I Have to Say It

So, this is going to be another political post. I just have it on my mind, and I need to vent slightly. I'd like to add as a disclaimer that I have not done significant research into this subject. I read the US News and Business news a few times a day on my Blackberry (using a fantastic program called Viigo, which I highly recommend for all blackberry users out there) and glean most of my information from the articles that appear from Reuters. I may be wrong on a few points, but I just have to talk about it because it's driving me nuts.

Quite some time ago, I wrote a post about the health care problem in the US. It was an interesting one for me to write, as it's a situation I'm close to having a father who has worked for Kaiser Permanente his entire life. However, as Obama is in office, he has made it clear that next few months are "crucial" for his healthcare reform plans. He wants to push some things through Congress before their recess for summer that happens in August. Part of this is to push through plans for health care which could include, among other things, taxing employer provided health care. True, he has said that he doesn't want to do that, however an article that I read recently remarked that the Senator writing the bill has said that it was likely to happen to help to cover the costs of the health care reform.

I ask this question earnestly: Why do we believe, when we already have a broken Medicare and Medicaid system, when our economy is in the pits and our government has already spent trillions of nonexistent money to help it to recover, and that they are already taking so many taxes from us, that we should allow the government to have more money to run a health care system? Is our system perfect? No. Is it expensive? Yes. But is the solution for our bureaucratic and compartmentalized government to take more money from us to provide an undoubtedly complex and expensive system of health care? I do not believe so.

I am genuinely confused at our belief that our government, who has made a debacle of health care in the small programs that they have, can run a full fledged health care system in the United States. Some argue that they are the only ones who could take a loss on health care and keep it running, but for how long? Eventually, they will take more money from us to fund more programs. Eventually, they will need to make money somewhere. Will they be able to buy the latest and greatest technology without it? It will cost us breakthroughs, and probably lives. The reality is that we need a program that encourages health. A program that encourages you to be healthy and not abuse the system. Something that can reinvest profits and keep themselves afloat. We don't need more bloated government programs. We need ideas that will truly work.

I'm just confused as to why we believe that this is a good idea at this point. Insight?

Let's Get Political ... Political

Hey everyone. I know you missed my incessant political rants. Well, here comes a new one. I promise not to be too mean.

Note: My vote breakdown comes from the following site. If my numbers are incorrect, it's because the numbers from the article are incorrect.

Remember when Barack Obama was running for president of the USA? He talked about bipartisanship, and bridging the gap between the two political parties that dominate our current political landscape. Basically, for those who know nothing, Democrats and Republicans disagree on many key points. These aren't necessarily the most important things, but they tend to be opposite on certain key issues. The economy is one of them. While I really am a moderate with a conservative leaning, I find myself much m ore aligned with conservative economics. This does color my current article. However, this is not the point I've come for.

Obama talked bipartisanship more than any previous presidential candidate that has ever been around. Most talk it, but don't really believe it. One reason that I was appreciative of Obama is that he seemed genuinely interested in working with the Republicans. Call it however you see it, but there hasn't been any more conversation or agreement ever since he came into office. Place the blame where you will, there doesn't seem to be much of a move from EITHER side to work together.

Perfect example is the recent stimulus bill that was passed. It passed the House with ZERO, YES ZERO, votes from Republicans. Now that's bipartisanship. In a previous post I talked about how I was afraid of any political party having unchecked power in the government. We've reached that point where the Democrats have this. They have control of the Judicial, Legislative and Executive branch. This essentially means that they can pass what they want. While many might be excited about that, the reality is that I think that too much of either side will ultimately hurt us. Our government was designed with these checks in mind. Can I just say that it scares me that only one political party carries power in the government?

As a side note, I find it very interesting that Obama preaches about cutting the deficit and spending more, and creating a bigger government. That just doesn't seem to quite add up.

I'm glad, however, that he didn't go for a "new deal" type stimulus package. The reality is that at it's peak, that legislation had a top income tax bracket of 94% (see 1944 and 1945 on that page). And the cutoff was $200,000. I don't care that I don't make that much (or do I ... hahahahaha) I think that the government taking that much from anyone is absolutely out of line.

But I digress. I just wish that checks and balances were alive in our government today.

Our Times

My mom read me this quote the other day, and I thought it so very applicable:

"Make no mistake about it, brothers, and sisters, in the months and years ahead, events are likely to require each member to decide whether or not he will follow the First Presidency. In short brothers and sisters, not being ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ includes not being ashamed of the prophets of Jesus Christ. Your discipleship may see the time when such religious convictions are discounted. Let us leave a record so that the choices are clear, letting others do as they will in the face of prophetic counsel."

Neal A. Maxwell, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints said this in 1978. 1978. Never is it more applicable than presently. The prophet of this dispensation, Thomas S. Monson, recently asked membership of the church to support and vote yes on the proposition 8 movement in California. Let me rephrase: he announced that the church supports proposition 8 and asked the membership to cast a "yes" vote and work to obtain the necessary votes to pass this ballot measure. It's important.

