So some company (Creekstone Farms) wants to test all beef for madcow disease out of their own pocket, in part so they can sell to Japan. Who could oppose this? Who would say, gee company you should not make your product more safe for consumers? Well, apparently our government, the Agricultural Department to be exact. That is right, our government wants to prevent a company from being more safe.
Apparently, they want us to get mad cow disease. I am not sure why they want us to get mad cow disease, but they do.
I am really confused as to why they are doing this. But I do not want mad cow disease so I would like the government NOT to sue people to prevent private companies from keeping us safe.
Really, this is just stupid and should be on every news channel across the U.S.
yay CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/05/09/mad.cow.testing.ap/index.html
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Solution to Solving the Recession
So here is my very simple solution to staving off a recession here in America: Buy American and do not buy Walmart.
Why, you may ask would this act as a solution?
Well, for one, if you buy American, Americans would be employed (You would also generally get a higher quality product for your money, but that is another story). If Americans are employed, they would have money to buy things. They would then buy things (preferably more made in america stuff) and a glorious cycle would be created. We also would reduce our trade deficit, which would strengthen our dollar, which would lead to many benefits like lower gas prices.
So why am I asking you to say no to Walmart?
Well, for one they are one of the driving forces behind the Made in China America we live in today and I believe in punishing them for this. Also, they can afford healthcare for their workers and don't give it to them thereby creating a drain on the healthcare system. Over 70% of their products are Made in China (the rest is made in other third world countries, I don't think a single thing there comes from the US). How many American jobs do you think they have cost us (excluding the jobs lost when they move into a town and drive our mom and pop stores thereby ruining the American culture and work ethic)? Also, the stuff in your house wouldn't be crap because it wouldn't come from Walmart.
So that is my simple solution: Buy American and not Walmart
Why, you may ask would this act as a solution?
Well, for one, if you buy American, Americans would be employed (You would also generally get a higher quality product for your money, but that is another story). If Americans are employed, they would have money to buy things. They would then buy things (preferably more made in america stuff) and a glorious cycle would be created. We also would reduce our trade deficit, which would strengthen our dollar, which would lead to many benefits like lower gas prices.
So why am I asking you to say no to Walmart?
Well, for one they are one of the driving forces behind the Made in China America we live in today and I believe in punishing them for this. Also, they can afford healthcare for their workers and don't give it to them thereby creating a drain on the healthcare system. Over 70% of their products are Made in China (the rest is made in other third world countries, I don't think a single thing there comes from the US). How many American jobs do you think they have cost us (excluding the jobs lost when they move into a town and drive our mom and pop stores thereby ruining the American culture and work ethic)? Also, the stuff in your house wouldn't be crap because it wouldn't come from Walmart.
So that is my simple solution: Buy American and not Walmart
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Stupid Religious Ignorance Bothers Me
So some of you might be expecting some diatribe about respecting others religious choices (I am generally for this except for FLDS and Scientology and any other religion that preaches craziness and oppression - they don't deserve respect), but I instead I am about to focus on Christianity and interpretation of the New Testament.
So there is this website: http://www.ihatemymarriage.us/ It is hosted by new spring chuch (I will now call this church and all churches like it Ignorant Christian Church, or ICC for short). So ICC has made this website that discusses the way to an appropriate marriage. ICC says that to achieve this marriage you must follow the bible, in particular the parts of the bible that talk of submission of women to their husbands. A lot of ICCs of different denominations use certain versus of the bible to put women in an inferior position (including catholocism). Usually this stems from the inerracy of the bible (i.e. everything in the bible is right).
I am going to address the flaw of this argument. In my mind God does not ask for ignorant faith and I feel this is what churches that push inerracy asks for. Now, most of these anti-female verses of the bible are from Paul. He wrote the Corinthians, etc. Many people have no idea who Paul was.
I will tell you. Paul was a persecutor of Christians. He converted to Christianity after he came across Christ after Christ had risen from the dead. After his conversion he became a church leader and wrote many letters to churches on how to run themselves. Some of the anti-female verses in Corinthians even seem to be added later (some though admittedly come from Paul).
