I've heard the argument by conservatives regarding "Don't ask Don't tell" that goes like this "Well the bottom line is your sexuality is irrelevant in the armed forces so it shouldn't be advertised nor communicated hence don't ask don't tell, all it will do is create tension and be a distraction".
I totally agree! Of course sex is a distraction. This is to be expected for both hetero and homosexuals. So to blame sexual tension on one side of the sexual preference playground is simply unfair, it's a human condition not a gay one.
Now I'm not saying I'd want to see a gay soldier swirling a baton, with rolled up sleeves and his t-shirt turned into a bikini top or using any other sexually gleeful expression declaring his/her sexuality, straight or gay, I do however highly doubt this is the case.
What I feel is unfair is that one group of people have to essentially "hide" their sexuality and/or "run" from any subjects that would expose them. In addition they have to carry the burden of knowing that if they are exposed they will be dishonorably discharged and lose GI benefits. All because of choices they make in their personal lives that do not effect their ability to do their jobs.
Not only does this cause injustice towards gays and lesbians but it also costs U.S taxpayers millions of dollars every year due to the costs of supporting this policy.
What it costs us:
Former Defense Secretary William Perry, a member of the Clinton administration, and professors from West Point U.S. Military Academy concluded that figure is close to $363 million, including $14.3 million for "separation travel" once a service member is discharged, $17.8 million for training officers, $252.4 million for training enlistees and $79.3 million in recruiting costs.
Military Opposition of the policy:
Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. John Shalikashvili (Ret.) and former Senator and Secretary of Defense William Cohen spoke against the policy publicly in early
January 2007:
"I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces,"
General Shalikashvili wrote
"Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job."
In December 2007, 28 retired generals and admirals urged Congress to repeal the policy. They cited evidence that 65,000 gay men and women are currently serving in the armed forces, and that there are over 1,000,000 gay veterans.
Public opinion:
Polls have shown that a large majority of the American public favors allowing gay and lesbian people to serve openly in the U.S. military. A national poll conducted in May 2005 by the Boston Globe showed 79% of participants having nothing against openly gay people from serving in the military. In a 2008 Washington Post–ABC News poll, 75% of Americans – including 80% of Democrats, 75% of independents, and 66% of conservatives – said that openly gay people should be allowed to serve in the military.
I agree sexual remarks, slurs and innuendos are a distraction and should be looked down upon and penalized up to and including dismissal, but until that soldier does so gay or straight, they should have the right to not have to hide their sexuality in the fear that they will lose their careers because of it.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Charge a tomato? Sure why not.
So the charge does diminish quite a bit but does settle out approximately 3% above the original charge. I'm not suggesting any applications of any sort, I just think it's cool that you can charge a tomato! Of course this could be recreated with most fruits and vegetables as well and would be a fun experiment for kids.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Republican Jargon on Government Spending and Socialism
So the redundant argument generated by far-right conservatives is that Obama and the Democratic party are responsible for and master minding a socialist take over of our Free-Enterprise Democracy. There argument is based on the recent Government Bailouts. So let's take a look at recent bailouts and clear the air once and for all.
George W. Bush: Approximate total 1.6 Trillion
Airline Industry 2001 $18.6 billion
The terrorist attacks of September 11 crippled an already financially troubled industry. To bail out the airlines, President Bush signed into law the Air Transportation Safety and Stabilization Act, which compensated airlines for the mandatory grounding of aircraft after the attacks. The act released $5 billion in compensation and an additional $10 billion in loan guarantees or other federal credit instruments. (What happened after the bailout?)
Bear Stearns 2008 $30 billion
JP Morgan Chase and the federal government bailed out Bear Stearns when the financial giant neared collapse. JP Morgan purchased Bear Stearns for $236 million; the Federal Reserve provided a $30 billion credit line to ensure the sale could move forward.
Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac 2008 $400 billion
On Sep. 7, 2008, Fannie and Freddie were essentially nationalized: placed under the conservatorship of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Under the terms of the rescue, the Treasury has invested billions to cover the companies' losses. Initially, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson put a ceiling of $100 billion for investments in each company. In February, Tim Geithner raised it to $200 billion. The money was authorized by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.
