How America Lost its Mind
I read the whole article. Almost 13,000 words. I read every single one of them. Why? First, because I like to read. Second, because it was interesting. But then the article itself went haywire...
Somewhere in the late middle, in a paragraph right before the 1970s, Kurt Andersen quotes Stephen Colbert, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias," and then proceeds to run with that joke as a fact.
All of a sudden, everyone on the right is evil and crazy and illogical (which isn't entirely untrue), but never again is the left side of evil and crazy and illogical mentioned.
This article could have been FANTASTIC. Andersen clearly laid the foundation for explaining the crazy that is America. But somehow, after working so hard at explaining the academic start to the country's crazy, the article becomes a piece solely for the purpose of extolling the negatives of half of America. Seriously? Only half of America is evil and crazy and illogical? Doesn't it just prove your point, Mr. Andersen, that you have actually lost your mind? And then come to find out you wrote a whole book about it? What a waste of words.
The greatest rejection of relativism is critical thinking (now also being taught by academia). Anyone with any shred of logic capabilities can see that Kurt Andersen misses half of the story.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 9, 2017
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
#BringBackOurGirls An Open Letter to Senator Rand Paul
I am not an activist by any stretch of the definition. I don't typically take up to fighting for anything. In my own world, I try to make healthy choices (down with Monsanto!), and I try to raise my kids with integrity and responsibility (down with helicopter parents!). I try to have a healthy, happy marriage (down with divorce!), and I try to do my work as thought I am working for the Lord (down with entitlement!). I do all of these things, because I think they are choices that are best for me. I can't save the world, but I can impact the world around me.
That said, today I wrote a letter to my senator. I deplore you, please write one to your senator too. Or to POTUS or to your newspaper editor. Anybody who could potentially be a catalyst to save these girls.
Mr. Paul,
Twitter Feed:#BringBackOurGirls
It is a Terrifying Reality
That said, today I wrote a letter to my senator. I deplore you, please write one to your senator too. Or to POTUS or to your newspaper editor. Anybody who could potentially be a catalyst to save these girls.
Mr. Paul,
Good morning. First, let me I apologize if my letter is
abrupt or inappropriate. I do not know
if there is actually anything you are able to do or even anything you want to,
but I deplore you to please do something.
There are innocent girls in Nigeria who have been taken from
their homes, their lives, and are in danger of being forever lost to their
families, their parents, and their country.
According to Time’s website, I see that we have sent support.
I ask you, as my Senator, to please encourage our government to fight for more
than oil and money. Fight for lives, for children, for women, for freedom.
The greatest military in the world is certainly capable of
saving these girls.
I know that there are politics involved that I surely do not
have a firm grasp on, but I don’t care. I was once a young girl, and I can only
imagine the fear those girls are experiencing right now. I am a mother, and I
can truly understand the fear their parents are feeling right now.
Please. Senator, please. Show the world that you know how to
love and encourage the world to do whatever it takes to beat the terrorists
that are terrorizing these innocent girls.
I appreciate you taking the time to read my thoughts.
May the Lord bless you and keep your children safe.
Sincerely,
Leslie Broussard
Twitter Feed:#BringBackOurGirls
It is a Terrifying Reality
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Superfluous Spending is Stupid Regardless of the Actual Total
Hyperbole often leads to people actually missing the point.
There was this big hubaloo a couple weeks ago regarding whether or not an Administration trip to India was costing the taxpayers $200 million per day.
The local newspaper included a reprint of Thomas Friedman's op-ed piece (with a new title), "Never Let Facts Get in Way of Bashing Obama."
This column does an excellent job of praising Anderson Cooper for finding the truth (a.k.a. doing his job). The column also does an excellent job of pointing out how shameful it was for House Representative Michele Bachmann to have used the information prior to actually checking the facts (and the subsequent use of the misinformation by conservative radio hosts). "All you can hope is that more people will do what Cooper did - so when the next crazy lie races around the world, people's first instinct will be to doubt it, not repeat it."
I agree, people need to check their facts - that's why truthorfiction.com was created!
Unfortunately, the morale of the story - wasted spending - was completely overlooked by the fact that some moron jacked up the figures.
Anderson Cooper was able to find a ballpark figure on how much the President's trip to India DID cost the taxpayers. Robert Gibbs, the White House Press Secretary, was quoted as saying, "[This trip] is comparable to when President Clinton and when President Bush traveled abroad. This trip does not cost $200 million a day."
Cooper then pointed out that "Clinton's 1998 trip to Africa - with 1300 people and of roughly similar duration, cost, according to the Government Accountability Office and adjusted for inflation, 'about $5.2 million a day."
If the initial reporting regarding the trip to India would have said that the trip was costing the American taxpayer $5.2 million a day, we could have had outrage at the fact that the President was wasting our tax dollars on something extremely superfluous. Unfortunately, the story became about the exaggeration and about malicious journalism aimed at "bashing Obama."
From what I could tell, he spent two nights in India. At $5.2 million per day, that totals at least $10.4 million.
For whatever it's worth, I am outraged that millions of dollars were spent to send the President to India to talk about economic growth (a.k.a. outsourcing). This could have been done over the telephone.
There was this big hubaloo a couple weeks ago regarding whether or not an Administration trip to India was costing the taxpayers $200 million per day.
The local newspaper included a reprint of Thomas Friedman's op-ed piece (with a new title), "Never Let Facts Get in Way of Bashing Obama."
This column does an excellent job of praising Anderson Cooper for finding the truth (a.k.a. doing his job). The column also does an excellent job of pointing out how shameful it was for House Representative Michele Bachmann to have used the information prior to actually checking the facts (and the subsequent use of the misinformation by conservative radio hosts). "All you can hope is that more people will do what Cooper did - so when the next crazy lie races around the world, people's first instinct will be to doubt it, not repeat it."