Now let me explain why this does not matter. Christ spoke of equality. He welcomed women amongst his followers. He never established anywhere the concept of women being inferior to men or their husbands. Christs words are the words in red in the bible. Guess what, the anti-female words of the new testament are not in red.
What does this mean? It means when we say that Pauls teachings that contain an anti-female bent are to be followed we are awarding them more authority than the teachings of Christ. This is what inerracy and ignorance gets you.
What do I suggest? Religious knowledge. Know where the books of the bible come from and realize what they are. Recognize that these writers may have biases because they are products of their time, but that we as individuals with minds able to think should look at these writings for what they are. Men close to Christ trying to determine how their church should be run after Christ had left. We should give weight to their words, but also recognize that they have biases. When an issue is called into question, we must fall back on the words in red and search for the truth.
Now boys, I know this may scare you. But why must you be in charge of your wife? Can't you have logical discussions to reach a conclusion? Or are you afraid you might not get what you want?
We saw what happens when men are given crazy authority over women (hint, FLDS child rape). No one should be given control over another. We as humans just cannot handle it. Equality is really what me strive for to prevent abuses of power.
Pope, contact me when you have decided to allow Catholics to think on their own. We'll talk.
So there is this website: http://www.ihatemymarriage.us/ It is hosted by new spring chuch (I will now call this church and all churches like it Ignorant Christian Church, or ICC for short). So ICC has made this website that discusses the way to an appropriate marriage. ICC says that to achieve this marriage you must follow the bible, in particular the parts of the bible that talk of submission of women to their husbands. A lot of ICCs of different denominations use certain versus of the bible to put women in an inferior position (including catholocism). Usually this stems from the inerracy of the bible (i.e. everything in the bible is right).
I am going to address the flaw of this argument. In my mind God does not ask for ignorant faith and I feel this is what churches that push inerracy asks for. Now, most of these anti-female verses of the bible are from Paul. He wrote the Corinthians, etc. Many people have no idea who Paul was.
I will tell you. Paul was a persecutor of Christians. He converted to Christianity after he came across Christ after Christ had risen from the dead. After his conversion he became a church leader and wrote many letters to churches on how to run themselves. Some of the anti-female verses in Corinthians even seem to be added later (some though admittedly come from Paul).
Now let me explain why this does not matter. Christ spoke of equality. He welcomed women amongst his followers. He never established anywhere the concept of women being inferior to men or their husbands. Christs words are the words in red in the bible. Guess what, the anti-female words of the new testament are not in red.
What does this mean? It means when we say that Pauls teachings that contain an anti-female bent are to be followed we are awarding them more authority than the teachings of Christ. This is what inerracy and ignorance gets you.
What do I suggest? Religious knowledge. Know where the books of the bible come from and realize what they are. Recognize that these writers may have biases because they are products of their time, but that we as individuals with minds able to think should look at these writings for what they are. Men close to Christ trying to determine how their church should be run after Christ had left. We should give weight to their words, but also recognize that they have biases. When an issue is called into question, we must fall back on the words in red and search for the truth.
Now boys, I know this may scare you. But why must you be in charge of your wife? Can't you have logical discussions to reach a conclusion? Or are you afraid you might not get what you want?
We saw what happens when men are given crazy authority over women (hint, FLDS child rape). No one should be given control over another. We as humans just cannot handle it. Equality is really what me strive for to prevent abuses of power.
Pope, contact me when you have decided to allow Catholics to think on their own. We'll talk.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Religious Public School? Violate the Constitution Much?
So I am a pretty big proponent of the constitution. You know, it protects my rights and all that. Now some people say that the raid on the child abuse cult named FLDS is against the constitution. I say that is crazy. They have tried pretty hard to follow the constitution. What with responding a call, seeking appropriate permission from the courts, delaying charging any of the men until they have solidified the proof, etc.
However, there is something in our country that is completely counter to our constitution and no one is talking about it. I am talking about a Muslim Charter School in Minnesota.