I guess I should just say, as trite as it may be: "As for me and my house ..."

Not to mention the logical arguments that can be made to pass such a measure.

You know what to do now.

P.S. I thought this article by Orson Scott Card, an LDS democrat and journalist was a fascinating view of the current economic crisis, http://www.meridianmagazine.com/ideas/081017light.html

Don't hate me for my opinion, but I just needed to say that.

P.P.S. VOTE!!!!!

My Personal Opinions

Well, today I've decided to fill a post with my opinions. I'm going to write about politics, civil rights, and other things. Here goes:

• Proposition 8: I support proposition 8. And no, that doesn't make me a bigot, nor a hater or anything of the sort. It simply makes me someone who supports the definition of traditional marriage. I get so sick of hearing that this argument is all about "civil rights" and hatred and bigotry. The reality is that it has nothing to do with civil rights. I think that those who were involved in the civil rights movements of the 20's and 60's should almost be offended that this is being compared to those. Homosexuals have the right to vote and participate in the political process. They have the right to receive the benefits that straight married couples receive. There's no comparison. They simply want to apply the term marriage to their civil unions. I do not support this. I agree that homosexual couples deserve certain rights and that they should have the opportunity to receive the same benefits as married straight couples, however, they don't need to call this marriage. This push has been talked about as "equality". It has nothing to do with equality at this point. They'd have you believe that you are intolerant if you support proposition 8. When did the definition of tolerate (according to the interwebz: To allow (something that one dislikes or disagrees with) to exist or occur without interference) to embrace? Why do I have to love and support and accept and embrace homosexuality to tolerate it? The reality is that I am not going to stop you living in your lives until you try to interfere with mine. So please, don't accuse me of bigotry and hatred. It's merely an argument against the redefinition of marriage. Gay couples already have civil unions. As far as I'm concerned, that's good.
• Democratic Leadership: I'm scared. And that's not because Barack Obama is likely to be our next president. He's not a bad person, and in fact, he has some policies that I agree with and support (gun control, net neutrality, part of his economic policies) and I won't be angry when he (most likely) wins the next election. That's not the problem. The problem is the unchecked ownership of the democratic party in the government. With almost the 60 votes needed in the senate to push bills straight to vote and a majority in both the house and senate, it would seem that there will be a lot of unchecked power in the government for at least the next couple years. It's a problem. Some would argue that Bush has overused the power of the executive branch -- however, everything he did was within the power of the executive branch during war time or with the support of the house and senate. However, with unchecked power in the government, the whole liberal agenda could be pushed through quickly. Extremely left-wing people will be happy with this, but the majority of the US should be worried. Our government has always been about checks and balances. This year, we are potentially removing every one of them (the judicial branch is also very liberal). This is worrisome. I don't like that picture. Especially when Obama originally began his campaign talking about cooperation and support of both parties, and has now moved to the extreme. I don't worry about Obama being president: I worry about the entire liberal agenda being moved through in 4 years. Be careful America. There are a lot of conservatives out there.
• "Stupid Conservatives": I get so sick of listening to highly liberal people talk about how conservative are stupid. Some say "Religion is just a crutch for the weak". (Yes, I've heard it plenty of times) It's interesting stuff. And I would like to refute it: I'm a very religious person. As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I'm one of the more religious people that you might now. And I do not believe that my religion is a crutch. I enjoy having my faith in the Lord and Savior, and in God. He is powerful, and provides a lot of support and strength in this world. Religion has not made me blind. The reality is that I choose to be who I am and to do the things that I do. I choose to obey God's commandments and to follow His path. This does not make me weak. I would argue it makes me stronger. But that's a useless argument to those who don't understand the nature of God. I only ask that you stop useless attacks on religion itself.
• TV: There are great shows I recommend: The Office, Heroes, 24 (January), Eleventh Hour, Chuck, Terminator: The Sarah Conner Chronicles, The Simpsons, Family Guy, Seinfeld, House and Fringe. Watch them.
• Politicians: I love that supporters of Obama would refer to McCain as a politician. He's not really a "true" politician. If he was, he wouldn't say things that he says. He'd be more "polished" and ambiguous and less argumentative and crochety. Those are all qualities that a certain "true" politician has: Obama. If there is one thing Obama is, it's a career politician. He speaks well, presents himself in a political manner and uses the word "change" a lot. If there is one person in this election that's a true politician, it's Barack Obama.
• Obama's Health Plan: Social security is a mess. NASA is a mess. Medicare is a mess. Our country is deeply in debt. And Obama's going to cut taxes on the "middle class", skyrocket taxes on the rich and then use government money to create a goverment organization to provide socialized healthcare? Why would we want that. The government has failed in providing us with social security and medicare already. Why would we believe that the government can run our healthcare better than it already is? Taxes will be lower, and we'll find money to pay down our debt and create new, HUGE government programs? Does anyone else see the problem here?