I agree, people need to check their facts - that's why truthorfiction.com was created!
Unfortunately, the morale of the story - wasted spending - was completely overlooked by the fact that some moron jacked up the figures.
Anderson Cooper was able to find a ballpark figure on how much the President's trip to India DID cost the taxpayers. Robert Gibbs, the White House Press Secretary, was quoted as saying, "[This trip] is comparable to when President Clinton and when President Bush traveled abroad. This trip does not cost $200 million a day."
Cooper then pointed out that "Clinton's 1998 trip to Africa - with 1300 people and of roughly similar duration, cost, according to the Government Accountability Office and adjusted for inflation, 'about $5.2 million a day."
If the initial reporting regarding the trip to India would have said that the trip was costing the American taxpayer $5.2 million a day, we could have had outrage at the fact that the President was wasting our tax dollars on something extremely superfluous. Unfortunately, the story became about the exaggeration and about malicious journalism aimed at "bashing Obama."
From what I could tell, he spent two nights in India. At $5.2 million per day, that totals at least $10.4 million.
For whatever it's worth, I am outraged that millions of dollars were spent to send the President to India to talk about economic growth (a.k.a. outsourcing). This could have been done over the telephone.
Please Be Smarter Than the Proganda Thrown at You!
Hope for Our Economy is often the message I see in my local newspaper.
I'm all for keeping a positive attitude, but I think these articles are blowing smoke up our collective asses.
The Yahoo article states that "[Unemployment benefit claims] remain near their lowest level in two years." And because of this, and some other convoluted measure of unemployment benefit claims, there is once again "encouragement for the economy."
Really?!
I'm sick and tired of hearing how unemployment benefit claim numbers are improving, and thus signalling an improvement in our economy. To anyone who has half a brain, these numbers don't mean diddly squat.
Why? Because these numbers don't count a plethora of people.
Who? People who are underemployed.
Anyone who took a pay cut (i.e. salaried workers with furlough days).
Anyone who works less hours than they used to (including loss of overtime).
People who are staying at a job they HATE because there are no better options (Military retention at historic highs).
People who are employed less than their skill level (i.e. working as a cashier at the grocery store rather than an accounts payable clerk).
And finally, people whose benefits have run out. (Please notice the first quote above - "lowest level in TWO YEARS." No one gets benefits past two years, so of course there are less benefits been paid.)
It is annoying that the media and the politicians and the economists think the general population is too stupid to know when they are feeding us a bunch of bullshit.
I wish they would just be honest - America's economy is NEVER going to be what it was, and that's OKAY. But that's really a whole different issue :)
I'm all for keeping a positive attitude, but I think these articles are blowing smoke up our collective asses.
The Yahoo article states that "[Unemployment benefit claims] remain near their lowest level in two years." And because of this, and some other convoluted measure of unemployment benefit claims, there is once again "encouragement for the economy."
Really?!
I'm sick and tired of hearing how unemployment benefit claim numbers are improving, and thus signalling an improvement in our economy. To anyone who has half a brain, these numbers don't mean diddly squat.
Why? Because these numbers don't count a plethora of people.
Who? People who are underemployed.
Anyone who took a pay cut (i.e. salaried workers with furlough days).
Anyone who works less hours than they used to (including loss of overtime).
People who are staying at a job they HATE because there are no better options (Military retention at historic highs).
People who are employed less than their skill level (i.e. working as a cashier at the grocery store rather than an accounts payable clerk).
And finally, people whose benefits have run out. (Please notice the first quote above - "lowest level in TWO YEARS." No one gets benefits past two years, so of course there are less benefits been paid.)
It is annoying that the media and the politicians and the economists think the general population is too stupid to know when they are feeding us a bunch of bullshit.
I wish they would just be honest - America's economy is NEVER going to be what it was, and that's OKAY. But that's really a whole different issue :)
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Articles on HubPages
I have been writing in a journal ever since I was a in third grade. I have always enjoyed writing. In high school, that writing bug blossomed from horrible attempts at fiction, to commentary - non-fiction pieces that (hopefully) provide some insight about something you care about.
Back in the MySpace days, I wrote my first ever "blog." Chris and I were breaking up after six weeks of falling in love...
Over the next three years, I wrote occassionally. (Like five days later when Chris and I got back together!) Nothing consistent, and nothing ground-breaking. But at the same time, I wrote blogs that caused people to feel what I felt, learn what I learned and see what I saw. A lot of those Myspace blogs are difficult for me to read, because they are very emotion-filled about MY life. I can still see myself sitting at the computer crying about whatever, and writing my little heart out.
But, I saved them. I moved them to Blogger, because I figured I wouldn't be visiting MySpace much. Thus, in August 2009, the blog "Exercises in Writing" was born. I had always intended to write more, to write better, but sometimes life gets in the way. (See Our Two-Wheeled Adventure and Elementary Escapades for evidence!)
The same month, I stumbled upon HubPages.com. This website intends to be a source of information (like Wiki), but a writer's community, and at the same time a portal for blogs. Make no mistake, I have no ideas of grandeur about my writing "career." I write for me, I write for you, and if a stranger happens upon it - and learns something, sweet.
I more than likely will never write the book I always wanted to. I more than likely will never be a journalist. I more than likely will never be a world-renowned blogger. I'm okay with that :) I'm a wife, a stay-at-home-parent, a biker, a Christian, a daughter, a really great bargain hunter and a friend. Isn't that enough?!
So, all that to tell you that there are some articles I wrote on HubPages, that I think are pretty gosh darn awesome. Unfortunately, they did not get read much. I'll post them here for you to read at your leisure ;)
I hope you have an awesome day.
My favorite Hub articles:
America: Land of the Free?