American International Group (A.I.G.) 2008 $180 billion
On four separate occasions, the government has offered aid to AIG to keep it from collapsing, rising from an initial $85 billion credit line from the Federal Reserve to a combined $180 billion effort between the Treasury ($70 billion) and Fed ($110 billion). ($40 billion of the Treasury’s commitment is also included in the TARP total.)
Auto Industry 2008 $25 billion
In late September 2008, Congress approved a more than $630 billion spending bill, which included a measure for $25 billion in loans to the auto industry. These low-interest loans are intended to aid the industry in its push to build more fuel-efficient, environmentally-friendly vehicles. The Detroit 3 -- General Motors, Ford and Chrysler -- will be the primary beneficiaries.
Troubled Asset Relief Program 2008 $700 billion
In October 2008, Congress passed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, which authorized the Treasury Department to spend $700 billion to combat the financial crisis. Treasury has been doling out the money via an alphabet soup of different programs. Here’s our running tally of companies getting TARP funds.
Citigroup 2008 $280 billion
Citigroup received a $25 billion investment through the TARP in October and another $20 billion in November. (That $45 billion is also included in the TARP total.) Additional aid has come in the form of government guarantees to limit losses from a $301 billion pool of toxic assets. In addition to the Treasury's $5 billion commitment, the FDIC has committed $10 billion and the Federal Reserve up to about $220 billion.
Now Obama's administration:
Bank of America 2009 $142.2 billion
Bank of America has received $45 billion through the TARP, which includes $10 billion originally meant for Merrill Lynch. (That $45 billion is also included in the TARP total.) In addition, the government has made guarantees to limit losses from a $118 billion pool of troubled assets. In addition to the Treasury's $7.5 billion commitment, the FDIC has committed $2.5 billion and the Federal Reserve up to $87.2 billion.
and Gm needs a bit more understanding, since both administrations have had a hand in bailing them out. So here's a detailed timeline.
George W. Bush: Approximate total 1.6 Trillion
Airline Industry 2001 $18.6 billion
The terrorist attacks of September 11 crippled an already financially troubled industry. To bail out the airlines, President Bush signed into law the Air Transportation Safety and Stabilization Act, which compensated airlines for the mandatory grounding of aircraft after the attacks. The act released $5 billion in compensation and an additional $10 billion in loan guarantees or other federal credit instruments. (What happened after the bailout?)
Bear Stearns 2008 $30 billion
JP Morgan Chase and the federal government bailed out Bear Stearns when the financial giant neared collapse. JP Morgan purchased Bear Stearns for $236 million; the Federal Reserve provided a $30 billion credit line to ensure the sale could move forward.
Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac 2008 $400 billion
On Sep. 7, 2008, Fannie and Freddie were essentially nationalized: placed under the conservatorship of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Under the terms of the rescue, the Treasury has invested billions to cover the companies' losses. Initially, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson put a ceiling of $100 billion for investments in each company. In February, Tim Geithner raised it to $200 billion. The money was authorized by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.
American International Group (A.I.G.) 2008 $180 billion
On four separate occasions, the government has offered aid to AIG to keep it from collapsing, rising from an initial $85 billion credit line from the Federal Reserve to a combined $180 billion effort between the Treasury ($70 billion) and Fed ($110 billion). ($40 billion of the Treasury’s commitment is also included in the TARP total.)
Auto Industry 2008 $25 billion
In late September 2008, Congress approved a more than $630 billion spending bill, which included a measure for $25 billion in loans to the auto industry. These low-interest loans are intended to aid the industry in its push to build more fuel-efficient, environmentally-friendly vehicles. The Detroit 3 -- General Motors, Ford and Chrysler -- will be the primary beneficiaries.
Troubled Asset Relief Program 2008 $700 billion
In October 2008, Congress passed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, which authorized the Treasury Department to spend $700 billion to combat the financial crisis. Treasury has been doling out the money via an alphabet soup of different programs. Here’s our running tally of companies getting TARP funds.