Ok. I think I'm done. I know that I don't know everything. My opinions are just that: opinions. But I honestly hope that people will think during this election about what will be best for not only our country, but every country. The world benefits from democracy and freedom. Get out and vote. No matter who you are voting for, VOTE! Don't let people decide for you. Make your own decisions. But think through it and remember that not everything that is said is true. Don't get caught up in "change" or "hope". These are great things, but remember, without action, hope and change are just wishy washy concepts. Be careful and think before you vote.

Comment away.

Financial Crises

The world is collapsing! The sky is falling! These seem to be relatively familiar to anyone who spends time reading the business or money sections of your local newspaper. The current financial crisis is terrible and unexpected. It's awful to see what's happening around us, and watching the stock market crash over 780 points in ONE day was not very nice. However, there are several comments about this current situation that really bug me.

1. "Predatory Lenders"
2. Resistance to the rescue plan
3. "It's Bush's fault!"

Let me attempt to explain myself one by one.

First of all, let me clarify that I am not claiming that the lenders are completely without fault in this current situation. They should have been looking at front and back end ratios. They should have been considering that people shouldn't be buying more house than they could afford by only qualifying them at the lower rates involved with interest only options. They shouldn't have been expecting the housing market to continue to grow at the ridiculous pace it had been. They should have been more cautious. But to call them predatory? I think that's a little overboard. These lenders didn't go out to people and tell them to buy more house than they should. They simply helped people to afford it. Was that a precisely good idea? No. But can you blame these people for wanting to make money? That's at the heart of everything we do for work. We work to make money. Sometimes that means that we offer credit to those who may not be as worthy. Look at all the people with credit cards, who have no idea how to use them. I'm not saying that lenders are without fault, but I do think it's crazy to refer to them as predatory and therefore make value judgements on them. They made some mistakes that cost a lot of people a lot of money. But every indication was that the market would continue its rise. Can you blame them for saying that you could refinance after 5 years?

But I also don't want to take all the blame away from the lendees. Why are they buying so much more house than they can afford? I mean, I understand that everyone wants to "keep up with the joneses", but it was clearly a terrible idea. At some point, didn't they think that the potential huge payment waiting for them at the end of 5 years was a bad sign. That they couldn't qualify for a fixed rate mortgage. That should have said something to the people. So let's not put all the blame on the lenders. The American people should know better. We must be educated to use these blessings.

Why is there so much resistance to rescue? The 700 billion is a lot, however it is to be placed out in different phases. 150 billion immediately, 250 billion in a couple years, and then discretionary use of the rest. Why can't we do this? The housing market WILL recover. It has to. Eventually these mortgages will be worth  money again. The government is the only organization in our economy that can wait the inevitable time that it will take for the investment to pay itself back. Don't we understand that it's not tax payers dollars that will be used to pay this back? Only making 1.5% on these investments will provide extra money to eventually pay down our national deficit. But, despite that, realize that our national deficit is above trillions of dollars. We're never paying that back. So, what will it hurt? Ok, so that's not the best argument, but we need to recover our economy and the housing market. I'd definitely prefer that to a horrible depression that will rival that of the 30's and cause a need for another "deal" that will end up taxing me at 94%. Ugly.

Lastly: It's not Bush's fault. Unless you believe that the government should be involved of every aspect of the free market, you can't possibly think that this is a result of Bush's administration. Many of these loans have 10 years options. Most of these people have done this before, "flipping" houses. This didn't start with Bush, and it won't end with Bush. He only has so much power to save the economy, and when our president suggests a possible solution, he gets shot down in congress. It's hard, but it isn't Bush's fault people. The economy is a living, breathing organism. Personally, I'd prefer that the free market roams and we have the possibility of problems, than have the government run our market and create a socialistic environment. It's never worked before, and it won't work in the US. Educate yourselves, people. Bush couldn't have prevented this any more than he could have prevented Hurricane Katrina. While many would criticize Bush for his reaction following Katrina, we can't do the same here. He tried. Congress has stopped him. A plan backed by Bernake and many other economists.

What do we do now? I don't know. But I hope we figure it out soon.

You know where the comments go.

My Rant on Hypocrisy

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/17/palins-email-account-hack_n_127184.html

So, recently I've been doing a lot of reading online. Granted, online may not be the best location to get honest and good opinions from either democratic or republican points of view, however, it's been a hot bed recently for political news. Now, I'd like to state for the record that I have both republican and democratic leanings, but I will focus here on some blatant problems I have encountered on the internet.

The internet provides an anonymity that is not available in real life. So, perhaps the commentary that I read online is not representative of how the majority of democrats feel about the republican party -- however, it's definitely swayed me in my opinion of the entire party itself. Allow me to explain.