Barack Obama: Nobel Laureate 2009
Gavin Newsom and Keith Bardwell: Heroes or Villains?
And finally, the article I wrote yesterday:
Voting Dress Code First Step in Restoring Respect
Back in the MySpace days, I wrote my first ever "blog." Chris and I were breaking up after six weeks of falling in love...
Over the next three years, I wrote occassionally. (Like five days later when Chris and I got back together!) Nothing consistent, and nothing ground-breaking. But at the same time, I wrote blogs that caused people to feel what I felt, learn what I learned and see what I saw. A lot of those Myspace blogs are difficult for me to read, because they are very emotion-filled about MY life. I can still see myself sitting at the computer crying about whatever, and writing my little heart out.
But, I saved them. I moved them to Blogger, because I figured I wouldn't be visiting MySpace much. Thus, in August 2009, the blog "Exercises in Writing" was born. I had always intended to write more, to write better, but sometimes life gets in the way. (See Our Two-Wheeled Adventure and Elementary Escapades for evidence!)
The same month, I stumbled upon HubPages.com. This website intends to be a source of information (like Wiki), but a writer's community, and at the same time a portal for blogs. Make no mistake, I have no ideas of grandeur about my writing "career." I write for me, I write for you, and if a stranger happens upon it - and learns something, sweet.
I more than likely will never write the book I always wanted to. I more than likely will never be a journalist. I more than likely will never be a world-renowned blogger. I'm okay with that :) I'm a wife, a stay-at-home-parent, a biker, a Christian, a daughter, a really great bargain hunter and a friend. Isn't that enough?!
So, all that to tell you that there are some articles I wrote on HubPages, that I think are pretty gosh darn awesome. Unfortunately, they did not get read much. I'll post them here for you to read at your leisure ;)
I hope you have an awesome day.
My favorite Hub articles:
America: Land of the Free?
Barack Obama: Nobel Laureate 2009
Gavin Newsom and Keith Bardwell: Heroes or Villains?
And finally, the article I wrote yesterday:
Voting Dress Code First Step in Restoring Respect
Monday, September 20, 2010
Why the Peaceful Majority is Irrelevant
Why the Peaceful Majority is Irrelevant
by Paul E. Marek
History lessons are often incredibly simple.
I used to know a man whose family were German aristocracy prior to World War II. They owned a number of large industries and estates. I asked him how many German people were true Nazis, and the answer he gave has stuck with me and guided my attitude toward fanaticism ever since.
“Very few people were true Nazis,” he said, “but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.”
We are told again and again by experts and talking heads that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unquantified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.
The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars world wide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behea
The fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history.
d, murder, or execute honor killings. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. The hard, quantifiable fact is that the “peaceful majority” is the “silent majority,” and it is cowed and extraneous.
Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China’s huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people. The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a war-mongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across Southeast Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians - most killed by sword, shovel and bayonet. And who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery? Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were “peace loving”?
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt; yet, for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points. Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by the fanatics. Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because, like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Bosnians, Afghanis, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians and many others, have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us, watching it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts: the fanatics who threaten our way of life.
by Paul E. Marek
History lessons are often incredibly simple.
I used to know a man whose family were German aristocracy prior to World War II. They owned a number of large industries and estates. I asked him how many German people were true Nazis, and the answer he gave has stuck with me and guided my attitude toward fanaticism ever since.
“Very few people were true Nazis,” he said, “but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.”
We are told again and again by experts and talking heads that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unquantified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.
The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars world wide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behea
The fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history.
d, murder, or execute honor killings. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. The hard, quantifiable fact is that the “peaceful majority” is the “silent majority,” and it is cowed and extraneous.
Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China’s huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people. The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a war-mongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across Southeast Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians - most killed by sword, shovel and bayonet. And who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery? Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were “peace loving”?
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt; yet, for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points. Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by the fanatics. Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because, like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Bosnians, Afghanis, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians and many others, have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us, watching it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts: the fanatics who threaten our way of life.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Obama's Stimulus Cost MORE than 8 Years of War
I'm not making that title up. There's even a handy dandy little graph to prove it.
Check out the article here.
* Obama's stimulus, passed in his first month in office, will cost more than the entire Iraq War -- more than $100 billion (15%) more.
* Just the first two years of Obama's stimulus cost more than the entire cost of the Iraq War under President Bush, or six years of that war.
* Iraq War spending accounted for just 3.2% of all federal spending while it lasted.
* Iraq War spending was not even one quarter of what we spent on Medicare in the same time frame.
* Iraq War spending was not even 15% of the total deficit spending in that time frame. The cumulative deficit, 2003-2010, would have been four-point-something trillion dollars with or without the Iraq War.
* The Iraq War accounts for less than 8% of the federal debt held by the public at the end of 2010 ($9.031 trillion).
* During Bush's Iraq years, 2003-2008, the federal government spent more on education that it did on the Iraq War. (State and local governments spent about ten times more.)
I tried to find a concise explanation of said stimulus plan. No go. It's basically $787 billion of tax cuts and government spending. Have you seen the road signs "Putting America to Work." Yea, that's stimulus money.
Interestingly, I did find an article from Reuters in February that states that Obama actually saved America from a depression with this stimulus. However, today CNBC says we are actually in a depression...
Check out the article here.
* Obama's stimulus, passed in his first month in office, will cost more than the entire Iraq War -- more than $100 billion (15%) more.
* Just the first two years of Obama's stimulus cost more than the entire cost of the Iraq War under President Bush, or six years of that war.
* Iraq War spending accounted for just 3.2% of all federal spending while it lasted.
* Iraq War spending was not even one quarter of what we spent on Medicare in the same time frame.
* Iraq War spending was not even 15% of the total deficit spending in that time frame. The cumulative deficit, 2003-2010, would have been four-point-something trillion dollars with or without the Iraq War.
