In 1620, 102 people decided to leave their home land and travel to a new life in hopes of making things better for their descendants. They arrived in a new land as unwelcomed guests, and could not speak the language. They made little effort to learn the native language, but had no qualms about taking precious resources away from those who were there first. These unwelcomed guests continued to take more land, and soon all the original people were either killed or shuffled off into reservations.
In 2007, many people decided to leave their home land and travel to a new life in hopes of making things better for their descendants. They arrived in a new land as unwelcomed guests, and could not speak the language. A few tried hard to learn the native language, some made no effort; all took precious resources away from those who were there first. Who knows how the story will continue.
Whats the difference between these people? The original illegal immigrants are now hailed as heroes, while the modern illegal immigrants are ridiculed. Both came into a new land in search of a better life, unable to speak the language but in need of resources. Several groups want to build a giant fence to keep any more illegal immigrants from coming in, and want to ship all of the current illegal immigrants back to where they came from.
If you want to get rid of the illegal immigrants, start packing. With this mind set, unless you are a native american or descendant, you have no more right to this land than the modern illegal immigrants. Just because we've been here for 400 years, does this give us a right to dictate how someone else's land is to be used? Will Mexican families have to be established for 400 years in order to get proper respect as human beings?
America is a country founded by racists, and continues to be built upon a foundation of racism. The hottest topics continue to be between blacks and whites, but the most potent racism right now is against hispanics.
2007-05-07
2007-05-02
Blame-Shifter Bush
Bush already knows that he has lost the war in Iraq. Now he is just trying to make sure he doesn't have to take the blame for it.
Right now, he's trying to push the blame over to the Democratic-controlled congress. He keeps whining like a 3-year old, and since congress won't give him what he wants, it will be their fault for the failure in Iraq, not his.
What Bush wants is to keep the troops there until next election. If congress gives him this, the next president will inherit the war. Then, whatever happens will be his/her fault, instead of Bush's fault.
Right now, he's trying to push the blame over to the Democratic-controlled congress. He keeps whining like a 3-year old, and since congress won't give him what he wants, it will be their fault for the failure in Iraq, not his.
What Bush wants is to keep the troops there until next election. If congress gives him this, the next president will inherit the war. Then, whatever happens will be his/her fault, instead of Bush's fault.
2007-04-11
New Element Discovered
A new ultra-dense element has been discovered by scientists. This element cannot be penetrated by anything, including well-reason logic. The largest concentration of this new element is beleived to be in the vacinity of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., in Washington, D.C., although other large concentrations are now known to exist. It is also believed that this element may be scattered in small quantities throughout the entire world.
So, heres the deal. Bush decided to go over and "liberate" Iraq. When he went over, he had the backing of congress. No surprise there, since congress was full of elephants.
He got Prime Minister Blair to send some of his troops over as well.
Now that the war has been going on for several years, the Brittish commanders set a deadline for troop withdrawals. They told the Iraqi government, "this is when we're leaving. You better be ready." So the Iraqi soldiers got their rears in gear and were ready to defend their country when the Brittish left.
But Bush, in all his brilliance, keeps saying that he won't go until the Iraqis are ready. Now think about it. If you have someone helping you, and they say that they will stay until you don't need them anymore, how much motivation will you have to get to the point where you don't need their help? Of course its easier to just let them do the work.
The asses in congress, though they may be, have realized this. They see the need to set a definite date for troop withdrawals so that the Iraqis will realize, "hey, they might actuall leave and we'll have to take over."
But Bush doesn't like this. He claims that he will veto any defense spending bill that has a withdrawal deadline. However, the congress has a Democrat majority, who keep saying that they will only pass a bill that has a withdrawal deadline.
So who will win? My bet is, congress. Congress has the power of the purse strings. Bush's war money is going to run out sooner or later. Of course, this won't be his fault; he will be pinning the blame on congress for not giving him money, so the failure of the war is their fault.
Bush has said hes willing to sit down and talk with the congressional leaders, by which he means he wants to hear them say that they will do it his way.
Even with this proposed deadline for withdrawal, and the Democratic-lead congress, I'm not so sure that a defense spending bill would be voted down party lines. Bush has been losing many faithful Republicans due to his wonderful management of the country, and I'm guessig that many Republicans will be voting with the Democrats in favor of a definite deadline for troop withdrawal. The Democratic majority may be able to get the initial bill passed, but it will take a two-thirds majority to override Bush's veto.
So, heres the deal. Bush decided to go over and "liberate" Iraq. When he went over, he had the backing of congress. No surprise there, since congress was full of elephants.
