electric dust

On one hand...but on the other hand....

2011-05-25T12:58:00.000-07:00

Rob Woodall(R-GA) expressed in a town hall meeting the following: You want the government to take care of you, because your employer decided not to take care of you. My question is, 'When do I decide I'm going to take care of me?'" In other words, we shouldn't be relying on the government to take care of us. Personally, I agree to an extent this sentiment in that we should all be as responsible as possible. That said, when it comes to retirement, I don't know a model that works better than Medicare.

However, in the next breath when Mr. Woodall was challenged by a constituent to basically walk his talk, his response was quite surprising. The constituent asked him to give up his government health care and go out and get a private policy. He balked. His response was that he wasn't going to do that because his government provided health care is free. That certainly doesn't exemplify be the change you want to see.

Rob Woodall: "Folks, if you give people things for free, don't blame them for taking them." That's his defense.

Comments?

Some Nursery Rhyme Magic

2011-04-25T10:50:00.000-07:00

Something unexpected if not novel...but isn't that what living is all about?

Edward Reid Sings Nursery Rhymes to Run backing...

Five Going On Six

2010-09-05T11:20:00.000-07:00

About two weeks ago, I took my son Matthew to Target to pick out a book bag and lunch box to start kindergarten. At the store, he initially choose a very gray big boy bag with the standard plethora of pockets and zippers. He seemed quite pleased, tried it on and put in the cart. The next step was to select a lunch box. And by contrast to his book bag, he selected Iron Man 2 without hesitation.

We then headed to the general school supply area to get the classroom a few supplies per the teacher. On a nearby rack I saw the character bags. Matthew didn't see them and I could have walked away, but I thought that even though this could be an invitation to trouble, it was only fair that he get to choose. All of them, except the Transformers one, had big plastic / vinyl pictures covering the back of them. I didn't really like the look of them and proceeded to tell Matthew that they would fall apart easily. He seemed really concerned about that and stuck to his big boy bag even after I offered him the Transformers bag, currently his favorite movie. Matthew gave advice to a customer by politely informing her that the plastic bags would fall apart. He is so helpful.

The next morning, my wife was off to work early and our niece hadn't quite woken up. So as I was getting ready for work with my little guy David still sleeping, Matthew decided to get himself ready for school. This included brushing his teeth, getting dressed, breakfast, and little to my knowledge at the time packing his lunch and book bag.

We did have a little snafu with getting dressed. He wanted to wear his Eagles tube socks with shorts. While I may have allowed it, Mom would never approve so I told him he had to wear jeans if he wanted to wear the socks. So he put on some jeans and we continued the morning.

After getting ready, I checked on his lunch box. He had everything he needed - Lunchables Pizza, fruit cup, plastic fork and spoon, and a napkin. His book bag was ready as well with a book - The Foot Book (Dr. Seuss). I sighed and took a deep breath because books from home really shouldn't go to school, but not wanting to disappoint I let him take it.

As he is getting into the truck and in his car seat I notice something attached to his pants. It was the labels - apparently these were new jeans; I have no idea where he got them from, but it was too late to turn back now. So I ripped off the labels and we were on our way jamming to Phineas and Ferb.

We got to school and because it was technically the beginning of their school year, the rooms were switched around and he would spend the week with the Dolphins. It caught both him and I off guard, but what are you going to do. Some of his friends were in the room as well so that helped with the short transition.

We went to hang up his book bag and I took out his lunch bag to put it in the refrigerator. He told me that I didn't have to that because it was already cold. I said I know but it has to go into the refrigerator to stay cold. He said no it didn't and when I asked him why, he said he already put an ice pack in it. Huh? I opened the bottom part of the lunch bag and sure enough there was an ice pack. That. Was. Awesome.

Is President Obama A Marxist?

2010-07-05T19:44:00.000-07:00

On a debate site, a comment was made that Obama is a Marxist and subsequently reiterated in the same thread by another member. After challenging the statement, the comment was retracted. But I thought it would be an interesting process to see if Obama really is a Marxist. It seems to be a major talking point of conservative pundits and less than moderate conservatives.

