Redistribution of Wealth: Barf.

Glenn Beck, yo.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/glenn-reveals-the-video-montage-showing-whos-been-calling-for-wealth-redistribution/

Ch-ch-ch-check it ouuuut.

Last Night's Discussion: Ridiculing Environmentalists ≠ Not Taking Care of the Earth

Q. How many environmentalists does it take to change a light bulb?
A. Ten. One to write the light bulb a letter requesting that it change. Four to circulate online petitions. One to file a lawsuit demanding it change. One to send the light bulb loving kindness, knowing that this is the only way real change occurs. One to accept the light bulb precisely the way it is, clear in the knowledge that to not accept another is to do great harm to oneself. One to write a book about how and why the light bulb needs to change. And finally, one to smash the #$^#&ing  light bulb, because we all know it's never going to change.


I laugh at this joke. I also scoff at those who vehemently oppose drilling in the United States, but do not oppose drilling in foreign countries(after all, isn't it doing just as much "damage" and killing as many endangered species in that foreign land as it would in our own land?). Furthermore, I laugh when my pro-life poster is torn down because I drew a picture of a whale holding a sign reading, "humans first." Yeah, I think "environmentalist wackos," as Rush Limbaugh terms them, can be a bit ridiculous. 


Howbeit, this does not mean that I am indifferent about taking care of the earth.


 I recycle, I flick off the lights when I leave my house, I turn off the water while brushing my teeth, I pick away litter, I carpool...; however, I am not interested in buying a hybrid, converting to solar-powered energy efficient light bulbs, nor petitioning to shut down a factory in this free-market society because nearby pecan trees died from pollution.  

Topic of Discussion at Tonight's Dinner

     After President Clinton's affair went public, Hillary Clinton did not divorce her infidel husband; however History narrates that in the end, they divorced. Tonight at dinner, my friends and I discussed whether we believe Hillary Clinton would have made such a name for herself as America now recognizes, if she hadn't stayed with her husband initially.

     One argued that, no, Clinton would not have become such a powerful political figure in the public eye if she had left her husband when the headlines hit the news; in fact, staying showed that she was a strong woman by working through rough patches in marriage, thus proving that she has the potential to be a powerful political figure.

     This is what I think. Granted, all relationships, and marriages have their circumstances, and working through such affairs is a worthy cause; however her husband was the current President of the United States of America, the one person constantly, and overwhelmingly in the public eye. The public eye is analytical, and I would not be surprised if many women shook their heads in disappointment that Clinton did not initially leave her husband. Then again, I would not be surprised if many women thought it logical for the First Lady to work through her marriage. I believe that Clinton would still have made the name for herself she has today had she divorced her husband initially. Why? Because a strong woman wouldn't take that crap. In fact, Clinton's name and "strong woman" vibe would resonate stronger to those citizens who admire such women.

     What do you think? Please, leave you thoughts. I'm interested to hear what you think.

Excerpts from Aristotle's Politics

"Hence it is evident that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal. And he who by nature and not by mere accident is without a state, is either a bad man or above humanity...

"Nature, as we often say, makes nothing in vain, and man is the only animal whom she has endowed with the gift of speech.

 

"...the power of speech is intended to set forth the expedient and inexpedient, and therefore likewise the just and the unjust. And it is a characteristic of man that he alone has any sense of good and evil, of just and unjust....

"For man, when perfected, is the best of animals, but, when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all; since armed injustice is the more dangerous, and he is equipped at birth with arms, meant to be used by intelligence and virtue, which he may use for the worst ends. Wherefore, if he have not virtue, he is the most unholy and the most savage of animals,

and the most full of lust and gluttony. But justice is the bond of men in states, for the administration of justice, which is the determination of what is just, is the principle of order in political society."

He's No Hater.

God's No Hater: an Excerpt From My American Heritage Paper 

            This nation would have never been formed without the Lord’s aid. Evidence lies in the threads and fibers of the country’s history, and the very foundation of this nation. Major events and evidences leading up to the miraculous development of the Constitution, and consequently the U.S. include the Revolutionary War, and the Constitutional Convention.