The article above is from the Huffington Post, known to be a notoriously liberal news site. The article talks about how a hacker named Anonymous, who previously took on Scientology, recently took it upon himself to hack Palin's email address and post the contents of her email online. The accounts have since been deleted, however, the damage has been done. Now, this could be bad enough itself. Imagine the uproar if someone hacked Biden's or Obama's email address. The whole nation would be up in arms, democrats and republicans a like. It's not ok to violate someone's privacy in this way and then use it against them. The problem with this is the legal ramifications. Obviously, we don't know if it was her real email, or if it was planted now. None of this evidence is viable in a court of law because it was obtained illegally. Some may argue, "what about Bush's illegal wiretaps?" Oh, I'm not supporting those (although he does have the Patriot Act on his side, but we'll leave the legality and constitutionality of that for another post), however I am saying that this is ludicrous. And what have the reactions been online? Just a sampling:

• since the email has been hacked, the account has been deleted. which means that the GOP was prob behind this as an attempt to destroy evidence and blame "liberals"
• Why should she complain? Bush reads everyone's email -- if she's done nothing wrong she has nothing to worry about.
• Just downloaded the contents. very interesting.

There are plenty of others who decry the action, but a great majority blame her for being an "idiot" and other things of the like. It's frustrating to see that something like this is ok because it is Sarah Palin. I state again: imagine if this was Obama's email.

Anyway, let me come back to another point. The sheer superiority of the democratic party has recently turned me off to their politics and their followers. Now, this does not apply to everyone, and I'm aware of that. However, the vocal minority has truly begun to affect my feelings and political leanings. At every turn it seems to be that someone decries the morality of being a republican. No longer is it a choice what they are going to support -- it's become a matter of intelligence. According to many internet commentaries, no one can understand how any intelligent person can truly support the republican cause. While I do not agree with everything that has happened in either party, I feel it is a little dramatic to claim that any person who supports a republican viewpoint is an idiot. The facts exist: no one could foresee the complete collapse of our economy. No one could have predicted the outcome of the Iraq war. Just like no one could possibly predict the storms years ahead of time when they ravaged the gulf coast. Everything we have to do is reactionary at this point. Let's not fool ourselves: having someone else in the presidency could not have stopped the collapse of the mortgage industry nor the credit industry. Don't be fools.

It's scary to see the division being preached by the democratic party. I understand that their ultimate goal is to destroy the republican campaign, but a divided US is not better than a united country. They would preach tolerance and understanding for those that agree with them: That's the beauty of the US. Not everyone has to agree. And that's what keeps this country from utter chaos. Let's be a little more careful with how we choose to approach commentary and subjects, and decry all that is illegal. If you want to preach acceptance of all, accept all, whether or not their opinion differs from you.

I know, people will disagree with me, and I'm ok with that. My experience has lead me to this point. It's frustrating, but it's what drives this country. It's ok for people to have differing opinions on things. But let's remember: that doesn't mean that anyone is smarter or dumber. Most of the time it just means the opinion is different. There are exceptions to the rule, however, it's a good one to live by.

/rant.

The Manchurian Candidate: Wow.

So, I've been thinking about what my next post could entail. Should I write more on the yucky mess of politics? Should I write about the new iPods and the like that Apple, Inc. officially announced yesterday? Should I do some random writings about weddings? How about write about my wonderful fiancee? There are a million subjects that I could knock out today. But I think I'm going to be simple and talk a touch about a  movie called The Manchurian Candidate.

For those of you that are unaware, I have a Netflix membership. It's one of the great choices that I have made, seeing as I am a major movie buff. I love to watch them, review them, talk about them, and be entertained by them. However, I've never been much into classic movies. I think it has something to do with the audio. The audio just never seems quite right -- it just appears to make the actors very rigid and boring. It's a factor that has kept me from renting and/or enjoying many of the classic movies that make up American cinema. That's not to say that I don't love the stories or don't appreciate the actors of the bygone eras, however the rigidity and audio quality is a major barrier to getting my attention and keeping me involved in the movie. That being said, I'd like to tackle some of the messages from The Manchurian Candidate, however, I just want you to remember that my impressions may not be wholly accurate.

The Manchurian Candidate (wikipedia) is a disturbing story about Raymond Shaw (played by Laurence Harvey), a military man captured during the Korean War. He is captured and brainwashed to be an assassin sleeper agent for the communist party. His trigger is the queen of diamonds playing card, after which he can be given assignments to carry out. The original 1962 film was directed by John Frankenheimer and opened to critical acclaim. In fact, it's one of few movies to have received a 98% rating on RottenTomatoes. The man who unravels the mystery and eventually saves the day is Bennett Marco (played by Frank Sinatra). You see, Raymond's mother is behind much of the conspiracy, and is attempting to place her husband into the presidency (he is the manchurian candidate). The hopes of the communist regime is that he will be a puppet to their wishes and they will control the US presidency. However, Raymond's mother (a creepy part played by Angela Lansbury, who looks EXACTLY the same) plans revenge after the presidency has been obtained because they used her son as the assassin. Anyway, as convoluted as the plot may seem, this plays out in utter perfection under his direction. Now, let me make one qualifying statement: this is a LONG movie. It could have used some editing during some of the slower sections. It is deliberately paced, and can drag at certain parts. For example, as Captain Marco discovers the secret behind the trigger, this is played out in a scene that occupies far more screen time than it truly needs. Therefore, to truly enjoy the picture, one should go in aware that the film will move forward, however, it will drag at many moments.

