drug makers, pushers, and users. As I look around the country I see a nation fixated by and with drugs. In a report published by the government called America's Drug Abuse Profile it states that more than a third of all Americans have used or tried an illicit drug. It goes on to say the use of illicit drugs among eighth graders is up 150 percent over the past five years. The University of Michigan’s 1996 Monitoring the Future study found that more than half of all high school students use illicit drugs by the time they graduate. Drug-related illness, death, and crime cost the nation approximately $66.9 billion. Eighty-two percent of all people who try cigarettes do so by age eighteen. Approximately 4.5 million American children under eighteen now smoke, and every day another three thousand adolescents become regular smokers. But this is only part of the story. The real drug pushers are the supply chain and distribution networks designed to get a large, steady, and profitable supply of drugs into the market as quickly and efficiently as possible. I am not talking about the narco-terrorist or the drug king pins from Columbia and Mexico I am talking about the legitimate purveyors of drug - drug manufacturers and its supply chain. When you consider the land sales, construction cost of pharmacies, the nation-wide trucking network, and the proliferation of doctor offices churning out prescriptions to the tune of 1 billion per year the value of this drug network is in the trillons of dollars.

106,000 deaths are from prescription drugs, according to Death by Medicine. That also is a conservative number. Some experts estimate it should be more like 200,000 because of under reported cases of adverse drug reactions.

According to The US Dept of Health and Human Services March 7, 2003 Prevention alert: Students in big cities are "pharming" these days- "pharming" being new lexicon for grabbing "a handful" of prescription drugs and ingesting some or all of them. Young people steal grandma's pills and distribute them at school. Senior citizens falsify their prescriptions for more pain medication. Babysitters take pills from cabinets. An Ohio real estate agent loses her license for pilfering pills from bathrooms at "Open Houses."

The appeal is obvious-the drugs can be legally obtained, the stigma of going to a street pusher can be avoided, and the price isn't steep. There are an estimated 800,000 web sites which sell prescription drugs on the Internet and will ship them to households no questions asked. Today, about one-third of all U.S. drug abuse is prescription drug abuse.

While most illicit drug abuse, particularly for middle and high school teens, began to slow or actually decline in 2002 after a half a decade increase, abuse of prescription drugs continues to climb:

Over the past decade-and-a-half, the number of teen and young adult (ages 12 to 25) new abusers of prescription painkillers such as oxycodone (OxyContin) or hydrocodone (Vicodin) has grown five-fold (from 400,000 in the mid-eighties to 2 million in 2000).

New misusers of tranquilizers such as diazepam (Valium) or alprazolam (Xanax, called "zanies" by youth)-medicine normally used to treat anxiety or tension-went up nearly 50 percent in one year (700,000 in 1999 to 1 million in 2000).

More than 17 percent of adults over 60, wittingly or not, abuse prescription drugs.
In 2000, more than 19 million prescriptions for ADHD drugs were filled, a 72 percent increase since 1995. An estimated 3 to 5 percent of school-age children have ADHD. A study of students in Wisconsin and Minnesota showed 34 percent of ADHD youth age 11 to 18 report being approached to sell or trade their medicines, such as Ritalin.

Among 12- to 17-year-olds, girls are more likely than boys to use psycho therapeutic drugs non medically.

See full report http://ncadi.samhsa.gov/govpubs/prevalert/v6/4.aspx

These statistics are old by today's standard. I hate to imagine how bad it is today versus how it was in 2003. The abuse of prescription drugs is alarming but yet we focus on pot!

If we are a drug nation or a nation of drug users how can we sound credible to our children telling them to say no to drugs? Every third ad on TV is a drug ad telling you or someone you know to take a purple, yellow, white or pink pill for any ailment, mental anguish or anxiety, or funny feeling in the legs syndrome that may or may not have. You will get a quick fix because you deserve it. Don't forget to ask your doctor for our drugs and you can try them for free. What a business with a legal and some would argue safe delivery system of doling out billions of dollars for billions of pills flooding our homes every day and we wonder why our children do not listen to our message about drugs.

