Oregon’s Early History of Race Relations (with sources).

Note: This will be published on July 15th, 2013. An essay written about the context of that era and how minorities, natives and those of certain religions were treated unfairly. However, there were even more cases of peace between the differing cultures but the importance and the evils of "social tyranny" must be addressed. Conformity and the mentality of the "mob rulership" should be exploited to promote and advocate for the minorities that are largely underserved. If this is something you agree with, then you agree with Libertarians, Neoliberals (modern liberals) and yes, Conservatives.

As we notice the power struggles faced between cultures, historians often realize that differences are often misunderstood. Racism and a lack of respect towards other races, has contributed to the racial bias in Oregon’s history. These differences in race that developed in Oregon were very influenced by the heavily used trade routes from native-Americans, the British, Americans, French-Canadians and the Chinese-Americans.  During this era, these minorities were subjected to numerous forms of racism and bigotry, usually based off of a few minor differences in color of their skin, cultural background or religious practices.

How Does Minimum Wage Change Employment?

Policy, politics, rhetoric…. All of these things sound great on the outside but are in fact extremely complicated. There are economists and people much smarter than the rest of us that can explain this in simpler terms than I can. I will cover the pros and cons. If you don’t like what I have spent 20 minutes writing, then research your own (which everyone should anyways).

Ok. First I need to be clear that I wish people, in general, didn’t suffer and provided for themselves. People need help with this, since the last few generations did not teach such aspects to their children were left with a different mentality. Second, I believe that people should provide for themselves and be taught how to climb that economic “ladder” (gain higher income as they progress through life). Third, I also believe that when you start out at something, you need to start out small. Fourth, increasing the wage would certainly help those that get hired but there will fewer or them actually getting hired…leaving them unemployed.

Small Businesses are Losing. Why? My thoughts...

     It would be preferable for people to start up a small business than depend on a larger business to hire them. Instead, all of our preparations in life focus on getting hired by someone else. Why enforce the idea of smaller businesses?  It would create competition within that niche of the economy which will typically reduce prices, increase innovation and would reduce the chances of a monopolies and/or cartels (even though they sometimes exist). Also, businesses that produce goods/services locally have a lower overhead cost when it comes to transporting their goods/services.

         More than likely, the competition created would allow for better customer service to increase their customer base. Mostly. This would explain the differences between "mom and pop” shops versus large businesses/corporations. They both intend and are in need of your money to increase their profits, however. How would they survive if you didn’t buy their goods/services?

     All of us need a profit. A lot of people, when they think of profits, instantly think of rich people on boats, hedgefund managers smoking cigars, or robber barons. What these people do not see is that your profits also include paying for your operating costs like your supplies, workers, their healthcare and rainy-day funds.
Otherwise, why bother working or doing anything? So, why are smaller businesses so hard to start? Why do these excessively large businesses still exist, “pushing” the smaller ones out of business?

Why do our most influential institutions (school/college/media) hardly impose the values of entrepreneurship?

I understand that some of you have instantly thought of the topic of business ethics versus gaining a profit, but I think all of these questions are equally important.

Thoughts?

New Immigration Bill

For those of you freaking out about the newly passed immigration bill: it doesn't grant anyone the "insta-citizen" status.

They still need to wait 10 (?) years for citizenship after they have passed a background check, paid all outstanding taxes and all of this, of course, with a worker's visa. This does not grant citizenship in the manner of simply granting them citizenship automatically. Whether you like it or not, I don’t blame anyone for leaving their countries that have a worse economy than ours (yes, even if ours is bad, it’s mostly bad for us but still better than most other economies) and coming over here to actually make some sort of living. I don’t blame them one bit for coming here. This is an excellent country, in my opinion!

I imagine my conservative friends are a little p****d off at me but I really don’t give a ****. Here’s why: they still need to go according to the newly formed law and get a visa. They still need to pay their taxes. They still need to go through the process of getting their citizenship. How could we kick them out when they have lived here for this long already? Also, the increase in border security will hopefully prevent more people from getting here illegally in the first place….I hope it reduces it.

Why? It is very unsafe to get here illegally. Many people die along the way. Also, not to mention the massive influx of drugs, etc; that come across the border…illegally of course. This might slow a lot of this down…

It’s not perfect. Listen: I would PREFER that people would move here legally and/or get a visa to work here. That is perfectly fine. I do not like the concept of people fleeing their country and not even attempting to get their citizenship when they get here. Undocumented or illegal, it’s the same meaning and I don’t really care about the terms being used.  Regardless, people need a little help in these matters.

I am hoping that this helps alleviate the problem but only time will tell. 

Paleo-Diet: don't do it!

First, go to this website that explains the Paleo diet: http://thepaleodiet.com/  

Ok. For those of you that have had training for nutrition and have done some general research, you will notice that there a lot of good ideas from this. For example: don't eat processed foods, refined sugars, layoff the sodium, increase potassium, eat the "good" fats (like from fish, for example), etc; etc;

Yes, there are some good points. I understand this. 

Newsflash: the good stuff off of this "diet" comes from myplate.gov and/or the food pyramid. 

Don't eat salt? Duh.

Don't eat refined sugar? Duh.

Don't eat processed foods? Duh.

Eat more fresh fruits and vegetables? Duh.

Then it tells you must omit dairy, legumes and cereal grains.

This means you can never eat a bean, piece of cheese or a bowl of whole-grain cereal. Ever. 

 No more bean burritos with cheese. Hell, no bean burritos. Period. Hell, you can't even eat the whole-grain tortilla if you wanted one. 

If you don't know what a legume is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legume   I normally do not condone using wikipedia but at this point, I'll just say that it's actually right about legumes.  

What about dairy? Even lactose-free dairy? Nope. Can't have that. Never mind that it has decent amounts of potassium (that the paleo wants more of) and of course the calcium and etc; etc;

But you cannot have this, if you're on the paleo diet. 

What about grains? What about the people who have a gluten allergy? This is unfortunate, awful but at least it's rare. Plenty of people have allergies and it may be due to several reasons (GMO's, pesticides, genetics stuff, etc).  This doesn't mean that the other 99% of the population should omit grains. 

Again, wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cereal    "In their natural form (as in whole grain), they are a rich source of vitamins, minerals, carbohydrates, fats, oils, and protein. However, when refined by the removal of the bran and germ, the remaining endosperm is mostly carbohydrate and lacks the majority of the other nutrients. In some developing nations, grain in the form of rice, wheat, millet, or maize constitutes a majority of daily sustenance. In developed nations, cereal consumption is moderate and varied but still substantial."

In other words, eat the whole grain.... unless you're on the paleo diet.

Follow www.myplate.gov and this should be a better start for you. 

The paleo diet is crap but still have a few good ideas in it. However, the USDA and myplate.gov are the correct choice here.

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).