Now, this is considered a masterpiece of American cinema, and I completely understand why. The implications of what this says about our society and our strengths have never been more true today. Our fight may no longer be against communists, but we have new enemies. And the scary part is that this is an effective and scary method for them to gain access to our political system. As the Manchurian Candidate, Raymond's step father does not know that he is being controlled and propelled into the presidency. This is certainly not his goal, but much more placed upon him by his controlling and manipulative wife. While the parallels my not be so direct, it is quite a timely commentary on our current political machine. Often, we grabbed people and thrust them into the spotlight and the presidency perhaps before they are ready. They aren't necessarily evil people, nor even aware that they have been thrust in such a manner, however, our system is providing for them to become candidates for the US presidency and inviting them to promise things that may be far out control of the presidency. This is a strange thing that has not been popularized only recently. In fact, many presidential candidates make sweeping promises and fail to deliver on 90% of them during their actual presidency, when they discover that many of their promises were out of the reach of the presidency.

It's not that I don't believe in the reach of "change", however, I do believe that their are limits. And I think it's important to realize that change requires concrete plans, not aloof promises. While we all may be searching for that, it's something that must be obtained with plans, not merely wishes.

But I digress. The Manchurian Candidate is disturbing on another level based on the motivations of the mother. Someone who is willing to allow her son to be brainwashed and murder people for her own political aspirations is scary. Some will do anything to reach that pinnacle of power; it's important to be aware of the internal motivations and the reasons behind the search for power. When we can realize why someone aspires to such a position, we can truly find someone who is worthy to receive such power.

Anyway, if you want an intense thriller, I invite you to see the 1962 version of The Manchurian Candidate. It's slow, deliberate, and brutally honest.

Let's be careful.

P.S. I have the best fiancee ever. She's beautiful, smart, alluring, wonderful, and motivated. And she's great! :)

Commentary follows.

The Complications of American Politics

Recently, I've taken a turn of interest in American politics. That would seem to make sense, seeing as this is an election year, and the election has never been more in the media and on the minds of the American people. However, my interest has developed for a reason separate from the actual candidates. My interest has been piqued more by the reaction of the American public to the candidates running this year. Allow me to elaborate.

Barack Obama is the democratic choice for president. I have no problem with him in a general sense of the word. I do find some of his claims interesting (wanting to downsize the government, but increasing taxes and providing for universal health care would seem to be at odds with this, among other things) but it is not this I would like to focus on. It is more that he is being praised so greatly in all media publications. He is looked at almost like a Savior, someone who will bring us back from the brink and save us all. It is a well known fact that a president only has so much power to influence the economy and political opinion during his first term. Normally, the effects of a presidency aren't seen for around 4 - 8 years. Some could argue then that the economic results we are currently experiencing are a result of President Clinton's decisions while in office. However, this is not the argument I wish to make.

Obama, while a worthwhile candidate for the presidency, is not a "savior" of the American people. He is a good man, and will probably be a worthwhile president -- however, he is not without his faults. Much has already been said about his mysteriously absent flag pin, the flags in his campaign office, the pastor to which he listens. I'm not about to talk about these subjects, as they have been covered. However, it would seem in the media that Obama can do no wrong and that McCain can do no right. Obama is praised for his VP; McCain is made fun of. Lack of experience of the McCain's VP candidate? What about lack of experience of Obama?

Obama's speech was watched by more people than the Olympics. Why is there such an intense interest in this? The American people have been truly polarized by George W. Bush, however, does this mean that Obama will be THAT much better as a president? Let me say: the economic prosperity of the US is much more influenced by the secretary of the treasury than by the president. In the same breath, bring back Greenspan! But that's for another day.

I agree that Obama is a good man. But he's not the only hope for the American people. I think that we need to be careful in our lauding of everything that he does. I encourage people to analyze the issues and make sense of them. Don't vote for Obama just because you don't want another republican. Let's not forget that not every republican agrees with everything that Bush has done while in office. While there are certainly polarizing issues, Obama is not perfect either. It would seem that he can do no wrong, but I would contend that both candidates are human beings and are perfectly capable of making mistakes. Please, don't get caught up in the hype, and remember to evaluate the issues individually to determine what is best for you.

In the same breath, I want to state that I have not yet decided who will receive my vote. I am just disturbed that it seems that Obama can do no wrong.