First we must define what is a Marxist which seems relatively straight forward: a Marxist would be an individual that subscribes to Marxism. So then, what is Marxism. Now please understand that I am no expert (and of course feel free to correct me if I am wrong), but the process of Marxism will ultimately lead to communism. And while communism in theory may have it's merits, historically it has been proven dangerous which is why we should be concerned if one or more of our leaders subscribe to Marxism.

The following is a list of fundemental tenets of Marxism. I felt that these would be fair and objective way to determine if President Obama is indeed a Marxist.

Basic Tenets of Marxism
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

Let's take a look at each of these tenets individually and see how President Obama's policies and actions relate.

Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
Now one might site the temporary takeovers within the auto industry and failed banks as examples of the government eliminating private property. But these acts were approved by Congress and are indeed temporary. The Federal Government is indeed the largest owner of property in the U.S. as one might expect.

And while this didn't happen singularly under President Obama's watch, people still attempt to use this as a way to indicate a trend with regard to the current Administration. However, in contrast with the first tenet, Obama has issues an $8 billion sell off government property and leases. http://www.govexec.com/pdfs/061010rb1.pdf - Note the subject: Disposing of Unneeded Federal Real Estate – Increasing Sales Proceeds, Cutting Operating Costs, and Improving Energy Efficiency.

A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
The United States does indeed have a graduated income tax. At the most basic level, the more income you earn, the more you are taxed. While it would be convenient to blame President Obama for this system it was actually founded in the 16th Amendment ratified in 1913. That said, Obama does believe in taxing those that can afford to be taxed to be used to pay for programs for the less fortunate. This is clearly demonstrated in the health care legislation. However, one can look at the Recovery Act and see that depending on the state you lived in, you may have actually received the largest income tax breaks if you were wealthy during 2009. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63C0FY20100413 To be sure, abolishing the tax system, even if President Obama wanted to, is not possible and therefore he must work within the framework provided.

Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
The current estate tax has been repealed for 2010 which means there is no estate tax for the year. In 2011, the tax is expected to go back to it's original level prior to the President Bush's tax cuts which is $1 million or more capped at 55% tax. Candidate Obama's proposal in 2008 was a $3.5 million or more estated capped at 45% tax. In contrast, Candidate McCain's proposal was $5 million or more at 15% tax. The question in my mind is that if Obama proposed the same standard as McCain, would one still claim that Obama supports this tenet? Or would they claim that any tax on inheritance supports this tenet? Either way, Obama's proposal is a lowering of the tax that was in law at the time. Definately a step in the non-Marxist direction.

Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
To be honest, I am not sure how to apply this with regard to President Obama. Emigrants generally come to the U.S. with very little if anything, often under political asylum. My Iraqi neighbors are an example of that process. I am not aware of any changes in law that President Obama has proposed that would apply to this tenet.

Centralisation of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
If there was ever a time when a national bank would be proposed this would be it. But the fact is that while the Federal Government felt compelled to purchase toxic assets and inject a ton of capital to prop up very large banks, there was no motion to create a national bank or an exclusive monopoly (beyond what has already been established).

Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
The First Amendent pretty much guarantees freedom of the press. Some people claim that Obama wanted to ressurect the Fairness Doctrine, which was a policy that would require balance, essentially equal time, between left and right positions. However, this claim is a myth. Candidate Obama actually opposes the Fair Doctrine: Does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters ... [and] considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible. That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets. - Obama's press secretary from 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

