Yes, The Follicles Are Real

Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

What About Us?: America’s Forgotten Class

In Politics on November 6, 2012 at 5:20 pm

Any one who’s been following this election even remotely can tell you that one of the major issues is the middle class. Obama is proud of his track record is the auto-industry and hopes that translates into votes from swing states like Ohio and Michigan. When he came into office, Ohio’s unemployment rate was at an abysmal 10% and now it’s up to 7.9%. That means that 150,000 new jobs have been added in Ohio alone and that gives him a major boost, despite what conservative pundits might say. There’s also been some major backlash at part of Obama’s economic policy that Romney has pounced on. Obama’s plan to ask the wealthiest 1% to pay a little more of their fair share so that we can spur economic growth has stuck in their craw.

So this is all beside the point. We’ve focused entirely on the middle-class and the upper-class and we’ve forgotten the lower-class, the poor. The poor are the backbone of America and they don’t have a voice right now. The poor has literally built this country since it’s creation and they’re the key to a prosperous future.

I’ve always advocated infrastructure and transportation and those are the sectors that need the biggest boost. America has an issue with these jobs. Middle-class workers strive for corporate jobs so they can have nicer cars, better homes, and more ipads. We complain because jobs are being shipped overseas by major corporations and people like Mitt Romney, but from a business standpoint, it makes sense. The fault lies with the American people who are refusing to take these “lower” jobs and this forces companies to find people who will. America is a pretty expensive country and the cost to pay our workers compared to the cost of the products we’re making just doesn’t make fiscal sense. But i’ll tell you what, there’s a whole group of people, 46 million people, who want those jobs. We just have to train them.

FDR’s New Deal is exactly the model we need to look at today, but instead of try to dig ourselves out of a depression and prevent another one, we need it so we can spur economic growth and become the undisputed leader of the free world. When Obama first took office, for a short time he offered states block grants is they had infrastructure projects ready but needed the money to complete them. The Federal government needs to do this again but on a much larger scale. If the country truly wants less government, than for a short time, we need some heavy government. We need to federal government to update and build roads, housing projects, skyscrapers, anything that can get those 46 million people working.

If we really want to get the country “back on track” then we need to look to the past and see what programs really did that and how we can employ those same principles and ideals to our modern-day issues, and it starts with the poor.

The REAL Gun Control Debate – Understanding Both Sides

In Politics on August 10, 2012 at 1:08 am

Politicians hammered by the NRA – CNN.com

The gun control debate is so exhausted i might as well talk about abortion or the moral aspects of the death penalty, but it’s exhausted because each side focuses on the same aspect over and over without truly seeing their opponents take. Debating is an extremely difficicult skill and one aspect that i am adamently in favor of is full research on the opposite of what you believe. We do this all the time during the day, when you argue in favor of something you tell why you’re right and they’re wrong and almost 90% of the time we all have corrupt and flat out wrong information about the flip side. This means that we need to spend as much time researching what we don’t believe in to be sure that we still believe in the things we do. For example, a Christian should take the time to learn about Budhism and Atheism and Hiduism so that they can make a complete and informed decision about their own religion. On the flip side, Atheists and others should really dive into Christianity so that they can understand the other side.

Look at me going into religion. Anyways…

When you boil gun control down it comes down to one focal point, the good ol’ second amendment. However it should be interpreted, it still says plain and simple that we have the right to bear arms (we should also arm bears but that’s another argument). Now, no one buys guns based on the second amendment alone. I’ve never met anyone who bought a gun solely on the fact that the second amendment allows them to, there’s another factor and the second amendment allows them to fullfill this other factor. The three basic reasons we [Americans] buy guns are:

1) For sport (probably the most legitimate reason)

2) To hunt (outdated for 99% of the country, but some people do need to)

3) To protect the family (the most common, and most argued)

When you look at these three reasons, none of them require automatic weapons and that’s the argument here today. Automatic weapons account for almost (if not) all mass shootings in the last 25 years. So why do we need them? Most sport shooters use rifles, shotguns or hand guns because automatic weapons are so hard to control. Hunters use almost exclusively rifles because of their accuracy (and so they have less shot to pick out of their meat). And i’m pretty sure an AK-47 is overkill to protect your family, when a rifle, shotgun, or even a simple pistol can protect you.

I rarely have heard of cases where someone’s house is broken into by a man with an assault rifle, the typical burglar has a hand gun (if any, since their goal is to rob no kill). So it seems that if you want to protect your family, a shotgun can protect you enough. Now whether or not having a loaded weapon in your house is a good idea to me is another matter entirely.

So gun control advocates, let’s shift our focus entirely to automatic weapons because those are really the issue.

Captain America Could Soon Be Real

In Politics on February 18, 2012 at 10:50 pm

I read an article recently (which i’ll put below) about the military’s future ability to create super soldiers. Soon we’ll develop the technology to train soldiers to run huge distances without getting tired, eat whatever they can find and digest it easily, get shot or stabbed and be healed within minutes.

This obviously leads to many moral questions and to the biggest question…Why? Humans don’t have natural resources to survive like a wolf has claws or a bird has flight, the only thing we have is our brain and the ability to use our brain to survive. We’re weak and vulnerable everywhere on our bodies, but what if we could tune our bodies to be on par with almost every animal in the wild? What if we could run as fast as a cheetah, or have the pure strength of a bear? The only thing that is holding us back is ourselves.