* The Iraq War accounts for less than 8% of the federal debt held by the public at the end of 2010 ($9.031 trillion).
* During Bush's Iraq years, 2003-2008, the federal government spent more on education that it did on the Iraq War. (State and local governments spent about ten times more.)
I tried to find a concise explanation of said stimulus plan. No go. It's basically $787 billion of tax cuts and government spending. Have you seen the road signs "Putting America to Work." Yea, that's stimulus money.
Interestingly, I did find an article from Reuters in February that states that Obama actually saved America from a depression with this stimulus. However, today CNBC says we are actually in a depression...
Sunday, August 8, 2010
60000 illegal immigrant births per year in Texas
I bought a book at the Dollar Tree the other day, "Let Them In," by Jason L. Riley. I bought it because I am interested in reading an opposing point of view on the immigration issue. And the author promised to debunk all the common arguments made against immigration.
Unfortunately, I have been busy the last couple days and have not yet had a chance to read it. (There are actually a LOT of books on that list of "have not read yet.")
This morning as I was sipping my morning coffee, I came upon this article regarding illegal immigrant births in Texas.
It appears to me that the one side of the argument is that these helpless children have no where to go...that America cannot turn them away just because their parents broke the laws.
The other side is looking at the 14th amendment line that states "all peoples born within the borders of the United States become its citizen," and saying that it isn't necessary in the birth of the child to automatically make it a citizen.
First of all, I would be interested in seeing a comparison between the handling of the babies born in prison and the babies born to illegal immigrants. Both parents broke the law...how are the children treated relatively speaking? Children born to mothers in prison are in a very similar situation, and I believe, they end up in our debacle of a foster care system...
Second of all, the section of the 14th amendment that has been bastardized to allow illegal immigrants to give birth here was meant to protect slaves. It made illegal the state laws that prevented slaves from becoming citizens and from being treated as property.
Maybe that is why there is such animosity between the hispanics and the blacks?
Unfortunately, I have been busy the last couple days and have not yet had a chance to read it. (There are actually a LOT of books on that list of "have not read yet.")
This morning as I was sipping my morning coffee, I came upon this article regarding illegal immigrant births in Texas.
It appears to me that the one side of the argument is that these helpless children have no where to go...that America cannot turn them away just because their parents broke the laws.
The other side is looking at the 14th amendment line that states "all peoples born within the borders of the United States become its citizen," and saying that it isn't necessary in the birth of the child to automatically make it a citizen.
First of all, I would be interested in seeing a comparison between the handling of the babies born in prison and the babies born to illegal immigrants. Both parents broke the law...how are the children treated relatively speaking? Children born to mothers in prison are in a very similar situation, and I believe, they end up in our debacle of a foster care system...
Second of all, the section of the 14th amendment that has been bastardized to allow illegal immigrants to give birth here was meant to protect slaves. It made illegal the state laws that prevented slaves from becoming citizens and from being treated as property.
Maybe that is why there is such animosity between the hispanics and the blacks?
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
A Little Lesson in Hawaiian History
One of the things I wanted to learn about when I came to Hawaii was how in the world these eight islands thousands of miles off the coast of California came to be an American state. I realized, of course, that it was probably a military strategy, but how did it happen?
When I went to the library last week, I found a whole shelf filled with books regarding said topic. From my lips to God's ears :)
The first book I read was A Concise History of the Hawaiian Islands by Phil Barnes. This book gave me an excellent overview of how Hawaii became the 50th state. From the first settlement of Polynesians in 400 or 500 A.D. to the Sovereignty Movement that sprung up in the 1970s.
The next book I picked up was From a Native Daughter: Colonialism and Sovereignty in Hawaii by Haunani Kay Trask. She is ANGRY!
And finally, I got my hands on Hawaiian Sovereignty: Do the Facts Matter? by Thurston Twigg-Smith. As the great-grandson of a haole (white man) who was integral in the colonization of Hawaii, he has an entirely different perspective.
First of all, the "Native Daughter," though ethnically Hawaiian, was born in California.
Second of all, no one is "native" of Hawaii like the Native Americans. Hawaii was first DISCOVERED by the Polynesians, so the native Hawaiians are actually the offspring of explorers that landed here by happenstance. I'm not saying they do not have a right to claim Hawaii as home, I am just saying that their plight is NOT the same as that of the Native Americans. (Side note: in my research, I found an interesting Wikiarticle about Indigenous People.)
Third of all, if America had not stepped in and claimed Hawaii as ours, Japan would have. We did it without shedding blood. Do you think that Japan would have?
I agree that the Hawaiian culture, language, religion, etc should be appreciated, treasured and protected. However, deeming haole the enemy doesn't change the disrespect you feel. Rather than demanding sovereignty to go about life in your previous manner, why not seek to improve our capitalist, imperialist, parasitic way of life so that you can be proud to Hawaiian and American?
When I went to the library last week, I found a whole shelf filled with books regarding said topic. From my lips to God's ears :)
The first book I read was A Concise History of the Hawaiian Islands by Phil Barnes. This book gave me an excellent overview of how Hawaii became the 50th state. From the first settlement of Polynesians in 400 or 500 A.D. to the Sovereignty Movement that sprung up in the 1970s.
The next book I picked up was From a Native Daughter: Colonialism and Sovereignty in Hawaii by Haunani Kay Trask. She is ANGRY!
Despite American political and territorial control of Hawai'i since 1898, Hawaiians are not Americans. Nor are we Europeans or Asians. We are not from the Pacific Rim, nor are we immigrants to the Pacific. We are the children of Papa-earth mother and Wakea-sky father- who created the sacred lands of Hawai'i Nei...Her book includes her perspective on everything from Hawaii's history, to the economic plight of the native Hawaiian, to the bastardization of the Hawaiian culture through tourism, to political debates being waged over the past 40 years regarding the future of Hawaii.