He got Prime Minister Blair to send some of his troops over as well.
Now that the war has been going on for several years, the Brittish commanders set a deadline for troop withdrawals. They told the Iraqi government, "this is when we're leaving. You better be ready." So the Iraqi soldiers got their rears in gear and were ready to defend their country when the Brittish left.
But Bush, in all his brilliance, keeps saying that he won't go until the Iraqis are ready. Now think about it. If you have someone helping you, and they say that they will stay until you don't need them anymore, how much motivation will you have to get to the point where you don't need their help? Of course its easier to just let them do the work.
The asses in congress, though they may be, have realized this. They see the need to set a definite date for troop withdrawals so that the Iraqis will realize, "hey, they might actuall leave and we'll have to take over."
But Bush doesn't like this. He claims that he will veto any defense spending bill that has a withdrawal deadline. However, the congress has a Democrat majority, who keep saying that they will only pass a bill that has a withdrawal deadline.
So who will win? My bet is, congress. Congress has the power of the purse strings. Bush's war money is going to run out sooner or later. Of course, this won't be his fault; he will be pinning the blame on congress for not giving him money, so the failure of the war is their fault.
Bush has said hes willing to sit down and talk with the congressional leaders, by which he means he wants to hear them say that they will do it his way.
Even with this proposed deadline for withdrawal, and the Democratic-lead congress, I'm not so sure that a defense spending bill would be voted down party lines. Bush has been losing many faithful Republicans due to his wonderful management of the country, and I'm guessig that many Republicans will be voting with the Democrats in favor of a definite deadline for troop withdrawal. The Democratic majority may be able to get the initial bill passed, but it will take a two-thirds majority to override Bush's veto.
2007-04-03
We are all on drugs, yeah....
So, this semesters, I'm doing my paramedic pharmacology class. For part of this, we have to write a term paper on something drug-related. In doing this, I discovered some things that even surprised me.
It takes an average of 12 years to develop a new drug, from formulation to FDA approval. However, the pharamceutical company must file for it's patent on the drug once the new formulation is created. This patent is only good for 20 years, and cannot be renewed upon commercial viability. So, 12 years on this 20-year patent is gone by the time a company can actually sell the drug.
After this formulation, the drug company starts animal testing. This determines the potential safety and efficacy of the drug.
After this pre-clinical phase has shown some potential for the drug, the company must file an investigational application with the FDA before it can begin human testing.
By the time the drug company is ready to submit an official application for the drug, it will have conducted research on nearly 5,000 people in a minimum of three seperate double-blind clinical studies. The final FDA approval process then takes up to three years before the manufacturer finally receives permission to sell the drug.
So at the end of this process, the drug company only has about 8 years of exclusive rights to market the drug that has cost the pharma company nearly $1,000,000,000 to develop. However, there is a chance that even after this one-billion dollar drug has made it past clinical trials, the FDA will not grant approval.
And only about 1/3 of all new compounds will ever make it past the second clinical trial. So for every drug that is approved at a cost of one billion dollars, about 2 drugs will never make it to approval stage, each at a cost of about $100,000,000.
Then you see the commercials about how "grandma shouldn't have to decide between eating and taking her pills." Have you ever stopped to think about what people did before they had all these pills? And how many of grandma's problems are caused by other pills, so the doctor gives her another prescription to fix the side effect of this prescription, and soon grandma is taking a handful of pills each day, just because the doctor told her to.
The next time you see a politcal ad about the need for stricter regulation on the pharmaceutical companies, just think about the 1.2 billion dollar price tag on that little pill up in the cabinet. If you start to limit the money that drug companies can make, you take away their incentive to develop new drugs.
It takes an average of 12 years to develop a new drug, from formulation to FDA approval. However, the pharamceutical company must file for it's patent on the drug once the new formulation is created. This patent is only good for 20 years, and cannot be renewed upon commercial viability. So, 12 years on this 20-year patent is gone by the time a company can actually sell the drug.
After this formulation, the drug company starts animal testing. This determines the potential safety and efficacy of the drug.
After this pre-clinical phase has shown some potential for the drug, the company must file an investigational application with the FDA before it can begin human testing.
By the time the drug company is ready to submit an official application for the drug, it will have conducted research on nearly 5,000 people in a minimum of three seperate double-blind clinical studies. The final FDA approval process then takes up to three years before the manufacturer finally receives permission to sell the drug.
So at the end of this process, the drug company only has about 8 years of exclusive rights to market the drug that has cost the pharma company nearly $1,000,000,000 to develop. However, there is a chance that even after this one-billion dollar drug has made it past clinical trials, the FDA will not grant approval.