See the problem with war is not war itself, war has and always will exist among every member of the animal kingdom and we can create impressive technology to fight these wars but people still die. So how do not only make it easier to kill the enemy but harder for the enemy to kill us? We’ve done so so far by training toops to be stronger, run farther and jump higher but what if they can naturally do all of that? Soldiers that need very little physical training and all mental training would lead to, in essence, super soliders.

One path could start at the heart. With a more powerful heart, we could run farther, lift huge weights and even be smarter. The brain operates on a very important components, oxygen, almost like battery the brain makes connections because of the amount of oxygen it gets (this isn’t the only reason). If our heart was pumping 3x more oxygenated blood to our brains, they could operate at much higher capacity and make soldiers, or even us, smarter. So soldiers could not only be strong, but smarter in the field.

A big question is the moral implications of such an undertaking. We obviously cannot create these pills or inject a solution by magic, we’ll have to do extensive testing that will eventually be done on humans. Certain standards such as the Nuremberg code and The Deceleration of Helsinki say that such testing would be illegal, but as the article states testing that falls under “military necessity” allows them to do such things will willful consent. But let’s say that we create this pill and create 7 foot tall, 300 lb, fighting monsters that do their job and do it well, how do we trust them with that power? What if they go berserk (for lack of a better term)?

So the future holds plenty of questions and when the time comes around that this testing becomes legitimate, we’ll have to way the good and the bad and boy do I feel bad for the Congress that has to create laws on this.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/02/more-than-human-the-ethics-of-biologically-enhancing-soldiers/253217/

The United States – An Introvert

In Politics on February 17, 2012 at 12:29 pm

With Iran and Israel on the brink of war, it seems that conflict is becoming an equally preferred choice to diplomacy. Since 2001 I’ve maintained that the U.S. is at a point in time where we must revert back to a state of isolationism. The United States is increasingly being pulled into conflicts due to the fact that we have the power to do so and we viewed as a “big brother” to the world. The enevitable conflict with Iran and Israel will turn the world’s eyes towards us and we will be expected to make a choice. Do we pre-strike Iran’s increasingly advancing nuclear power program before it gets to the point of no return and risk further increasing the war in the middle east that Obama has done a pretty good job of calming down? Do we assist Israel if Iran attacks them and cause a major war to escalate and lead to nuclear war tension like during the Cold War? Do we stay out of the conflict all together and risk Israel and Iran getting out of hand?

We cannot predict the future but what we can be certain of right now is that the rest of the world needs to step up and, for lack of a better term, grow a pair. Terrorism is a difficult enemy, but it’s even more difficult when the U.S. has little to no help. Now is not a time for neutrality and refusing to take a side. Whether we like it or not, war will come, and who then will help the U.S. fight a growing threat?

In the meantime, the U.S. is in dire need of assistance in it’s own way. With a high unemployment rate, a roller-coaster economy, and increasingly partisan views, we need to focus on our own issues. I understand when there’s cause for concern that people around the world are worse off than the average american, but until the situation’s in Iran and Libya get much worse, don’t we owe it to our citizens for everyone to have a job, a home and food? How are we suppose to help someone else when we’re having issues of our own?

So I maintain that the U.S. needs to protect it’s citizens and their liberties until such a time that any serious conflict threatens those aforementioned.

Tax Breaks for Who Now?

In Politics on February 15, 2012 at 6:08 pm

A topic came up recently in our family about tax breaks for the wealthy. I know this topic has not only been on my mind for a while but most of the country so I thought I’d take a crack at tackling the issue.

A major issue is that a lot or most corporations are receiving tax breaks to help encourage capitalism and competition but it actually severely hurts competition. With a lot of companies receiving a bailout in 2008, and then continuing to give CEO’s and executives bonuses, it got a lot of people thinking about what the federal government was doing about regulating these companies.

It led to an argument in our family about whose fault this was, the federal government for not maintaining regulations on the companies or the companies for giving the bailout money to executives. I stood my ground against the federal government for not having the foresight to see that these companies obviously are not morally mature enough to understand what the bailout entailed. It’s like a child spending all of their money and you give them a couple of dollars to help out and hope that they’ll do the right thing with it. You KNOW that child is not responsible with money so how could you trust them? My family blamed the corporations for being frivolous with the bailout money and so we came to an impasse.

I’ve started to develop a system for corporations receiving tax breaks and this is my preliminary draft.

Offer huge tax incentives (tax percentage is based on percentage of production switched from another country to the U.S. So if 40% of your production is done in China and 60% is done in the U.S. a company may change that to now 20% is done in China and 80% is done in the U.S. and that 20% change would be what the tax break would apply to. Therefore, certain incentives only go to companies already doing overseas production and another set of incentives would go to companies that do NOT outsource production. These second set of tax breaks would not apply to companies in the first set and are now asking for incentives to not do it again because they cannot receive the first set of tax breaks again and would not receive the second set ever. Companies in the second set of tax breaks cannot accept the breaks and then outsource production in order to receive the first set of tax breaks for bringing them back.) to companies that do not outsource jobs, in turn, help companies lower the cost of making products so that more American’s will buy American products.

 

Let me know if you find any issues because I’m positive there are plenty of loopholes in here.