(the opening sentence of her book)
And finally, I got my hands on Hawaiian Sovereignty: Do the Facts Matter? by Thurston Twigg-Smith. As the great-grandson of a haole (white man) who was integral in the colonization of Hawaii, he has an entirely different perspective.
As Will and Ariel Durant state in The Lessons of History, "Our knowledge of any past event is always incomplete, probably inaccurate, beclouded by ambivalent evidence and biased historians, and perhaps distorted by our own patriotic or religious partnership." (the opening sentence of his book)Obviously, there are at least two sides to every argument. I'm glad I had the opportunity to learn the two most opposite sides of this argument. In case you are interested, here is my recap:
First of all, the "Native Daughter," though ethnically Hawaiian, was born in California.
Second of all, no one is "native" of Hawaii like the Native Americans. Hawaii was first DISCOVERED by the Polynesians, so the native Hawaiians are actually the offspring of explorers that landed here by happenstance. I'm not saying they do not have a right to claim Hawaii as home, I am just saying that their plight is NOT the same as that of the Native Americans. (Side note: in my research, I found an interesting Wikiarticle about Indigenous People.)
Third of all, if America had not stepped in and claimed Hawaii as ours, Japan would have. We did it without shedding blood. Do you think that Japan would have?
I agree that the Hawaiian culture, language, religion, etc should be appreciated, treasured and protected. However, deeming haole the enemy doesn't change the disrespect you feel. Rather than demanding sovereignty to go about life in your previous manner, why not seek to improve our capitalist, imperialist, parasitic way of life so that you can be proud to Hawaiian and American?
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Finally, a Respectable Response!
As I logged onto my computer this morning, the headline on Drudge was a photo of Mr. Obama with the quote, "Plug the damn hole!"
With excited anticipation, I quickly clicked the link. I was taken to a Reuters article that was long and boring, but I skimmed anyway hoping for that key phrase.
Why? Because I was hoping and praying that "Plug the damn hole" was truly the reaction of our President to the needless, endless debacle in the Gulf Coast. That is EXACTLY the kind of response I am looking for. Anger, frustration, real, and demanding. That is exactly how I think the President of the United States of America handles a crisis. With fortitude. With vigor. With power. And with an occasional curse word.
Buried deep in the article, the phrase finally showed. Obviously, the writer had no idea the significance the quote. But there it was. A phrase that Obama has apparently spoken to aides in recent days...I love it!
With excited anticipation, I quickly clicked the link. I was taken to a Reuters article that was long and boring, but I skimmed anyway hoping for that key phrase.
Why? Because I was hoping and praying that "Plug the damn hole" was truly the reaction of our President to the needless, endless debacle in the Gulf Coast. That is EXACTLY the kind of response I am looking for. Anger, frustration, real, and demanding. That is exactly how I think the President of the United States of America handles a crisis. With fortitude. With vigor. With power. And with an occasional curse word.
Buried deep in the article, the phrase finally showed. Obviously, the writer had no idea the significance the quote. But there it was. A phrase that Obama has apparently spoken to aides in recent days...I love it!
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Just Real Quick
I would like to point out that a Republican victory in the Massachuesetts Senate race does NOT mean that the country has suddenly decided that Republicans have the superior ideals.
What it does mean is that there is definitely restlessness in the people of America. There is a desire to make change, mixed with a general feeling like the changes being made are not necessarily in the best interest of the people.
Now is NOT the time for Republicans to gloat. Now IS the time for Republicans to listen.
Read what electee Scott Brown had to say.
What it does mean is that there is definitely restlessness in the people of America. There is a desire to make change, mixed with a general feeling like the changes being made are not necessarily in the best interest of the people.
Now is NOT the time for Republicans to gloat. Now IS the time for Republicans to listen.
Read what electee Scott Brown had to say.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Obama Wants More Money For War
Though the title of the attached article states that Obama wants $708 billion for war, that is not true. The $708 billion is the entire department of defense budget.
The budget for the department of defense for 2010 is approximately $533 billion. This figure covers salaries, training, and health care of uniformed and civilian personnel, maintains arms, equipment and facilities, funds operations, and develops and buys new equipment. The budget funds all branches of the U.S. military: Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard.
In addition to the defense budget, the "overseas contingency operations" budget for 2010 was about $146 billion.
And now, Obama is asking for an additional $33 billion for the wars.
Not to be all condescending, but I thought liberals wanted to pull chocks on the Middle East?
I am NOT implying that I think spending money on a war is futile. I'd MUCH rather spend money on war than national healthcare, government bailouts and whatever other asinine things Obama spent my taxes on in 2009.
I do, however, have concerns about the continuously increasing government spending. My understanding is that our spending is solely funded by our taxes. In personal finances, if your spending exceeds your income, you need to increase your income or decrease your spending. The US Govt is obviously not decreasing their spending, so apparently they are going to need to raise our taxes.
In addition to my thoughts on increased spending, I am confused by Obama's choice to increase spending on the wars. Again, I am not saying the money isn't needed, I am just trying to understand how he expects to improve his approval rating by continuing to make choices that the majority of Americans do not agree with.
Considering that the Democratic Majority is on the line right now with the late Ted Kennedy's seat, you would think that Obama would be trying to please Americans rather than continue in his "I'm the Messiah and I'll do as I damn please" mentality...
I'm sorry if you, my loving devoted reader, are confused as to why I am debating the spending of money on war when I actually agree with spending on war. I apologize if I am not able to clearly articulate my thoughts. I saw the headline this morning and immediately thought, "Huh. That's weird. I thought Obama was supposed to end the war."
