Scheduling Issues

A pet-peeve of mine is disorganization and with scheduling issues. I am currently at a private school doing some specific training. Already working, going to school full-time and then more training? It's not that bad. The bad part is that this training facility makes no mention of their schedule changes until the first day of class, after you've already scheduled your work/school stuff for the next month. Yeah. Now, it's frustrating when you soon-to-be professors imply that you should "switch to an online class" right before the term starts. Impossible at this point! It looks like my grades will suffer in this class because I have to miss over a 1/3 of the classes.
Gee thanks.

This is amazing! I will be keeping an eye on this...

Big Multiple Sclerosis Breakthrough: Northwestern University News

Please, donate money to medical research!

What I Appreciate About Our Government

Of all things that I am grateful for what country does and can do, I often forget to mention what things I am proud of what our government does.
Sorry
I tend to have focused on it's faults, instead of it's good things.
In reality, I have often been more proud of my country, our government and even the attempt of our politicians. I tend to support much of what my country does but, for some unusual reason, I have not lately.... usually due to mistakes made by politicians who think they're better... Or have greater intelligence....  I have unfortunately focused on it's numerous negatives instead of mentioning the great things that our government does. Now, although any government solve any social ill, issue, cultural movements or force people to change all of their habits, there are plenty of good things and ideas that have helped society.

First.....
Government cannot help every issue.
Government should be a last resort (unless it's an emergency, like horrible weather and natural disasters)
When government doesn't work, that sector/industry/program should be cut out and a different solution should be tried.

Now....
Our military is the best in the world! 
Government is excellent to help you out when there is no charity to help you.
It helps veterans when they return home and helps them out, during the transition back into "civilian life."
It has helped people get out of some "cracks" in society.
It has protected many of your rights from being violated by others or even other government organizations.
It ensures that contractual obligations are fulfilled when something was wrong during the transaction.
My current Senator, although we may disagree on several issues, is often willing to listen to the people she represents.
Humanitarian Aid, although controversial to many sides of the fence, is something I am proud of.
The FDA, although controversial, arguable has prevented numerous pharma companies from selling useless/harmful items to those that had no clue....
The EPA, although controversial, protects the environment in numerous ways...
The IRS, although controversial, has big shoes to fill by collecting taxes and regulating all of the hundreds of pages of tax code.

There are plenty more, and I'll add more later!

Hurricane Katrina Response. What happened (with sources)

This is soley about the reponse of the Hurrican Katrina. That is it.

        Hurricane Katrina was a large response from the US. There were many faults that happened, but some people were blamed when it wasn’t their fault. Bush was put to blame when he had nothing to do with the response. It was a failure on many, many hands but for some reason…people were blamed. You can start at this source. There are many sources at the bottom that prove this. (http://articles.latimes.com/2005/sep/27/nation/na-rumors27) 

Politics: Plato vs Aristotle. An Essay. (updated May 27)

NOTE *[The power struggles in humanity have not started in the 1960's. They have not started when the United States Constitution was being written. The struggles didn't start when the feudal system was the main system of governance(in Eurasia), either. These ideas have started when the greatest of intellectuals of human history were slowly chipping away at ideas, conventional wisdom while influencing the political area around them. Plato and Aristotle, although close being a mentor and mentee, shared their differences with rulership...or lack thereof. This was a paper written about some of their differences. Essentially, a large government/powerful rule or something smaller with more power for the people?]*

    Ancient philosophy sparks a great deal of interest in even modern politics. Plato and Aristotle’s political views share similarities but also vary in many ways. Plato thought a single ruler, with vast knowledge, could rule over a large city while knowing what’s morally best for the people. Aristotle believed that a city-state should be governed by an elite group of experts, better known as an aristocracy. I will argue that both of these views benefit towards modern society but also have major flaws that could not work in present times. Plato’s major flaw is that entrusting one individual, no matter their expertise in policy, cannot be trusted due to the nature of a human’s lust for power. The flaw with Aristotle is that he believed everyone should uphold their values to benefit the state versus themselves, which economically doesn’t benefit the community as a whole. 

         Plato and Aristotle shared some similar views in the political arena but a closer look reveals how much they truly differed. Plato was a man who believed that the ordinary citizen should be governed by only a few people, namely the philosopher kings. In regards to governance, Plato believed governing was a craft and therefore “only persons with a particular nature are suited to pursue expertise in governance” (Brooks 53). This supports that Plato believed a ruler was only a person that could be handpicked from a group of a perfect family line.

Wealth Inequality. Who should make more? (will be updated soon)

     There was a time that the United States had a prominent ability to allow its citizens to gain wealth. Not the few but the many. This was not due to social policy but by business men and women making money, hiring people, selling goods and services. Those people who were hired got a head start in life by getting a job. Just a job. Working for someone, or having your own business and making your own money. Voluntary transactions were a part of this. You never forced people to buy a Macbook Pro. They wanted one. You sold them the goods/services in exchange for money.
       Now, not so much. Now, it's not only harder (in some states versus others) to get a business license, you have to a large chunk of fees and there is more "red tape" to get to point A to point B. In another words, it's a pain in the butt to start a business more than it used to be.

Flouride In Your Water Supply. A small report...

Heated debate. Fluoride in your water. (Updated September 16th, 2013)
(to be clear, brushing your teeth with a toothbrush, fluoride toothpaste and flossing are the most sure ways to prevent dental caries. It does not matter if you "know" this person or that person that did, or did not, get dental caries. This little write up is about whether or putting fluoride in the water actually does anything)
      Some that want it propose that the "anti-fluoride" crowd are just plain stupid, illogical, crazy, conspiracy theorists, who think it will make everyone have hip fractures. I do not care about the studies discussing how fluoride can disrupt body-systems, or cause fluorosis. I don't care about those. I care about the efficacy of the conclusion that fluoride in the water supply actually reduces tooth decay. If it does, then by how much? Also, what about the underlying causes that reduce tooth decay?