With regard to electronic communications, the Federal government is releasing new frequencies to communication providers. But the real kicker is this Internet Kill switch that has been recently reported or rather misreprensented in the news. The fact is that via the 1934 Telecomunications Act as amended in 1996, the President already has the power to shut down any communications in a time of crisis. As noted in the source, the power is an all or nothing deal; the President cannot just shut down a single site.http://www.sodahead.com/united-state...h/blog-360683/ The new bill being proposed by Lieberman actually reduces the length of time the President can "turn off" communications:
In addition to the measures that allow companies to come up with their own ways to mitigate the risks to their companies (and customers) from cyber attacks, and the requirement that they use the least disruptive means possible and attempt to mitigate larger impacts, the legislation also only allows the President to impose the state of emergency for 30 days, with a potential extension of 30 days. Under current law, he is allowed to shut down any and all telecommunications infrastructure for as long as he likes.
As far as transportation is concerned, President Obama has made available to the Federal Transit Adminstration $8.4 billion with more money available from TIGER grants. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ransportation/ It's likely that much of this funding will find it's way to private companies like bus manufacturers, engineering companies, etc. but would ultimately depend on local and state agencies. But whatever the case may be, there does not seem to be a plan from President Obama to consolidate or centralize the transportation system.

Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Some may point to the Federal government's takeover of General Motors as a step towards communism, thusly supporting this tenet. But lest we forget, this process was actually started under President Bush. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008...ustry-bailout/ General Motors is mostly owned by the U.S. and partially by Canada as well. However this ownership is temporary - GM has paid back $6.7 billion of the $50 billion it borrowed from the government. Once the company goes public, the Government will be able to sell it's 60% stock. Aside of the temporary ownership of GM and Chrysler, I know of no other take over of production by the Government, or anything that is being promoted by President Obama.

I suppose the latter part of the tenet could be referring to farming. President Obama actually wanted to reduce the amount of subsides that go to farmers, especially those that generate substantial revenue. As one might expect, his proposals ran into some political opposition. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/04/us...cs/04farm.html

Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
My understanding of this tenet is those that work should be able to enjoy the product of work, and that everyone should have an equal stake in such product. While I don't think there is any direct reflection of this tenet within our society, one might look at income and the manner in which it's taxed. President Obama does seem to support, as stated earlier, the idea that if you make more, you can afford to pay more in taxes. However, he has never suggested that everyone get the same rate of pay for different work being done. Nor has he suggested limits in general to pay. He has limited pay to executives who received extraordinary assistance from the government saying this: This is America. We don’t disparage wealth. We don’t begrudge anybody for achieving success. But what gets people upset — and rightfully so — are executives being rewarded for failure. Especially when those rewards are subsidized by U.S. taxpayers. Clearly he is not adverse to people making money, just not on the taxpayers' dime.

Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
President Obama has given no indication that the Government should be in the business of farming or manufacturing. I don't know of any facilities that are actually government owned production plants. But when it comes specifically to farming, President Obama favors the family farmer as oppose to the factory or corporate farms: The President believes farm programs should target family farmers and provide the stability and predictability they need. President Obama believes that American farmers should have protection from market disruptions and weather disasters. At the same time, farm program effectiveness should be improved through restrictions on commodity payments to wealthy farmers. The President also supports the implementation of a commodity program payment limit, which will help ensure that payments are made only to those that most need them. http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/rural

I believe the United States is too large and populous to even imagine a plan to accommodate the latter part of the tenet.

Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
The Department of Education was created in 1867 at the Federal level with a progression afterwards to the system we have now. So the idea of a public education is not new to the Obama Administration. And we, as a country, are a far cry away from having a free education. I believe my local school tax bill was somewhere around $900. President Obama would like to see American at the top of the list when compared to other countries, but there are no substantial
changes to our current system to make that happen. President Obama does support vocational schools as well as other training and certification programs with $1.35 billion in additional funding. And in the stimulus, $4.3 billion was made available to schools in the "Race to the Top" program where they have the opportunity to compete for those funds.

Conclusion
Aside from tenet 2: A heavy progressive or graduated income tax, I believe that I have demonstrated that President Obama is not actively supporting and in some cases countering the remaining tenets. President Obama does firmly believe in taxing those who have money and helping those who are presumably less fortunate with that money. However, this has been a principle of the U.S. since 1916, so one can hardly state that the Obama Administration is doing something that past Administrations have not done. Therefore I conclude that: President Obama is not a Marxist.