And only about 1/3 of all new compounds will ever make it past the second clinical trial. So for every drug that is approved at a cost of one billion dollars, about 2 drugs will never make it to approval stage, each at a cost of about $100,000,000.
Then you see the commercials about how "grandma shouldn't have to decide between eating and taking her pills." Have you ever stopped to think about what people did before they had all these pills? And how many of grandma's problems are caused by other pills, so the doctor gives her another prescription to fix the side effect of this prescription, and soon grandma is taking a handful of pills each day, just because the doctor told her to.
The next time you see a politcal ad about the need for stricter regulation on the pharmaceutical companies, just think about the 1.2 billion dollar price tag on that little pill up in the cabinet. If you start to limit the money that drug companies can make, you take away their incentive to develop new drugs.
2007-03-10
Open Ballot Access
There are over 200 organized, active national political parties in the United States.
Most people only know of the Democrats and the Republicans.
A few people are beginning to hear of some other parties, such as the Libertarians, the Green Party, and other so-called third parties. And they are so-called because the Democrats and Republicans have no right call this a two-party system.
If there is so much choice out there, why do we generally see only the Democracts and the Republicans on our ballots at election time? The answer, of course, is that the Democrats and Republicans don't want you to see the other parties.
The state legislatures, full of elephants and asses (hereafter referred to as Republicrats), did their best to make it near-impossible for any other party to get put on the ballot.
Ballot access laws have been around since the birth of our representative republic (America is NOT a democracy!), and for good reason. Getting put on the ballot should not be so easy that every Tom, Dick, and Harry can be named as a candidate. The first access laws simply required that a candidate have a handful of signatures, say 15-25.
The new ballot access laws that have been enacted by our wonderful Republicrats require that candidates be able to present anywhere from 1,000 to 3,000 signatures, and some states require that those signatures can only be collected in a 4-month window before the election.
Unless, of course, your party received a certain number of votes in the previous election, in which case you are granted automatic ballot access. Ever wonder why Republicrats aren't knocking on your door, asking you to sign an access petition?
If you want to make a big difference, write a letter to your state representives, including your governor, and ask them to reform ballot access to allow all parties an equal chance. Write a letter to the editor. Start your own political blog. After all, isn't America supposed to be the land of opportunity? Unless, of course, you happen to come from Mexico.
Most people only know of the Democrats and the Republicans.
A few people are beginning to hear of some other parties, such as the Libertarians, the Green Party, and other so-called third parties. And they are so-called because the Democrats and Republicans have no right call this a two-party system.
If there is so much choice out there, why do we generally see only the Democracts and the Republicans on our ballots at election time? The answer, of course, is that the Democrats and Republicans don't want you to see the other parties.
The state legislatures, full of elephants and asses (hereafter referred to as Republicrats), did their best to make it near-impossible for any other party to get put on the ballot.
Ballot access laws have been around since the birth of our representative republic (America is NOT a democracy!), and for good reason. Getting put on the ballot should not be so easy that every Tom, Dick, and Harry can be named as a candidate. The first access laws simply required that a candidate have a handful of signatures, say 15-25.
The new ballot access laws that have been enacted by our wonderful Republicrats require that candidates be able to present anywhere from 1,000 to 3,000 signatures, and some states require that those signatures can only be collected in a 4-month window before the election.
Unless, of course, your party received a certain number of votes in the previous election, in which case you are granted automatic ballot access. Ever wonder why Republicrats aren't knocking on your door, asking you to sign an access petition?
If you want to make a big difference, write a letter to your state representives, including your governor, and ask them to reform ballot access to allow all parties an equal chance. Write a letter to the editor. Start your own political blog. After all, isn't America supposed to be the land of opportunity? Unless, of course, you happen to come from Mexico.
2007-03-04
Racism in America
Many people today would say that American's have been making great strides towards ending racism. Compared to the immediate post-abolishment South, there is very little racism that seems to surface. There may be occasional reports when white officers beat an unarmed black civilian, but these events today are rare.
But even with all the advancements that we as a society have made towards looking beyond black and white, I cannot count the number of people who still see shades of brown. I have talked to many people with varying degrees of racial hatred towards Hispanics, from those who believe they should just stay on their side of the border, to those who believe that lethal force should be authorized for use against "all them damn illegals.”