Citigroup 2008 $280 billion
Citigroup received a $25 billion investment through the TARP in October and another $20 billion in November. (That $45 billion is also included in the TARP total.) Additional aid has come in the form of government guarantees to limit losses from a $301 billion pool of toxic assets. In addition to the Treasury's $5 billion commitment, the FDIC has committed $10 billion and the Federal Reserve up to about $220 billion.
Now Obama's administration:
Bank of America 2009 $142.2 billion
Bank of America has received $45 billion through the TARP, which includes $10 billion originally meant for Merrill Lynch. (That $45 billion is also included in the TARP total.) In addition, the government has made guarantees to limit losses from a $118 billion pool of troubled assets. In addition to the Treasury's $7.5 billion commitment, the FDIC has committed $2.5 billion and the Federal Reserve up to $87.2 billion.
and Gm needs a bit more understanding, since both administrations have had a hand in bailing them out. So here's a detailed timeline.
- October 10, 2008: GM considered exchanging its remaining 49% stake in GMAC to Cerberus Capital Management for Chrysler LLC, potentially merging two of Detroit's "Big Three" automakers.[26] Acquisition talks involving Chrysler were cancelled, however, before November 7, 2008, as part of a broader response to the increasing urgency of GM's own cash flow problems. That was a result of Chrysler's senior bank debt currently trading at less than 50 cents on the dollar and because Chrysler's other owner – Daimler, formerly DaimlerChrysler – recently revalued its 19.9% Chrysler stake down to zero, which may or may not reflect its value in a potential sale.[27]
- December 12, 2008: General Motors stated that it was nearly out of cash, and may not survive past 2009. The U.S. Senate voted and strongly opposed any source of government assistance through a bailout bridge loan (originally worth $14 billion in emergency aid) which was aimed toward helping the struggling Big Three automakers financially, despite strong support from President George W. Bush and President-elect Barack Obama, along with some mild support from the Democratic and Republican political parties.
- Prior to the U.S. Senate's announcement, General Motors announced that it had hired several lawyers to discuss the possibility of filing for bankruptcy, with Chapter 11 bankruptcy being one of the options discussed. GM stated that "all options are on the table" for the company. Chrysler LLC, which is owned by Cerberus Capital Management, in a similar financial situation, warned that it, too, was nearly out of cash and might not survive much longer.
- December 18, 2008: President Bush announced that an "orderly" bankruptcy was one option being considered for both General Motors and Cerberus-owned Chrysler LLC. Sources said that setting up this type of "orderly" bankruptcy would be complicated because it would not only involve talks with the automakers, but also the unions and other stakeholders would have to be involved.
- December 19, 2008: President Bush approved a bailout plan and gave General Motors and Chrysler $13.4 billion in financing from TARP (Troubled Assets Relief Program) funds, as well as $4 billion to be "withdrawn later."
- As of February 14, 2009: General Motors was considering filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy under a plan that would assemble all of their viable assets, including some U.S. brands and international operations, into a new company.[28] Less than a week later, its Saab subsidiary filed for bankruptcy protection in Sweden.[29]
- March 5, 2009: GM's independent public accounting firm (Deloitte & Touche) issued a qualified opinion as part of GM's 2008 annual report that stated "[these conditions] raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern."[30] A qualified going concern audit letter like this is only issued by the auditors when the company is in extreme financial distress and it is likely that it may file for bankruptcy protection.[31]
- March 12, 2009: GM's CFO Ray Young said that it would not need the requested $2B in March noting that the cost-cutting measures are starting to take hold.[32]
- March 29, 2009: GM's Chairman and CEO, Rick Wagoner, agreed to immediately resign his position as part of an Obama administration automotive restructuring plan. Wagoner was replaced by Fritz Henderson.[33] In announcing that plan, on March 30, 2009, President Obama stated that both GM and Chrysler may need to use "our bankruptcy code as a mechanism to help them restructure quickly and emerge stronger."[34] He also announced that the warranties on cars made by these companies would be guaranteed by the U.S. Government.