Blender Dust

2010-06-25T13:10:00.000-07:00

Amazing what these devices boil down to or rather blend into.

I have to wonder if that's covered under the warranty.

Who is your hero?

2010-04-05T11:34:00.001-07:00

A little dust to make you smile...

2010-03-25T19:57:00.000-07:00

Dusty Dreams

2010-01-20T20:07:00.000-08:00

For quite a few of us, our dreams over time gather dust. They get put on a shelf and neglected as we give attention to our families, home, job and health. A dream may be something as simple as a new house, a new car or a vacation. But dreams will remain dreams until we make them goals and setting a plan into action to achieve those goals. And with the right knowledge and attitude these goals can become our reality.

To remind you what dreams are like a friend of mine sent me a video, a Porsche commercial of all things, capturing the essence of what we all did when we were kids.

Are the dreams coming back? Or perhaps they have never left....

So how do we set goals for ourselves? How do we create a goal statement? The following approach, while I am sure there are many, is easy to implement and follow. Begin by getting a sheet of paper and a pen. For the most effective results, you should avoid using the computer as the hand to paper action reinforces your commitment to your goals.

Think of three positive adjectives for yourself and write them down.
Next, write down three things that you want and the month, day and year.
Now, let's write the statement...

It is January 20th, 2010 and I, (your full name), am so happy and grateful to be a (your three adjectives). I take action each and everyday to (list your three goals and the corresponding dates). My life is awesome and totally amazing because I have found a vehicle that gives me the license to do all of things that I mentioned above and I work with a team that is making it happen. This is my truth and my success is non-negotiable.

You should write out your goal statement at least three times a day and say it aloud as well. Getting into the habit of doing this will allow your mind to begin working on these goals and ensuring your success. And now that you have a goal statement, the next step is to develop an action plan to make those dreams a reality....more on that later....

The Dust-Buster

2009-11-07T20:52:00.000-08:00

Before becoming interested in politics, I just didn't understand Steven Colbert and Jon Stewart. Nor did I know about Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, Scarborough, Olbermann, etc. I used to really like Dennis Miller, back when he was Dennis Miller instead of a tool. But Stewart (and his "90" writers) is the man. On occasion he misses the mark or doesn't ask the really hard questions or isn't persistent enough. But the following clip, from what I have seen of Glenn Beck, is absolutely spot on. One word: Classic.

Enjoy.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

The 11/3 Project

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Crisis

Organ-ize. There is a definite in-your-face mockery of Beck going on here. The crying, the timing, the chalkboard, the 11/3 project. But the undertone is the twisting of words and giving them double meaning to get from one point to the other. And hearing this stuff really affects people because they take the bait, hook, line, and sinker. People think Beck is sincere and to that I think huh? If it's that easy for Stewart to act like Beck, who's to say Beck isn't acting either? Why don't people see that?

Thank you Jon Stewart...thank you.

electric dust?

2009-09-29T10:07:00.000-07:00

Often times in our homes, we have items that collect dust and it is only until we remove the dust, that we can see the items true nature. Sometimes these items are important or precious to us; sometimes they surprise us; and sometimes these items have no value. But in each instance, these items sit around and collect dust until we disturb them. Dust is always around and seems to accrue on its own slowly over time; or it can be the result of a relatively powerful force such as a storm which creates a situation where we are forced to pay attention to and deal with the dust and temporarily lose sight of what is important to us.

Electric Dust is much of the same. There are important issues that face us personally, professionally, and as citizens that get obscured by all the electric dust in our information sources, whether it be television, internet, newspaper or radio. I believe that some of the electric dust is intentionally created to purposely mislead or distract people.

My goal is to focus on important issues within our lives across political, economic, and personal perspectives; to wipe away the electric dust and reveal the true nature of the topic at hand. I look forward to anyone joining in the discussions and hope that you find this blog of relevance. Also, I am open to any suggestions for topics to explore.