The budget for the department of defense for 2010 is approximately $533 billion. This figure covers salaries, training, and health care of uniformed and civilian personnel, maintains arms, equipment and facilities, funds operations, and develops and buys new equipment. The budget funds all branches of the U.S. military: Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard.
In addition to the defense budget, the "overseas contingency operations" budget for 2010 was about $146 billion.
And now, Obama is asking for an additional $33 billion for the wars.
Not to be all condescending, but I thought liberals wanted to pull chocks on the Middle East?
I am NOT implying that I think spending money on a war is futile. I'd MUCH rather spend money on war than national healthcare, government bailouts and whatever other asinine things Obama spent my taxes on in 2009.
I do, however, have concerns about the continuously increasing government spending. My understanding is that our spending is solely funded by our taxes. In personal finances, if your spending exceeds your income, you need to increase your income or decrease your spending. The US Govt is obviously not decreasing their spending, so apparently they are going to need to raise our taxes.
In addition to my thoughts on increased spending, I am confused by Obama's choice to increase spending on the wars. Again, I am not saying the money isn't needed, I am just trying to understand how he expects to improve his approval rating by continuing to make choices that the majority of Americans do not agree with.
Considering that the Democratic Majority is on the line right now with the late Ted Kennedy's seat, you would think that Obama would be trying to please Americans rather than continue in his "I'm the Messiah and I'll do as I damn please" mentality...
I'm sorry if you, my loving devoted reader, are confused as to why I am debating the spending of money on war when I actually agree with spending on war. I apologize if I am not able to clearly articulate my thoughts. I saw the headline this morning and immediately thought, "Huh. That's weird. I thought Obama was supposed to end the war."
Monday, December 21, 2009
Elitest vs. Racist
I stumbled upon this article that sort of relates to yesterday’s post, Diplomacy. Unfortunately, the full article from the Huffington Post that is being quoted has been taken down.
Based on the comments the articles have received, it appears that comparing Obama and Tiger as 'Fallen Black Role Models' makes one racist...I always knew I had an elitest mentality, but I never knew myself to be racist. I must be, though, because I found myself agreeing wholeheartedly with Lisa Warren in the few paragraphs of her article that I was able to read.
I maybe would not have gone so far as to say that Mr. Obama has fallen as a role model. He is after all, the first minority President of the United States, and that is definitely something to look up to.
But I DID say in my blog posting yesterday that Obama's arrogance has partially caused things to not go his way. That is the same as Lisa Warren states, "toppled by their hubris."
I also agree that when a black role model stumbles, it is extra heart-breaking. I would accept if you called that mentality "elitest," because it could possibly come across like I pity the black Americans that do not have a decent role model...Even though that is not necessarily my intent, I can see how it would come across that way. Is that really racist?
Based on the comments the articles have received, it appears that comparing Obama and Tiger as 'Fallen Black Role Models' makes one racist...I always knew I had an elitest mentality, but I never knew myself to be racist. I must be, though, because I found myself agreeing wholeheartedly with Lisa Warren in the few paragraphs of her article that I was able to read.
I maybe would not have gone so far as to say that Mr. Obama has fallen as a role model. He is after all, the first minority President of the United States, and that is definitely something to look up to.
But I DID say in my blog posting yesterday that Obama's arrogance has partially caused things to not go his way. That is the same as Lisa Warren states, "toppled by their hubris."
I also agree that when a black role model stumbles, it is extra heart-breaking. I would accept if you called that mentality "elitest," because it could possibly come across like I pity the black Americans that do not have a decent role model...Even though that is not necessarily my intent, I can see how it would come across that way. Is that really racist?
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Diplomacy
Barack Obama had great words, great ideas, great plans...
I believed in the possibility that a young black man could produce change. I liked the idea of America once again being revered throughout the world as an amazing place, because we are.
I know that Mr. Obama has only been in office less than a year, and that the first argument his supporters will make is that "it takes more than one year to fix eight years of damage." But really, I now think that that argument is mostly just smoke and mirrors.
It is not so much that I want him to fail. I'm not looking to say, "Nah Nah Nah Nah Boo Boo." I just hope that recent events have been a humbling experience for him. His approval rating is below 50 percent, China's President was offended by something he said and thusly refused to meet with him regarding climate change, Jewish Americans think he hates them, and his recent trip to Asia did NOT go as planned.
I was doe-eyed for change just like the majority of Americans. I believed his excellent speeches, too. I believed in the possibility that a change in the Administration's mentality could potentially improve our relations around the world.
I just hope that Mr. Obama can recognize that his arrogance, his incessant belief that he understands how foreign diplomats think, and his distaste for anything but "diplomacy" is what got him to where he is today.
If the Foreign Diplomats solely hated America because they hated W, then they would be clamoring to meet with Obama. That is not the case. They hate us for far more than who our President is. They hate us for our arrogance and our ignorance. Until THAT changes, there is no hope for a world without wars for power.
Want to read other articles I have written about politics? See here.
I believed in the possibility that a young black man could produce change. I liked the idea of America once again being revered throughout the world as an amazing place, because we are.
I know that Mr. Obama has only been in office less than a year, and that the first argument his supporters will make is that "it takes more than one year to fix eight years of damage." But really, I now think that that argument is mostly just smoke and mirrors.
It is not so much that I want him to fail. I'm not looking to say, "Nah Nah Nah Nah Boo Boo." I just hope that recent events have been a humbling experience for him. His approval rating is below 50 percent, China's President was offended by something he said and thusly refused to meet with him regarding climate change, Jewish Americans think he hates them, and his recent trip to Asia did NOT go as planned.
I was doe-eyed for change just like the majority of Americans. I believed his excellent speeches, too. I believed in the possibility that a change in the Administration's mentality could potentially improve our relations around the world.