     Instead of being put into the category of  "crazy" by the pro fluoride crowd that picks arguments about government conspiracy weirdos (8), I would prefer that people focus on one solid idea:
Does fluoridation of your water supply actually reduce tooth decay? Could it be from more use of tooth brushes since the 1970s in other countries? Think about how brushing with fluoride reduces cavities, twice per day (we know this is certainly a fact, which I don't need to discuss).

From the Portland Mercury (the pro-fluoride crowd), states this:
"The simple and reasonable case for fluoridation—which the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) definitively urges for the prevention of tooth decay in children and adults—is drowning under a hailstorm of counter-arguments that look, sound, and seem rational. Except that they aren't." (8).
What the Portland Mecurcy doesnt' realize is that I too, have also used the CDC as a source then checked the CDC's sources as well... 

Do Gun Laws Work?

My answer is: sometimes.

Here’s the list of only some of the laws that Adam Lanza defied during his disgusting rampage. Will anyone read these laws? These are only a few of the laws that he broke.

This is only an example of people, with the disgusting intent of doing harm to others, will by-pass all of these laws to commit such atrocities. His state has some strict regulations but that didn’t stop him….

So, for the Newtown shooting in which Adam Lanza murdered those poor children. Apparently, in Adam Lanza's state doesn’t allow people to have “assault” weapons in the first place. Here: “”Sec. 53-202c. Possession of assault weapon prohibited. Class D felony.”” Taken from http://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_943.htm#sec_53-202a

Intellectual vs Layperson...Who wins? Ever wonder these questions?

I ask this simple question of who would have the better argument between them? Do you suppose the intellectual always wins? I hope you answer yes so you continue reading...

Market Efficiency versus Equity

Fundamentals. From a broad sense, this is the core of the debate. You just read it, in the title, right above these words. 

This is the major difference between people who associate themselves with the "left or right" "libertarian vs statist" "liberal or conservative" and last but not least, Democrat or Republican. Even, though that argument is a different story. :)

So, what is this? (keep in mind I’m not perfect).

Insurance and Jobs...

Oregon State Law is making me give my girlfriend's car insurance information to my car insurance company, to omit her as my car's driver, in order for me to charged at a lower rate OR my policy is terminated?

Really?  

Not the insurance companies fault but THE GOVERNMENT'S fault….making it hard to not only run their business because they lose money as a result of this but I am losing my ****ing hair over this red tape ridden crap we call an economy. Pull the sand from your you-know-what's, open your freaking eyes and deregulate this useless crap. Our economy is already over-burdened with useless regulations! Ok, I will give some credit with a FEW parts of Obamacare (pre-existing conditions, for example) but the rest is just ridiculous!

Ask yourself, if not all regulation is good, but has good intentions but ends up not doing what it’s supposed to, then why don’t these policies get booted out?

Oh yeah…I forgot, because each time you create policy and it gets voted in, it creates another opportunity of a government worker to have more work, or to allow another government worker to be created.

I guess Obama really has created jobs, using this example!

Thought of The Day....

Philosophy is refreshing. It's as though the newer, or more ancient, method of articulating your thoughts presses the intellectual reset button. No wonder why the human mind works like a Windows-based computer :)

Regulating has it's uses for....?

     Knowing that more regulations will increase the costs on all consumers in any particular industry, are our policy-makers doing this on purpose? Knowing very well that this increase in regulations will decrease competition between businesses that would otherwise being driving their costs down, to gather more consumers? Doesn't this simply decrease available competition, making it more costly...?
Then what we're seeing now are potential consumers essentially being forced to use the public option instead of the private sector businesses because it costs too much (private health insurance is an excellent example)...
Funny, because the private sector funds the public sector and were making it harder for the private sector to produce goods and services....why?

Senator Joe McCarthy was right....

Interesting fun fact: Senator Joe McCarthy was regarded as one of the worst individuals of the 1950's mainly by his methods of accusing those in the government of being spies, and/or being communists (presumably influencing politics). He desperately tried to prove his points but due to many reasons and other influences (and a lack of belief from his fellow politicians) he was essentially ignored after creating numerous scares. 

He was cast out of the Senate and eventually died with problems associated with depression and alcoholism. Here's the catch: in the mid 1990's the former Soviet Union's KGB and United States FBI together released thousands of documents relating to the infiltration of communists in the American government. They were called the Venona papers. 

Free Market is not Pro Business. Here's why:

   Being pro free-market is different from being pro business because being pro-business would allow that multiple government agencies would support businesses (large, small, corporate, etc;) regardless of profits or losses. 

   This can include bailouts, subsidies and federal business loans, or condoning certain businesses but not others. 

   This takes away from the proper direction the "market" would lead into, in a normal, unfettered way. 

   Being pro free market would mean that the government ensures the playing field is level, and not one business or an industry is inhibited or condoned, in any way, shape or form.        

   This reduces the chances of corporatism/crony capitalism and ensures that businesses will succeed under their own weight and power. Lobbyists, anyone? 

   It is more beneficial to allow a business, regardless of it's size, to maintain it's own profits and losses. 

   If you take away the profit system, you can reduce that motivational drive, or incentives to maintain an actual free market. 

   If you don't allow the losses, then the same thing happens.... there is no incentive to reduce those mistakes that led the business to fail in the first place. 

   The consumers should have the choice...not the businesses.