You know where the comments go.

What Happened to Free Speech?

Let me preface my remarks with a quick statement: I do not endorse hate-filled rhetoric of any kind be it anti-religious, racist, overly religious, or any other form of hate. However, I have seen a strange trend recently in the treatment of "free" speech and the different definitions that we tend to employ of it.

First of all, there are the highly liberal people who decry all things contrary to their opinions. This includes opinions on gay marriage, government, health care, and other things. Anything against their opinion is called "uneducated", "stupid", "bigoted", or anything else. Mind you, most of this experience comes from the highly liberal internet message boards, where most things are decried as foul and wrong. I will never understand why people must decide that other people have no idea what they are talking about, especially when we are talking about opinions. Don't call someone intolerant who simply does not want other people's lives to interfere with theirs. Tolerance is exactly that: live and let live. It's not acceptance of everyone else's ideals or opinions. Its not even agreeing with others -- its more of an allowance of opinion.

Internet flamewars are all too common. So many people call religious people "stupid" or "blind", not understanding how they can believe in something that cannot be seen. The reality is that there is nothing wrong with religion, in any form. Taken to the extreme, it can be very detrimental and cause many problems. However, for the most part, it just involves people living and being happy, finding their own way to express themselves and obtain happiness. Is that so bad?

I've noticed a disturbing trend that decries all conservative talk as hateful or uneducated. People seem to think that to have a real opinion, it has to be against the political mold or against mainstream society. Anything that expresses an opinion contrary to gay marriage, or to socialized healthcare is often referred to as stupid, or simply intolerant. The reality is that they have their opinions. They are well entitled to write and express what they feel. Does this mean that I agree? No. Does this mean that I am entitled to rip them apart and call them stupid? No. Once again, when it becomes hate-filled and violent, that is terrible and inappropriate. However, conservatives are just as entitled as anyone to their opinions on government, political candidates, mainstream society and economics. Everyone, on both sides of the political spectrum, has messed up thousands of time.

It is my sincere hope that we can allow everyone to have their opinion. Free speech is not speech without consequences, but we should all be willing to allow others to have their opinions stated without flaming or attacking. If someone thinks differently than you, take their opinion into consideration and evaluate it for its merits. Sometimes you'll find that they make more sense than you do. Let me offer 3 suggestions:

1. Research. When someone expresses something you don't agree with, don't jump on the flamewar bandwagon. Research the opinion. Look at the author's resources. Read through point and counterpoint. Evaluate the argument objectively, finding the strengths and weaknesses.
2. Think before you comment. When we read something that we disagree with, our natural reaction is to immediately comment. However, I think it is good to let it marinate. Sit back, relax, research (see step 1), think, ponder, meditate -- don't just flame. Find a way to contribute to the conversation. Don't just hate.
3. Write clearly and contribute healthily. When you write a counterpoint, don't call the other person out by swearing, or by calling them an idiot. Write legibly, and consistently. Find a way to express yourself without hate, without inflammatory phrases. Countering hateful rhetoric with more hateful rhetoric is not a solution and does not help -- it tends to prove the author's point. If you really want to counter an argument, make sure that you know what you are talking about and express it clearly enough that people can see your logic. Then leave it up to others to decide. Don't argue more by responding to inflammatory posts, it will just make you angry.

I think if we can use some of these plans, we'll see more productive comment sections, and find more value in the internet forums we participate in.

Leave comments in the designated area.

Is the American Dream Dead?

It would seem that in our current world, many people would have you believe that the "American dream" no longer applies. In other words, many would tell you that it is no longer possible to arrive in the US, find work, work hard, be successful and overcome the difficulties that were once present in your family or your life. It would seem that with the advent of more and more welfare, the cries for universal health care and more governmental control than ever, more and more people no longer believe that the United States provides the opportunity to improve yourself and grow and better your personal circumstances. I find this to be a HUGE fallacy.

First of all, I understand that my experiences may differ from many others, but the fact still remains that hundreds of millions of dollars of scholarships go unclaimed every year. The government provides so many gifts to people willing to work and study and learn. Those people, more than ever, have the opportunity to attend junior colleges, community colleges, trade schools, vocational institutes, or many other places that they wouldn't have had years ago. I fully believe that anyone willing to put in the work and the effort can succeed in today's society. If you are willing to find something that you are good at and work to improve your skills, you can prove invaluable at anything and everything that you might be able to do.

Second, don't doubt the power of the internet. Have a desire to learn how to create web pages? Thousands of pages are available that cover very basic to very advanced topics. Want to develop other skills that are hard to find in your area? I'm willing to bet that hundreds, if not thousands of pages are available to help you learn more about the skill, find schools that are willing to help train you, connect with people that can put you in the right place at the right time. Don't doubt that you can find pretty much anything you need to find on the internet.