I just hope that Mr. Obama can recognize that his arrogance, his incessant belief that he understands how foreign diplomats think, and his distaste for anything but "diplomacy" is what got him to where he is today.
If the Foreign Diplomats solely hated America because they hated W, then they would be clamoring to meet with Obama. That is not the case. They hate us for far more than who our President is. They hate us for our arrogance and our ignorance. Until THAT changes, there is no hope for a world without wars for power.
Want to read other articles I have written about politics? See here.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
hahahahahahahahahahahaha
Obama's Nice Guy Act Gets Him No Where
"When he entered office, US President Barack Obama promised to inject US foreign policy with a new tone of respect and diplomacy. His recent trip to Asia, however, showed that it's not working. A shift to Bush-style bluntness may be coming."
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
I think this is my most favorite article I have ever read. Unlike most articles, it gets better and better as you read through it, with the best part being the ending.
"When he entered office, US President Barack Obama promised to inject US foreign policy with a new tone of respect and diplomacy. His recent trip to Asia, however, showed that it's not working. A shift to Bush-style bluntness may be coming."
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
I think this is my most favorite article I have ever read. Unlike most articles, it gets better and better as you read through it, with the best part being the ending.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Interesting Article
I came across an interesting article this morning, "White House Shrinks Hanukkah Party."
I didn't hear any actual announcement straight from the White House, so I do not know their reasoning. I can assume that it has to do with the economy, but I definitely agree with the Jerusalem Post's opine that the decision will probably "feed feelings" of anti-semitism from the Obama Administration.
I didn't hear any actual announcement straight from the White House, so I do not know their reasoning. I can assume that it has to do with the economy, but I definitely agree with the Jerusalem Post's opine that the decision will probably "feed feelings" of anti-semitism from the Obama Administration.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Halliburton, KBR, and Business Ethics
Back in college, I wrote a research paper on Halliburton. It was in 2006, during the height of awareness of Halliburton's activities...
I was rereading this research paper and wondering what has happened since then. What I found is even more frustrating than the original disgusting practices of the mega-corporation.
First, they sold off their KBR division, hoping to distance themselves from the ruckus caused by poor business decisions.
Then, they moved their corporate headquarters to the United Arab Emirates, hoping to avoid criminal trials for their crimes. (We do not have an extradition treaty with UAE.)
Here is an excellent article that summarizes the atrocities committed by Halliburton against American taxpayers and the U.S. Military:
Huffington Post
Here is another article that describes their move to UAE in 2007:
Halliburton Moves to Dubai
And here is a website that provides a LOT of information regarding Halliburton:
HalliburtonWatch.Org
And here is my original research paper (it's looooooooong):
Accounting, military, and taxes - all three are a part of my every day life. They also have something else in common - Halliburton. As I study for my Associates of Applied Science degree in accounting, I am increasingly more aware of the corruption that greed seems to cause. Studying Accounting and Business Ethics simultaneously this term helped me see that ethics is an integral part of stemming the corruption in American businesses. By understanding the ethical decision-making process, we learn how, when and why to make ethical decisions.
Halliburton is known for corruption in all three areas – accounting, military and taxes. Halliburton KBR is the engineering and construction division of Halliburton Company. They employ more than 63,000 people in 43 countries. (“KBR FAQs”). KBR designs, builds and provides various services for the energy industry (i.e. Enron), the government (i.e. the U.S. Army), and infrastructure (i.e. rebuilding Iraq). One side of the argument says that Halliburton is a great example of the success of multinational capitalism. The other side sees Halliburton as corrupt, greedy and a predator of taxpayers’ money. Through thorough research and lessons learned in Business Ethics B293, I hope to come to an informed conclusion on the decency of Halliburton KBR’s business decisions.
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Similar to the construction industry, when the government has a job they need completed, they require different companies to submit competing bids. The government then awards the job to the lowest bidder.
No-Bid Contracts
Under a “no-bid” contract, however, there is no bidding. The government awards a job to a “preferred” vendor regardless of their proposal costs. According to State Representative Henry Waxman of California, 37 percent of all government contracts in 2003 were no-bid contracts. Of those contracts, 73 percent were military contracts. (“No-Bid Contracts Up Slightly”). The concern with no-bid contracts is that taxpayers’ dollars are potentially wasted because there is no competition to drive prices down.
Cost-Plus Contracts
A typical cost-plus contract reimburses the contractor for the cost of doing the job plus a fee. Usually that fee is 1 percent of the estimated contract cost and an "incentive fee" of up to 9 percent. (HalliburtonWatch.org). Essentially, a contractor is reimbursed all expenses plus paid a 10 percent mark-up. With this system, contractors actually earn more money by wasting taxpayer money. The cost-plus method of accounting is the primary system today for determining how much government contractors are owed by the taxpayer. (HalliburtonWatch.org).
Halliburton’s Army Logistics contract (LOGCAP) commits Halliburton KBR to provide construction of military housing, transporting food and supplies to military bases, delivering mail, and serving food at military cafeterias. (“KBR FAQs”).
Government contracts are awarded generally through a bidding process. Halliburton’s Restore Iraqi Oil contract, however, was a non-bid award. (“All in the Family”). In the construction industry, corporations with a history of corruption are blacklisted from being awarded government contracts. Halliburton has a long history of corrupt practices: kickbacks, overcharges, questionable accounting practices, etc, but apparently, the government does not consider corruption a reason to stop awarding Halliburton multi-billion dollar contracts.