Every corner in America has a drug store. A retail drug outlet open 24 hours a day able to provide you with an endless supply of drugs in child proof containers churned out by some of the richest and biggest companies in the world. They spend every waking moment thinking of new ailments so they can design new drugs that they can freely flow them down the vast distribution network that they have created. And our government provides them tax breaks to develop these new drugs that puts most people in a stupor and really has no likelihood of curing them. I do not say that there are a not lot of great drugs that do great things for improving people's lives. What I am saying is that masquerading along side these legitimate drugs are the posers that do nothing more than inflate company profits and import drugs into our society and don our throats.

Exercise and diet can cure most of the today's health problems. We have a serious problem America and its your neighbor, your uncle, your wife or someone close to you that is abusing a legal substance on a daily basis.

some things never change

2007-11-28T13:53:00.000-08:00

When my father wanted to fix something he would take his right foot and give it a swift kick. That was the good ole days where everything had mechancial components to make it work not like today where you have more computer inside a washing machine than NASA had in the 60's. A swift kick just doesn't seem to work anymore.

I recently purchased a brand new high definition 65 inch wide screen TV. What a fantastic picture and I even purchased a new entertainment cabinet just to hold it. After less than 3 months it stopped working. It refused to turn on. I thought about what my Dad would have done and of course he would of given it a swift kick but I couldn't not on this super high def 1080i/p with integrated digital tuning. So I read the manual and proceeded down the troubleshooting path. After some amateur diagnosis I determine there was a bulb that had possibly gone bad. Fortunately for me the unit was under warranty. I called the 800 number and after a few minutes of waiting I spoke to a service representative and proceeded to inform him of the details of the problem. Before I could say send me a new bulb for the TV he asked me to go to the back of the TV and open a small door that contained a small cage housing the bad bulb. He said many times the mercury sticks in the bulb and it needs a little kick to move it along. I didn't know mercury could stick but I did what he asked me to do and he patiently walked through the process of removing the bulb. After I removed it he asked me to bang it lightly with my hand on the cage a few times and then re-install the bulb and the door. After I finished banging the bulb and replacing it I proceeded to turn on the TV and lo and behold the TV magically worked.

I guess some things never change. My Dad would be proud to know that a swift kick still works.

contrary to popular belief

2007-11-26T18:05:00.000-08:00

From the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) - Among African-American, Hispanic, and White 12th-graders, Whites have the highest rates of past year illicit drug abuse.

repressive regimes squash the web

2007-11-25T19:21:00.000-08:00

see julie's comment but to paraphrase she wonders how foreigners can help when they can not even help themselves. Even worse she says is the government having control over the media so getting the message out is dificult and dangerous. We do have the power of the internet which in its pure state is free, open and of course world-wide. I have seen how the Castro regime controls the web in Cuba and now we have chavez in Venezuela trying to control the web. If any of these cycberhackers, info-terrorist, datastrippers, or whatever theyyou call yourselves have real balls they would open up cyberspce in China, cuba, Venezuela, and any other repressive regime trying to quash the free flow of information. We need info-patriots as a new breed of fighter opening up virtual borders in countries that base thier power on lies, greed, and repression.

Not wanting to stray from answering Julie, however I can not resist to acknowledge the flag bearers leading the way to help these regimes achieve censorship. Talk about an aximoron. The companies dedicated to bringing light speed switched information to your finger tips on a moments request - Cisco, Google, Microsoft all helping China and others suppress the very thing that has made their stock soar - the free flow of information be it data, video, music, picture.

Well, julie if any of these cyber hunters decide to hep in Venezuela maybe you can get the story out of the country so the world can witness the destruction of democracy by a power hungry, angry man. Will the rest of the world just sit back and let it happen? Probably.

In a global world we have global stickiness. The impact of one decision in one culture simultaneously has a different impact on another culture instantly.