            Even before the American Revolution, the country was not much of a “country

,” but rather individual colonies. Very different colonies. Some were heartily for the Declaration of Independence and Revolutionary cause, others were vehemently opposed to them. It took much convincing and effort to unify and arouse the colonists to arms in a Revolutionary War against their mother country, Great Britain. Unifying very diverse, individual states was a miracle in and of itself. Regardless of the terrible losses they faced, under the blessed leadership of General George Washington, the Continental Army was preserved by the hand of the Lord, winning battles - including one that ultimately ended the war - miraculously. For example, once, a British blockade was closing in on Washington and his men as they retreated, suffering many casualties. Before the British could inflict any more casualties, storm clouds burst into rain, drenching the men, and ruining their gun powder, now useless. During the night, as Washington and his men were secretly crossing the frozen Delaware River, a sudden dense fog surrounded them as the British were drawing close on their flank, making it impossible for the British to see or shoot the army. Further, on another occasion, with the last minute assistance from the French, the American and French fleets managed to block the harbor of the Brit’s next target, the Carolina’s. “With French and American armies before him and French ships blocking his escape, the British commander, Charles Cornwallis, had no choice but to surrender, effectively ending the war.” The fact that a sloppily patched together army of men, “untrained, ill-equipped…,” few in number, defeated the world’s strongest military force abounding in man power, and “every kind of wartime superiority - economic, military, and technological…,” it indeed was a miracle that the colonies won the Revolutionary War.

            With a victorious revolution behind them, the states made their first attempt at a national government, by constructing the Articles of Confederation. Under the Articles, states were a “firm league of friendship.” They became utterly diverse. They warred against neighboring states. They made their own international treaties. They even made their own currency. Individuals felt they were a citizen of his/her state, not the United States of America. Despite the rigid gap from state to state, somehow delegates of each state, except Rhode Island, showed up to Philadelphia for the Constitutional Convention. In the heat of the Convention, delegates were once again deeply divided. It is a wonder that after so many days of seemingly useless debate, so long a stalemate, and so many vehement, vein-popping arguments that a resolution - better yet, a compromise -  was ratified at all by delegates of such diverse, disjointed states. Thus our Constitution was born. According to Catherine Drinker Bowen’s book, the Constitutional Convention truly was a Miracle at Philadelphia. “ ‘Miracles do not occur at random, nor was it the author of this book who said there was a miracle at Philadelphia in the year 1787. George Washington said it, and James Madison.”

Resources

Hancock, Ralph C., ed. Just and Holy Principles: Latter-Day Saint Readings on America

            and the Constitution. Boston: Pearson Custom, 1998. Print.

United States of America. UShistory.org: Historical Documents; the Articles of Confederation.

           By Second Continental Congress. Independence Hall Association, 2010. Web. 17 Nov. 2010.             <http://www.ushistory.org/documents/confederation.htm>.



Universal Healthcare vs. American Ideals

      Bumperstickers say it. Billboards say it. Picket signs say it. “Down with big government,” “freedom in medical care not free medical care,” and "taxed enough already." Instituting Universal Healthcare in the U.S proves difficult or even impossible because of these three major American Ideals aforementioned.

     According to Frontline's Sick Around the World, Universal Healthcare can be instituted in a couple of ways.

     Like Japan, the social insurance model insures every person.The funds come from businesses, where citizens most commonly apply for insurance. In Japan’s health care, the government dictates every single possible procedure, every treatment, and every little stitch to a tee; a doctor stitches up a wound, costs such-and-such fixed amount. The "down with big government" ideal gets in the way with this healthcare model. If the government gains power enough to dictate how much medical procedures cost, then the government essentially inherits the power to control every life - literally, life - of its citizens. More power equals bigger government. Not to mention that doctors’ incomes are capped as well, thus dictating how much people earn; hence the American ideal “freedom in medical care not free medical care.”

     Not only does Japan's health insurance model restrict the private sector, stunts the laws of supply and demand that essentially control medicine, and inhibits proper competition in the medical field, but it also cannot sustain itself financially. "All the hospitals in Japan are bankrupt," one Japanese doctor states.