Third, people aren't willing to work anymore. It would seem that everyone is in such a rush to get rich, that they simply aren't willing to spend years as grunts. Before you can make $100,000 a year, you might have to make $15,000 a year. And when you have no experience or training, the sad truth is that you are only worth that much. It's not settling -- it's knowing that with experience comes money. Be prepared to scrape things together for years while you work your way up the ladder. If you have a dead end job, the experience that you have working will definitely facilitate the search for the next step.

Fourth, It is expensive to live in California. It is expensive in Utah. It's expensive in New York, Florida, or along either coast. If you can't afford it, why not move somewhere more affordable? Find a job in a place that you can afford, that you can make ends meet, and you will more likely be happy and willing to work to improve yourself. Why is it the responsibility of those who have worked hard, learned, excelled, and received promotions to pay for those who don't want to work for themselves? I understand that some people can't find jobs: that's a different story. But it would seem that too many people are content to blame contemporary American society for their problems. Racism exists, problems exist, the economy is experiencing yet another downturn -- but this doesn't mean that you can't work to improve yourself. Instead of calling for more taxes or government programs, let's work toward overcoming ourselves and being the best we can.

I know this sounds like a terrible judgement on the people that live on welfare and can't find adequate employment or a way to support their families. It is not meant to offend, nor meant to accuse anyone of not doing what they can. But the reality is that the American dream is only dead in the heads of those who refuse to believe in it. American still provides endless opportunities for those willing to start at the bottom and work their way up the ladder. Success comes with time -- it's not something that we find hidden under a rock in our backyard. I suggest three things:

1. Find something you love and discover a way to make it your life. Everyone has a passion. Some love to build things with their hands. Others love to code for computers. Still others love to play with numbers. Don't be afraid to look for jobs in these areas, even if they mean that your paycheck might be miserable as you work your way up the ladder, or create notoriety.
2. Trade schools are great, low-cost alternatives that provide you with real world work experience and skills. If you don't like the formal educational system, don't let that stop you. Get out there and find a vocational school that trains in your passion. Learn to do construction management. Learn to program. Learn to arrange music. Network and socialize with people. You'll find that your classmates are often the best sources of new jobs and pertinent information.
3. Don't blame outside forces. The only person responsible for your success is you. If you really want something, get out there and work for it. I've known many people in my college experience that are not blessed with the greatest natural intelligence -- but they make up for it with sheer determination and work ethic. They are willing to try, willing to fail, and willing to rework themselves. They often find the most successes. Remember, even Michael Jordan, arguably the greatest basketball player who ever lived, was cut from his high school varsity basketball team. If you are willing to work, you really can make anything happen.

Some might argue that my view is simplistic, and shaped by what I have seen around me in school and in my life. I won't disagree with that statement. Who I am is definitely a mixture of experiences, visions, emotions, hopes and dreams that have been with me for years. But, without those things I would never be where I am today. I could have given up long ago when I decided that Neuroscience was not my favored direction. When I lost my scholarship because I struggled through a few semesters in college. There were many opportunities to quit. But I know that my success is determined by myself. I am responsible for being who I am and for becoming the greatest that I can become.

I challenge everyone to recognize their own strengths. Find something you love and pursue it. Don't let others keep you down. Don't stop working. Don't overestimate the value of hard work. You won't start at the top. Precious few do. But the reality is that with enough work, love, devotion and dedication to something you do, you can succeed. I believe in everyone's ability. Let's work towards recreating the American dream and establishing ourselves in this magnificent generation filled with possibilities and imaginations. As my mom put it, "Just my thoughts, but I agree that the American dream is still out there.  Sometimes as we grow and change, our dreams modify.  But the truth is, once you stop dreaming, life loses its delight.  And then you die."

Comments? You know what to do.

My Rant Against Socialized Healthcare

Disclaimer: I am not a health care professional, nor a politician. While I am not a leading expert in this field, this post reflects my research and experiences on the subject of the government and the free economy. In no way do I represent myself as an authority, and I encourage all to do their research and determine what they feel is the best outcome for the United States. Enjoy.

This election seems to be a highly charged one. Information flows freely from each side, and can be disseminated in many different forms. This means that the voting population is largely alone in trying to determine which is the best course of action, and sifting through the information can become a challenge. One of the hot topics of the upcoming election is the revamping of the health care system of the United States. While there are many arguments, two primary forms of "revised" health care are generally supported. These two are socialized healthcare, and single-payer insurance. First, let me define the two for my readers:

• Socialized Healthcare: Some say the literal meaning is confined to systems in which the government operates health care facilities and employs health care professionals. (Narrowly defined to distinguish from single-payer health insurance, otherwise the definitions can intertwine). (Reference)
• Single Payer Insurance:  American term describing the payment for doctors, hospitals and other providers of health care from a single fund. (Reference2)

While not everyone will agree with these general definitions of the terms, these are the definitions that I will use during my discussion of socialized health care. Single-Payer insurance is a separate entity, and will be discussed in a later post. For now, let me focus on socialized health care.