(For article discussing the school go to: http://www.startribune.com/local/17406054.html).
The school is a public school, funded by the government, that is run by an Imam and follows Muslim religious teachings included prayer, not prayer time, but organized prayer led by a muslim religious leader, and a class in islamic teachings, which though apparently not mandatory and at the end of the day is essentially mandatory as no buses come until after the class, teachers must stay for it, and students essentially forced to sit in the room until it is done. They also are being pretty secretive and won't let in people who want to investigate whether it actually is impermissibly teaching religion (from all that I have read, I am going to guess yes).
So I am going to say violation of the constitution. Now, I am all for religious schools. I went to one as a child and will probably send my child to one, but at a public school, where one religion is put forth and forced upon the students, I am pretty much going to say that is against the constitution.
Where are people standing up in outrage at this one?
However, there is something in our country that is completely counter to our constitution and no one is talking about it. I am talking about a Muslim Charter School in Minnesota.
(For article discussing the school go to: http://www.startribune.com/local/17406054.html).
The school is a public school, funded by the government, that is run by an Imam and follows Muslim religious teachings included prayer, not prayer time, but organized prayer led by a muslim religious leader, and a class in islamic teachings, which though apparently not mandatory and at the end of the day is essentially mandatory as no buses come until after the class, teachers must stay for it, and students essentially forced to sit in the room until it is done. They also are being pretty secretive and won't let in people who want to investigate whether it actually is impermissibly teaching religion (from all that I have read, I am going to guess yes).
So I am going to say violation of the constitution. Now, I am all for religious schools. I went to one as a child and will probably send my child to one, but at a public school, where one religion is put forth and forced upon the students, I am pretty much going to say that is against the constitution.
Where are people standing up in outrage at this one?
Sunday, April 13, 2008
FLDS
So American Media is annoying me right now. Why because they are not blatently condemning the poylgamists at that crazy Yearning for Zion ranch in Texas.
Now, no one say religious freedom, because if you do, you are an idiot. Religious freedom only goes so far and anyone with sense should say that forcing 15 yr old girls to marry old men pretty much crosses the line. If you disagree, you may be too dumb to live. Just saying.
I have been following this story because to me it is a failure of America that we have allowed this exist in our midsts. We are allowing this child abuse to continue and we are excusing it. Just go see CNN's coverage of this. The last few days they have almost seemed to be garnering sympathy for these people, these people who are abusing children.
go to this site and read the captions for the pictures: http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/12/polygamy.suspect/index.html
This is what America should be saying loud and clear (or at least something close to this great Texam quote):
“It's pretty jacked up, marrying those young kids,” Jason Evans said. “Down here in Texas, we feel the value of our daughters. I won't go so far as to say they [FLDS men] should be killed. But I do think they should be put in jail.”
http://www.sltrib.com/polygamy/ci_8908640
In the name of political correctness, we are allowing the ruin of these girls (and boys - search for FLDS lost boys) and the complete destruction of their innocence and any chance of choice these girls could have.
Any American that does not raise their voice in protest should be disgusted with themselves.
Now, I condemn polygamy in general since it inevitably leads to inequality in the marriage (here's a great example) and I am pretty sure that Christ would not be ok with it (I admit to a Christian theological bent, I am not ashamed - I did a lot of research of the scholarly persuasion into Christianity before I made my decision, much more than most atheist or "maybe there is some God out there" individuals have done in reaching their religious views), but even if you aren't opposed to polygamy (because, say, you give up personal morals in the name of being open-minded).
Anyway, my complaint today? Americans who aren't disgusted by the FLDS and their practices and every person of authority in areas near other compounds who aren't stepping up and crushing this practice.
Now, no one say religious freedom, because if you do, you are an idiot. Religious freedom only goes so far and anyone with sense should say that forcing 15 yr old girls to marry old men pretty much crosses the line. If you disagree, you may be too dumb to live. Just saying.