     Great Britain possesses the socialized medicine model. Basically, the wealthy pay higher tax rates than Average-Joe so as to supply the funds to insure every Average-Joe in the country. According to the film, Average-Joe pays how much? Verbatim: "none." The “taxed enough already” American ideal conflicts with this system. As the Beatles song “Taxman” suitably states:

"Let me tell you how it will be;
There's one for you, nineteen for me.
'Cause I’m the taxman,
Yeah, I’m the taxman.

Should five per cent appear too small,
Be thankful I don't take it all.
'Cause I’m the taxman,
Yeah, I’m the taxman."

  Ironically, Hasrrison wrote this song criticizing excessive taxes in Great Britain. Typically, Americans dread paying taxes, and honestly, who wants to pay more? Not if your life depended on it, not if your neighbor's life depended on it; and their neighbor's life, and their neighbor's, and their's, and.... 

     American ideals frustrate any attempts to institutionalize Universal healthcare in the United States. Universal healthcare simply does not work in America. Despite the unavoidable flaws to our healthcare system, it reigns one of the most efficient, and innovative systems in the world of healthcare. In fact, Profesor Uwe Reinhardt praises America's innovative healthcare system. "We look to other countries' attempts of a Universal healthcare. We learn from their failures and emulate their successes. ... But not the United States. It's a system that just...just happens. It can't be copied."    
    

References:

• Harrison, George. "Taxman." Rec. 21 June 1966. Revolver. The Beatles. George Martin, 1966. CD.

• Palfreman, Jon, prod. "Sick Around the World." Sick Around the World. PBS. Boston, Massachusetts, 15 Apr. 2008. Television.

Ironic and Tragic

Representative Gabrilelle Giffords of Arizona recently recited on the House floor the First Amendment, including "the right of the people peaceably to assemble"(U.S. Constitution, First Amendment).

Just this morning during a public event in Tucson, Giffords was shot in the head, along with nineteen other citizens, including a few of her personal staffers, an Arizona federal judge, and - get this - a nine year old.

The right to peaceably assemble. Ironic.



The Second Amendment: the "Because I Can" Right

     "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." -Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

     I can own a gun. I can use a gun in self defense. On the other hand, I do no hunt, nor do I shoot guns for sport. If I don't hunt, nor shoot clay pigeons, the question arises, "Why do I own a gun?" Or "why would I want to own a gun?"

     Because I can.

     After all, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed," right? My personal, inalienable, Constitutional right to keep and use a gun is protected, yes?

     A simple explanation to a simple but loaded question.

     I can honestly understand opposing critics' incredulity of my explanation. Guns unfortunately bear an infamous nature associated with war, violence, and death. Not to mention tragic deaths result from mere accidents with household hand guns. Following logical rationale, why on earth would I own or want to own a gun if I do not use it for the hunt or sport?

  Because I can!

     Likewise, why would I, or John Smith, or Clarence Williams III, per say, not own a gun, or never want to own one?

  Because he can. 

     "Because I can" sufficiently and completely explains one's reasoning behind exercising his Constitutional rights - any rights. The Founding Fathers made the Constitution for that reason, that "because-I-can" reason. Keep in mind, the right to do what I want, what you want, or what Clarence Williams III wants, is what makes great the United States.

Introduction

I could hum Rush Limbaugh's opening jingle before I even lost my first tooth. I memorized the Preamble in fifth grade. I knew CNN was a news station to be guffawed as well as I knew seven times seven is forty-nine. Politics has been in my life as long as I can remember.

My junior year of high school, I served as a US Senate Page. Although I swore I'd never speak this cliche clause, it was an experience that changed me. The Distric hypnotized me. I love Capitol Hill. I love politics.

On a different note, I love English. English: the language, the spelling, the vocabulary, the grammar, the rhetoric, the writing, the literature...! I am currently declared as an English major at Brigham Young University. 

So, combining both my passions into one, here appears this blog, and there lies my future career - political journalism.