- March 31, 2009: President Barack Obama announced that he would give GM 60 additional days to try and restructure their company and prove their viability. If they succeeded, Washington would provide General Motors with additional bridge loans. However, if GM could meet the requirements set by the White House, a prepackaged bankruptcy is probable. President Obama reiterated that GM will be part of the future even if bankruptcy is necessary.[35]
- April 22, 2009: GM stated that it will not be able to make their June 1, 2009 debt payment.[36]
- April 24, 2009: GM announced that they will be scrapping the Pontiac brand in an effort to invest more money into their major brands (Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, and GMC).[37]
- May 4, 2009: German Economy Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg said Fiat (among others)[38] might be interested in the GM European unit. [39]
- June 1, 2009: GM filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy,[14] the fourth largest filing in the United States history after Lehman Brothers, Washington Mutual, and Worldcom.[13]
Sunday, June 14, 2009
I can't belive this, A sensible voice within Fox News!!!
I can't imagine he'll have a job on that network for long, he has far too much common sense for that network's propaganda machine mayhem.
Highway Robbery - The Federal Reserve. Part1
So this is how our money system works since 1912. The Federal Reserve is a government entity comprised of Private and Public entities. the Private entities are comprised of 12 private regional Federal reserve banks, each with it's own board of directors. Since 1980 all depository institutions are required to set aside reserves with the Federal Reserve.
Let's start with the Federal Reserve Rate? Have you ever heard of it? Do you know what it is? The Federal Reserve (which is a group of banks and president appointed board members) can dictate the rate at which the big banks loan money to the small banks. This gives the big banks (which are part of the Fed, and the decision making process) huge control over the nations money, keep in mind these smaller banks are required to store money with the Fed in the first place and if they need money they have to have it lent to them from the the Fed.
There's another business that operates this way.. Organized Crime.
"Yeah me and Vinny over here are goings to holds your monies for yous, you know to keep it safe and all, and just in case things get ugly you know, like the stock markets crashes or somethings, and if yous need some monies, yous can come see me and Vinny here and we'll give you a loan see?"
Basically the Fed is highway robbery. It was formed by the major New York Banks of the early 1900's Including JP Morgan and John D. Rockefeller Jr on a private island off the coast of Georgia appropriately called "Jekyll Island". Here's a quote from the founder of Forbes Magazine:
This rabbit hole is deeper than can be covered in one post let alone a book. So I will continue to dig into the matter and post the findings in parts.
Let's start with the Federal Reserve Rate? Have you ever heard of it? Do you know what it is? The Federal Reserve (which is a group of banks and president appointed board members) can dictate the rate at which the big banks loan money to the small banks. This gives the big banks (which are part of the Fed, and the decision making process) huge control over the nations money, keep in mind these smaller banks are required to store money with the Fed in the first place and if they need money they have to have it lent to them from the the Fed.
There's another business that operates this way.. Organized Crime.
"Yeah me and Vinny over here are goings to holds your monies for yous, you know to keep it safe and all, and just in case things get ugly you know, like the stock markets crashes or somethings, and if yous need some monies, yous can come see me and Vinny here and we'll give you a loan see?"
Basically the Fed is highway robbery. It was formed by the major New York Banks of the early 1900's Including JP Morgan and John D. Rockefeller Jr on a private island off the coast of Georgia appropriately called "Jekyll Island". Here's a quote from the founder of Forbes Magazine:
Forbes magazine founder B. C. Forbes wrote:
"Picture a party of the nation’s greatest bankers stealing out of New York on a private railroad car under cover of darkness, stealthily riding hundreds of miles South, embarking on a mysterious launch, sneaking onto an island deserted by all but a few servants, living there a full week under such rigid secrecy that the names of not one of them was once mentioned, lest the servants learn the identity and disclose to the world this strangest, most secret expedition in the history of American finance. I am not romancing; I am giving to the world, for the first time, the real story of how the famous Aldrich currency report, the foundation of our new currency system, was written.[68]"
This rabbit hole is deeper than can be covered in one post let alone a book. So I will continue to dig into the matter and post the findings in parts.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Imaginary Black People at it again!
Seriously white people, cut it out already! lol. No seriously cut it out..