Drugs and America

2007-11-24T06:15:00.001-08:00

Is it any wonder why children, by the time they are teenagers, do not trust what parents and society has taught them over the years? This includes matters on religion, relationships, sex and of course drugs. We teach by lying. We teach by contradiction. And we teach by ignoring the reality of the situations we face largely due to the denial our societal mental state is currently engaged in. America is on a war on drugs (war on terrorism, war on immigration, blah, blah, blah) fought on many different battlefronts over the course of many years with the same dismal failures over and over. The "war" is mis-guided and mis-managed. It has gotten so bad that recently former federal attorney and republican conservative congressman, Bob Barr, has taken over the fight for the National Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) as its lobbyist representing the organization to change laws effecting the sale and distribution of marijuana. Why has he done this? Maybe because the current policy is flawed ( nice word for stupid).

Of course I believe we should legalize marijuana for many reason I will highlight the resaon later on this blog. These observations and conclusions I arrived at after many years of seeing a far reaching government use drug laws to manipulate our behaviour. I am no expert merely a human observer caught in the process.

Over the last 80 years the government and the established morality organizations have fought the onslaught of drugs by imposing various tactics into our society. In the early years fear was used as the primary weapon of choice to combat the use of drugs. Movies, such as "Reefeer Maddness" (1930s) were used to scare the beejesus out of users smoking. Their kids would be abnormal, their brains would be fried and you would lose your mind! As we fast forward to today we realize it is the food supply that is doing this to us today being provided by the same people supposedly protecting us. I am not a conspiracy theorist but....

When fear did not abate the import and use of drugs the tactic switched to brute force enforcement and confiscation of personal property protected by the Constitution. Jails to this day are being filled with pot smokers and allowing hardened criminals to go free due to overcrowding. Drug bail can be much higher than those for murder. Where are our priorities? We continue to use these tactics when they should be fighting terrorism and resources are constrained. This again has done little to combat drugs and use continues to rise.

The next move was the ethical right. Somehow in our society drug use became a moral and ethical issue. Somehow against the will of God, herself! All the pulpits across America could now preach about the immorality of drugs. I am sure it can be argued God would prefer a believer live and worship with pure mind and body. But come on, does anyone do this? We slaughter our bodies with foods made wholly from chemicals, we slaughter our environment with gases and waste, and our humanity through war and power mongering. In America you can lose your children if you have a joint in the house but a raging drunk will be put in bed to sleep it off. You are allowed at a church picnic with a fine bottle of wine with no questions asked but substitute a joint in its place and you are hauled off to jail and now considered somehow more evil than with the bottle of wine, a far more dangerous drug. People that drink do not believe they are doing drugs. Yet alcohol is a very dangerous drug with known outcomes. It is the same as parents that send their children to public school do not believe they are using a welfare program from the government.

So we have fear, aggression, and morality as tools against drugs and yet none of them are working. Why? Why do we spend billions with Mexico and Columbia to fight the war on drugs when we hardly make a dent? why do we send thousands of our youth to prison? Why do we budget resources for drug fighting when they are limited and precious and instead should be used for fighting terrorism? I believe that our officers in local and border enforcement are great individuals, true heroes doing a difficult and dangerous job. It is our politicians that have failed us in this so called war. Why isn't it working? Why is demand being measured in percentages rather then actual numbers? Why are our children mistrustful of us? More to come later.....

Watch out for Chavez

2007-11-24T04:58:00.000-08:00

As America fights terrorism and spreads democracy does anybody wonder why we are letting democracy fade in our own backyard. As anti-immigrant sentiment in America grows we increasingly ignore our neighbors to the south of our borders. We are in the middle east toppling Hussein in Irag, in Afghanistan toppling the Taliban, but in Venezuela we are seeing the rise of a dictator before our very eyes. Many Americans, ignorant of affairs south of the border, do not know the constitution in Venezuela will be changing in December to allow Hugo Chavez presidency for life. Democratic forces in Venezuela are protesting and fleeing the country with no support from us. How can we not support a country fighting for democratic ideals in our own backyard and let them slip into a leftist regime that will surely suppress its people and economy? Does the richness that oil has brought this country responsible for creating and egging on their boldness to deny freedoms to its citizens?