They all have their reasons. Some believe that the immigrants are taking away our jobs – as if those making the remarks would perform the same jobs that many immigrants take on, working 16 hours a day in a field just to pay their rent and have a little left over to send home. Others believe that no one should come to America unless they know how to speak our language – yet many who say this would be insulted if they went to another country and the people there didn't speak English.
This modern wave of racism is the height of hypocrisy. The “founding fathers,” who emigrated form England, came into America as uninvited guests. Not understanding the concept of overstaying your welcome, they decided to round up all the people who were here first and take over their land. Now that we have successfully adulterated the land to the point of poisoning ourselves with every breath we take, we decide that we are the only ones who have a right to be here. Screw all the people who were here first, and screw all the people that have the same dream of the pilgrims. We're Americans, and this is our land – everybody else get off.
I personally aplaud President Bush for his efforts to create a more open border with Mexico (one of the few things I was behind him on). This is not something that could be done overnight. I believe anyone who doesn't have ill intent for the US should be able to come over; however, this does not mean they should have the same right to Government services that natural-born or naturalized citizens have.
In order to do this, we need to protect the right of government services to investigate citizenship status without it being considered discrimination.
Or else we would have to make it easier for people to work here legally. Then they could recieve an identifcation number, earn an honest living, and pay taxes like everyone else.
But even with all the advancements that we as a society have made towards looking beyond black and white, I cannot count the number of people who still see shades of brown. I have talked to many people with varying degrees of racial hatred towards Hispanics, from those who believe they should just stay on their side of the border, to those who believe that lethal force should be authorized for use against "all them damn illegals.”
They all have their reasons. Some believe that the immigrants are taking away our jobs – as if those making the remarks would perform the same jobs that many immigrants take on, working 16 hours a day in a field just to pay their rent and have a little left over to send home. Others believe that no one should come to America unless they know how to speak our language – yet many who say this would be insulted if they went to another country and the people there didn't speak English.
This modern wave of racism is the height of hypocrisy. The “founding fathers,” who emigrated form England, came into America as uninvited guests. Not understanding the concept of overstaying your welcome, they decided to round up all the people who were here first and take over their land. Now that we have successfully adulterated the land to the point of poisoning ourselves with every breath we take, we decide that we are the only ones who have a right to be here. Screw all the people who were here first, and screw all the people that have the same dream of the pilgrims. We're Americans, and this is our land – everybody else get off.
I personally aplaud President Bush for his efforts to create a more open border with Mexico (one of the few things I was behind him on). This is not something that could be done overnight. I believe anyone who doesn't have ill intent for the US should be able to come over; however, this does not mean they should have the same right to Government services that natural-born or naturalized citizens have.
In order to do this, we need to protect the right of government services to investigate citizenship status without it being considered discrimination.
Or else we would have to make it easier for people to work here legally. Then they could recieve an identifcation number, earn an honest living, and pay taxes like everyone else.
Scott's Smoking Battle
Smoking is bad for you. Smoking drives up the cost of health care insurance, and your life insurance premiums. Smoking makes you stink and gives you yellow teeth.
Even so, I do not think that Scott has the right to discriminate against current or potential employees simply on the basis of nicotine consumption. They can prohibit smoking on all Scott properties, including break rooms and vehicles; they can choose not to give smoke breaks (which are a priviledge, not a right); they can charge higher premiums for company-sponsored health insurance; they can do everything in their power to make working for them a living hell for smokers. But they cannot outright discriminate against people on the basis of smoking when it comes to hiring and firing.
On a semi-related note, I cannot stand people in the health care industry who choose to smoke. Sure, we all deal with stress. But health care workers in general are in very close proximity to people, and I don't like to have people that close to me when their breath smells like an ash tray. I don't want to have a paramedic working on me with yellow teeth and tobacco breath (one of my classmates) or someone who always has to turn around to spit out brown goop (one of my upperclassmen).
Even so, I do not think that Scott has the right to discriminate against current or potential employees simply on the basis of nicotine consumption. They can prohibit smoking on all Scott properties, including break rooms and vehicles; they can choose not to give smoke breaks (which are a priviledge, not a right); they can charge higher premiums for company-sponsored health insurance; they can do everything in their power to make working for them a living hell for smokers. But they cannot outright discriminate against people on the basis of smoking when it comes to hiring and firing.
On a semi-related note, I cannot stand people in the health care industry who choose to smoke. Sure, we all deal with stress. But health care workers in general are in very close proximity to people, and I don't like to have people that close to me when their breath smells like an ash tray. I don't want to have a paramedic working on me with yellow teeth and tobacco breath (one of my classmates) or someone who always has to turn around to spit out brown goop (one of my upperclassmen).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)