Saturday, June 6, 2009
A Nation that builds well nothing
Manufacturing Employment, 1970-2004.A disturbing look at the extreme dip in manufacturing employment in the U.S. shows that America has decided not to build things, a new direction that seems to be the preferred way to go.. at least for the large corporate shareholders and their executives. It's easy to understand, profits will rise sharply due to cheaper labor and a lack of unions and labor laws in the outsourced countries, stocks will rise, big cats on wall street will swim in the dough and companies like Rolex and Armani will flourish. Well hell, it seems like a pretty good idea, that is - good for a very small percentage of the population. What of the rest of us facing record unemployment rates, poverty, welfare and all the lovely little things that go with a huge population that is now broke? It's simply unfair for an American corporation to manufacture it's goods overseas to a country that manipulates it's currency to an unfair advantage and has little to no labor laws. When will ethical business standards be issued? Is a profit only associated with a dollar amount? Are there no other considerations as to what that dollar of profit has cost the country and it's people to be earned? If for every dollar of profit an American job is lost, then It may not be worth it.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Obama's Cairo Speech.
The last president's visit to the middle east region resulted in a shoe being thrown at him, this president was greeted with standing ovation. I watched the entire speech and much to my surprise found a speech full of substance and uneasy subjects. I admired the speech greatly and the man who spoke it. It cannot be an easy task to go into the middle east in a crowd full of muslims and talk about touchy matters like "womens rights", "religious intolerance", "democracy" and American and Islamic tensions. Very easily this president could have escaped these issues and touched on all the most redundant speech notes on foreign affairs and America's vested interests. He instead welcomed an open dialogue for the world to share in an hour long speech. Critics cite the speech as a part of Obama's "soft-power" approach to foreign affairs and will go on to mention what a waste of time this approach has on "these people". I suppose the opposite "hard-power" approach devised by Bush's administration was a winner? And what do critics mean when they say "these people"? Are they mutant hybrids of some sort? Genetically extremist-engineered human monsters that are incapable of reasoning, compassion and understanding? Well then of course we can't talk to "these people" they're not even people by those standards, they should be bombed and forced to live lives we deem suitable for them, oh and by the way they should also accept Jesus Christ as their saviour and god. Okay so enough of that nonsense. Obama lives in the real world and understands the real human problems that we all face and understands that if we start with our shared human needs and wants we all find common ground. Here a just a few quotes from his speech:"So long as our relationship is defined by our differences we will empower those who sew hatred instead of piece"
"Based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition, instead they overlap and share common principles. Principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings"
"There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other, to learn from each other, to respect one another and to seek common ground"
And even Qur'an and Darfur quotes:
"As the holy Qur'an tells us 'Be conscious of god and speak always the truth'"
"When innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered that is a stain on our collective conscious"
I encourage all who care to watch the speech in full and draw your own conclusions on the man, the speech and the goal.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
I'm glad I have Bad Credit
Yes I just said that I'm "Glad" to have bad credit. I have had bad credit for the past 8 years, even though all my bad credit is from 8 years ago, I still have it and it has still impeded me from what I can assure you would be thousands upon thousands of dollars in debt! You see the problem with credit is that when you issue it, well people use it and use it plenty. It's kinda like giving children the option to have Christmas early, they don't need to have their presents now, but they would like them, they haven't earned their presents yet (by being good little boys and girls) but they promised they would be and will do extra chores around the house, promise! promise! What if the next month the kids call Santa, so jubilant by their early gifts of this year that they'd like to have next years gifts early too, and they promise to do even more chores and good deeds around the house!? Before you know it these kids have gifts up to their forties are fat on sugar cookies and Jimmy doesn't know what to do with his new shaving and cologne kit. In addition what if at the end of the year it turns out they were bad little boys and girls? What then? Well Santa (Chinese Banks) may want their presents back, but they've already used them up and Jimmy broke his! It turns out the kids had been skipping school to play with their early gifts, mouthing off to their parents, because hey who needs to behave? They've got gifts till their forties. Hmm maybe we should have just told them to wait till Christmas and behave like good boys and girls and earn their presents!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)