I have been following this story because to me it is a failure of America that we have allowed this exist in our midsts. We are allowing this child abuse to continue and we are excusing it. Just go see CNN's coverage of this. The last few days they have almost seemed to be garnering sympathy for these people, these people who are abusing children.
go to this site and read the captions for the pictures: http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/12/polygamy.suspect/index.html
This is what America should be saying loud and clear (or at least something close to this great Texam quote):
“It's pretty jacked up, marrying those young kids,” Jason Evans said. “Down here in Texas, we feel the value of our daughters. I won't go so far as to say they [FLDS men] should be killed. But I do think they should be put in jail.”
http://www.sltrib.com/polygamy/ci_8908640
In the name of political correctness, we are allowing the ruin of these girls (and boys - search for FLDS lost boys) and the complete destruction of their innocence and any chance of choice these girls could have.
Any American that does not raise their voice in protest should be disgusted with themselves.
Now, I condemn polygamy in general since it inevitably leads to inequality in the marriage (here's a great example) and I am pretty sure that Christ would not be ok with it (I admit to a Christian theological bent, I am not ashamed - I did a lot of research of the scholarly persuasion into Christianity before I made my decision, much more than most atheist or "maybe there is some God out there" individuals have done in reaching their religious views), but even if you aren't opposed to polygamy (because, say, you give up personal morals in the name of being open-minded).
Anyway, my complaint today? Americans who aren't disgusted by the FLDS and their practices and every person of authority in areas near other compounds who aren't stepping up and crushing this practice.
Monday, March 31, 2008
my solution to healthcare
So nationalized healthcare or nonnationalized healthcare, that is the question?
My solution a hybridization, partly because I like my private healthcare. This hybridization will lead to a nationalized healthcare system if the system is run smoothly and efficiently, but will allow individuals to seek private insurance if the public system is not run well. Less money will be needed to pay for the system as a private system will still exist which many individuals will choose to operate under and so taxes will not go up exponentially fund this program.
We create the National Health Insurance Board, it oversees Medicare and the futurely expanded Medicaid. We revamp medicare so it is just for elderly and simplify it (remove privitization as it confused elderly) and expand medicaid. We allow for the existence of a private healthcare alternative and if you make above a certain income you can buy into the government system in a graduated system that reflects your ability to pay but remains below the cost for private insurance.
Those within the public healthcare system have to pay a co-pay so that there is a cost control mechanism. The co-pay for an emergency room visit should be higher than for an office visit to a doctor. If determined necessary, this co-pay can reflect your income level (i.e., ER for poor = $10 and not poor = $20), but still not more than private insurance.
The government also takes over the payment for catastrophic long-term care illnesses, like cancer, etc., but without removing institutions like St. Judes. The government should encourage donations to such institutions to not only off-set government costs but continually connect the public to the needs of the fellow citizens. This offsetting will also reduce the cost of private insurance, thereby better allowing people to afford and reducing the strain on the government for everyday care. Individuals, if they so desire, can buy supplemental private insurance for catastrophy care if they so desire.
The government must negotiate with drug companies and drug companies are limited in what they can charge for drugs where some other source assisted in the creation of or payment for a drug. Any government investment is drug creation results in caps on profit (most drugs involve government grants or loans). Any new and innovative drug (i.e., not clarinex type drugs) that ends of failing, the drug companies can write off loans from the government up to some percentage. The government agency that is created to oversee the healthcare system will work to stabilize and equalize the costs for patient treatments and medical supplies so that one hospital isn't charging 10 times the rate of the hospital down the street for the same procedure.
Wow, that was so hard. Seriously government officials. I just came up with that in 5 minutes. What are you people doing?
My solution a hybridization, partly because I like my private healthcare. This hybridization will lead to a nationalized healthcare system if the system is run smoothly and efficiently, but will allow individuals to seek private insurance if the public system is not run well. Less money will be needed to pay for the system as a private system will still exist which many individuals will choose to operate under and so taxes will not go up exponentially fund this program.