Americans who support socialized healthcare cite the millions of uninsured Americans as the case to support a universal health care system. While I do not debate the benefits of supplying the US population with health care, I do question the creation of this system through taxation and government administration. The current law of the United States requires that an ER admit any person regardless of their ability to pay.(Reference3) This law requires that emergency service be provided to all. This has resulted in increased cost pressures on hospitals and has caused large cost deficits and frequently overruns in unpaid-for health care. Ultimately the taxpayer is responsible for these payments through either higher insurance premiums or directly out of governmental expense accounts.

I do not support the notion that these people are not entitled to health care -- actually much the opposite. I believe that access to health care is an important part of society and should be available to all. However, legislating health care as a provision to all of the citizens of the United States (or, even more difficultly, to all RESIDENTS (including non-citizens) of the United States) would require enormous expense. Many of the supporters of socialized health care cite the statistics showing the spending of the government on health care exceeds that of countries that currently employ socialized or single-payer insurance plans. This logic seems counterintuitive. Expanding a governmental entity that is already spending more on health care than any other industrialized nation doesn't seem to be the way to decrease governmental spending. Many governmental projects are rife with cost overruns and budget problems. Why, exactly, do we believe that socializing health care as a provision to every citizen will suddenly lower these costs?

Another issue I have with socializing health care is the potential conflict that it will create for doctors. Almost all of the best doctors in the world practice in the United States. And, to be frank, this is directly related to income. Practicing in the United States earns a doctor significantly more than in these socialized countries. Government is notorious for underpaying employees and doctors would become part of the problem. I would argue that most students pursuing a medical degree do so for two reasons: 1) To help mankind and make the world a healthier place, and 2) To make lots of money. Let's be honest, doctors deserve to be paid well for what they do. If we hand over the industry to the government, what happens to the drive to become a doctor? The second reason could very well be eliminated. What then? Doctors on welfare? I know, the idea sound ludicrous, but if we implement a system designed to reduce their salaries to keep down overall expenses, this is an inevitable result.

I fully support the notion that all employers should provide some kind of insurance or health care coverage for their employees. This is a cost of business. If you choose to run your own business, you should provide coverage for the people that work for you. This, however, is an entirely separate argument. I do believe that all should have health insurance.

While I support the notion that everyone should have health insurance, as I have stated, I do not precisely believe that a government-run health care system is the solution that the country is looking for. It requires careful study and creation -- it is not something that can simply be created from nothing.

So, what can we do about it?

I fully recognize that the health care system in the United States is not ideal. It is messed up in many significant ways. If socializing health care is not the solution, what is?

To find this solution, we can analyze one company that I believe is approaching it properly. For profit health care is a dangerous venture. It results in people searching to maximize profits for stockholders, and this causes an inherent conflict of interest. Maximizing profits and providing low-cost health care are inherently counter. However, there is one company that I have seen maximize these ideals: Kaiser Permanente. (Full Disclosure: I am a member of Kaiser, and my father works for the company.) This is in no way a cry of support for Kaiser, nor an advertisement for them, but more an analysis of how they approach business.

First of all, Kaiser is a non-profit organization. It is not a publicly traded company, nor ever will be. All profits made by the organization are placed back into the company to acquire the best doctors, equipment and technologies to help advance health care. Their insurance is not based on profit gaining ventures, and has been set up to provide for anyone willing to pay the premiums. Yes, you have to go to Kaiser to see your doctor. Yes, you have to see your primary care physician before being sent to a specialist. But this is not a hindrance. My mother recently required a specially crafted wrist brace to help problems she has been having with her thumb joint. She made an appointment with her primary care physician, saw her for about 30 minutes, and headed home with her recommendation. When she got home, she had a message on her answering machine from the specialist, already requesting an appointment. She made one for two days later, and was sent to the brace designer early the next week (her appt was on a Thursday). Her brace was finished 1 week later and provided to her at no cost, fully covered through the insurance. Many of you may argue that this is an isolated experience. However, growing up with Kaiser, I have always had these types of experience. Granted, others may argue that it is a result of my father working for the company. This is also not the case. There is no way to tell who works for Kaiser by viewing my medical record. This information is not provided, and those doctors do not know this information. My father isn't even a doctor, and rarely interfaces with them.

Is Kaiser perfect? No. There are many arguments that it isn't, and that the system is inherently flawed. I won't disagree. There are flaws in the system. There are flaws in every system. Proposing a fix like socialized health care provides more problems than it solves. Do we want higher taxes to support yet another government agency? I don't. I think taxes are high enough!

Do I have a solution? No. But I think the model of a potential solution can be found in our economy. Let's determine if that will work before we fund yet another governmental bureaucracy.

Updated: I found out that Kaiser does allow self referral for certain specialities.

Comments? You know where to leave 'em.