Are we as major procurers of their oil responsible for their backtracking of democratic freedoms? Are we providing them the profits to move their regime forward? Are we part of the problem with our locust-like consumption.

The Chavez regime is in the process of stripping land and holdings away from its people. The poeple of Venezuela have no choice but to flee the country and leave all that they worked for behind. In many instances Venezuelans are holding wrecking parties. These are get togethers with friends and family desinged to wreck and demolish thier homes and other properties to prevent Chavez from siezing a working piece of property. Chavez ends up with rubble and the owners end up with some satisfaction.

America needs to wake up are we will be fighting far worse and far closer in our next struggle to maintain the democracies we are used to having.

Why aren't rich oil countires paying us for the war in Iraq?

2007-11-24T04:46:00.000-08:00

A question I always wondered as we engaged in the Iraqi war is why aren't the rich oil countries we are protecting (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc) paying for the cost of the war. We, as Americans, are paying for all the cost with money, time, and the blood of our soldiers, that includes our kids, parents, and in some cases our grandparents. The cost of oil rises as our soldiers die. Give them the tab.

We want to spread democracy but at the same time the oil countries are not democratic and in many instances spit in the face of democratic principles. They do not allow elections. women rights, religious freedom, free press and other democratic principles but yet they are our friends. How can that be? Why are we not requiring them to pay for the war, set up security in the region, and using their oil to run our equipment in Iraq? But no! Are there interest in the US that want the oil at over $100 per barrel? Are the profiteers of the war machine really interested in stopping terrorism? Is simple supply and demand really what is driving the price of oil?

immigration

2007-11-22T08:45:00.000-08:00

Immigration what a hot topic - so hot our politicans won't touch it , can't solve it, and will not get elected if they support it. This topic is so hot that 80% of Americans are against it. You have to ask yoursleve why are so many against it and why won't our politicians speak about. It also appears to me no one wants to speak the truth about the subject. I want to hear your comments about your views on immigration and why. Yes, why do you ahve this view? How do you support your view? Obviously red necks, racists, one world advocates, english only advocates and anyone else taht wants to comment I would like to hear your explanation on your immigration thoughts.

Can you imagine giving them drivers license? Some can and some can't? What about giving a path to citizenship? Are the borders allowing terrorists in? Does anyone really understand this issue or just to merely say they are illegal is enough to end the debate? This Jose Crow mentality is what we want driving America? Remember that drinking out of a fountain or riding in the front of the bus was illegal and made any one a criminal that did this if they were of color. Does this make sense to anyone? Is this really about border and immigration security or just about not wanting any more Mexicans in? Does anyone realize we have 4 borders but only want to speak about one?

2007-11-22T08:25:00.000-08:00

This is the first time I have ever written to or posted information on the web concerning any of my thoughts and comments. After over 50 years of living on this planet I thought I could shed light on events happening around us, to us and with or without us. We are in the middle of war, upcoming elections, debating immigration, global warming, stem cell research, and the list goes on. Many of these debates are setting policy with our government that will influence the way we behave and how we pursue our right to happinees. The debates many times are ugly, rude, and hateful but worst of all there is little validation and verification of the information being used to sway one camp or another. How can we as Americans decide, vote and implement policy and law when the information we use to make these decisions may be flawed? How we keep our policitians accountable is by making them prove what they say is supported by fact not merely twistred data that they easily manipulate to state their position.

These debates have divided our country. Not just liberal and conservation but way worst. Dividing by ideaology, racial lines ( now we have added Hispanic to the black and white struggle), economic lines,and along religious custom and belief. Where are we headed? Where will we end up? With the power of the web we longer have to rely on the traditional sources of information from biased news organizations, inlcuding FOX, devious politicians, and a government beauracry so strong and powerful that whomever is the next president may not matter.