We create the National Health Insurance Board, it oversees Medicare and the futurely expanded Medicaid. We revamp medicare so it is just for elderly and simplify it (remove privitization as it confused elderly) and expand medicaid. We allow for the existence of a private healthcare alternative and if you make above a certain income you can buy into the government system in a graduated system that reflects your ability to pay but remains below the cost for private insurance.
Those within the public healthcare system have to pay a co-pay so that there is a cost control mechanism. The co-pay for an emergency room visit should be higher than for an office visit to a doctor. If determined necessary, this co-pay can reflect your income level (i.e., ER for poor = $10 and not poor = $20), but still not more than private insurance.
The government also takes over the payment for catastrophic long-term care illnesses, like cancer, etc., but without removing institutions like St. Judes. The government should encourage donations to such institutions to not only off-set government costs but continually connect the public to the needs of the fellow citizens. This offsetting will also reduce the cost of private insurance, thereby better allowing people to afford and reducing the strain on the government for everyday care. Individuals, if they so desire, can buy supplemental private insurance for catastrophy care if they so desire.
The government must negotiate with drug companies and drug companies are limited in what they can charge for drugs where some other source assisted in the creation of or payment for a drug. Any government investment is drug creation results in caps on profit (most drugs involve government grants or loans). Any new and innovative drug (i.e., not clarinex type drugs) that ends of failing, the drug companies can write off loans from the government up to some percentage. The government agency that is created to oversee the healthcare system will work to stabilize and equalize the costs for patient treatments and medical supplies so that one hospital isn't charging 10 times the rate of the hospital down the street for the same procedure.
Wow, that was so hard. Seriously government officials. I just came up with that in 5 minutes. What are you people doing?
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Today's focus...education
With company giants like AT&T saying that can't bring back work to teh US because they can't find skilled worker's, one begins to question what our education system is producing today. Hint: the answer is NOT smart, responsible children. There are many problems with the education system, to list all of them would take a book. However, I'll just hit some quick points: 1. Underaged pregnancies. Solution: dispense birth control like candy, have condoms in every high school, and then use scared straight sex ed classes (you know, no form of birth control is perfect, all these scary STD's that even use of a condom won't prevent, etc.).
2. Non-driven children. Solution: Bring back dodgeball. If kids are given awards just for trying, they aren't going to try their hardest to succeed. By wanting kids to feel "good" about themselves, we are essentially killing their ambition. Oh, and remove junk food from schools.No pop. No chips. Lunch should be healthy. Studies show a positive effect on students who have healthy diets.
3. Kids not going to college. Solution: Be ok with that. College is not for everyone. However, those who don't go to college need to be given another avenue to find employment. Schools, especially inner city schools need to have strong vocational education programs that will get their kids jobs, programs targeted to the jobs available in the area in which they live.
4. Kids not being able to asjust well to the real world. Solution: manners. That's right good old manners education. Kids need to learn that respect is earned not given. They must learn that their superiors at work are in charge of them and they have to suck it up sometimes. They need to control their temper and their attitude and stop acting like little children.
So that's my suggestion on how to start approaching this matter. Bet none of this get's done though.
2. Non-driven children. Solution: Bring back dodgeball. If kids are given awards just for trying, they aren't going to try their hardest to succeed. By wanting kids to feel "good" about themselves, we are essentially killing their ambition. Oh, and remove junk food from schools.No pop. No chips. Lunch should be healthy. Studies show a positive effect on students who have healthy diets.
3. Kids not going to college. Solution: Be ok with that. College is not for everyone. However, those who don't go to college need to be given another avenue to find employment. Schools, especially inner city schools need to have strong vocational education programs that will get their kids jobs, programs targeted to the jobs available in the area in which they live.
4. Kids not being able to asjust well to the real world. Solution: manners. That's right good old manners education. Kids need to learn that respect is earned not given. They must learn that their superiors at work are in charge of them and they have to suck it up sometimes. They need to control their temper and their attitude and stop acting like little children.
So that's my suggestion on how to start approaching this matter. Bet none of this get's done though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