EXAMPLES OF CORRUPTION
In the last five years, Halliburton has been or is currently under investigation for a plethora of offenses. In the 1995, they pled guilty to criminal charges of violating the U.S. ban on exports to Libya. Through its multinational subsidiaries, Halliburton was supplying Libya with oil drilling equipment that could be used to detonate nuclear weapons. (HalliburtonWatch.org). In January 2003, Halliburton admitted that two of its KBR employees accepted 6.3 million in kickbacks from a subcontractor in Kuwait. (HalliburtonWatch.org). Unproven thus far are two different instances of bribery with the Nigerian government.
Though done in a completely legal way, Halliburton plundered $25 million in pensions from their workers to buy and sell other companies. Soon after, Cheney was awarded a $20 million dollar pension. (HalliburtonWatch.org).
Halliburton is being investigated for possible over-billing taxpayers for government work done in the war in the Balkans between 1996 and 2000. The GAO, the auditors of Congress, found inflated costs for materials and services. Also, within its current Army cost-plus contract (LOGCAP), Halliburton has been investigated for gasoline overcharges, meal overcharges, hotel overcharges, and laundry overcharges. Halliburton has taken steps to remedy the problems with LOGCAP. (“KBR FAQs”).
Contract Restore Iraqi Oil
The biggest controversy Halliburton faces is their no-bid contract to extinguish oil fires in Iraq called the Contract Restore Iraqi Oil (a.k.a. RIO). In March of 2003, Halliburton was awarded a $7 billion contract by the Army Corp of Engineers. Under normal circumstances, the contract would go out for competitive bidding. But in times of emergency, or when national security is involved, the government is allowed to bypass normal procedures and award contracts to a single company, without competition. (“All in the Family”). In 2004, the Pentagon admitted that the RIO contract was awarded to Halliburton after a “political appointee” recommended the company for the difficult task. (HalliburtonWatch.org).
“We are the only company in the United States that had the kind of systems in place, people in place, contracts in place, to do that kind of thing,” says Chuck Dominy, Halliburton’s vice president for government affairs and its chief lobbyist on Capitol Hill. (“All in the Family.”) Halliburton’s competitors, of course, do not agree.
In an interview with CBS News, Bob Grace, the CEO of a well known oil well fire fighting firm, did not get the opportunity to showcase his company’s ability to fight fires, because the Department of Defense told him that the information was classified and there would be no bidding.
“I can accept confidentiality in terms of war plans and all that. But to have secrecy about Saddam Hussein blowing up oil wells, to me, is stupid,” says Grace. “I mean the guy's blown up a thousand of them. So why would that be a revelation to anybody?” (“All in the Family”).
Bob Grace says the whole point of competitive bidding is to save the taxpayers money. He believes they are getting a raw deal. “From what I’ve read in the papers, they're charging $50,000 a day for a five-man team. I know there are guys that are equally as well-qualified as the guys that are over there that'll do it for half that.” (All in the Family.”)
The government gave this contract to Halliburton, without bidding, by adding it to Halliburton’s already existing Army contract. The GAO released a report in 2004 stating that the contract was improperly awarded. (HalliburtonWatch.org).
Accounting Fraud
In addition to all the conflicts of interest between Halliburton and the U. S. Government, the SEC is investigating overstated revenues during the late 1990s. Arthur Anderson, the same accounting firm convicted of helping Enron hide illegal activity, approved the overstatements. Halliburton hid tremendous losses caused by a recession in the oil industry by changing their accounting method and not disclosing it. The consistency principle in generally accepting accounting principles states that a company should “apply the same accounting principles across periods, yet a company can change from one acceptable accounting principle to another as long as the change improves the usefulness of information in the financial statements.” (Chiappeta, et al. 513). If a company does change accounting methods, the change must be reflected in their annual financial statements in multiple places. First, they must recreate last year’s numbers with the new method, in order to offer a comparison. Then, the income statement must have a section detailing the net effect of a change in accounting principles. And finally, there must be a note included with the financial statements describing the change, why it is an improvement and what income would have been under the prior method. (Chiappeta, et al. 514). An interesting note related to Halliburton’s accounting fraud is that the former CEO of Arthur Anderson is now the CEO of Halliburton.
Since the late 1990s, Halliburton has been under continuous investigation for one thing or another. Typically, the investigations do not find illegal activities, but a lot of unethical conduct.
ETHICAL ISSUES
Halliburton’s choice to make unethical decisions has far-reaching effects. Because they are a multinational company, they have more stakeholders than I could possibly address in one ethics paper. But I will try to touch on the most integral.
Stakeholders
Vice President, Mr. Dick Cheney, is the former CEO of Halliburton. As the defense secretary during the Persian Gulf War, Cheney had international contacts that helped to expand Halliburton overseas, and acquire most of Halliburton’s domestic competitors. Under Mr. Cheney’s direction, Halliburton doubled their government contracts from $1.2 to $2.3 billion. (“All in the Family”).
On NBC’s Meet the Press, September 14, 2003, Cheney said, “Since I left Halliburton to become George Bush’s vice president, I’ve severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven’t had, now, for over three years.” (HalliburtonWatch.org).
Unfortunately, that is not true. He received his severance in five annual payments of over $150,000 during his first term as Vice President. His $20 million pension is separate from that severance, as is the $1.4 million bonus he received in 2001.
But the clincher in his financial interest is the 433,333 shares of unexercised stock options. (HalliburtonWatch.org). If Halliburton increases its value through government contracts, Cheney’s stock options are worth more, thus a financial interest. It turns out, however, that there is an insurance policy that awards Cheney the face value of his stock options no matter Halliburton’s financial situation. This insurance policy, according to the Congressional Research Service, releases Cheney from any financial interest in the dealings of Halliburton. Cheney has signed a written agreement to donate all profits from his stock options to charity. (HalliburtonWatch.org). As noble as that is, taxpayers all over the world are funding the revenues that will eventually pay his stock options to a charity he chooses. It is very apparent that Cheney has made unethical decisions; however, Cheney cannot be prosecuted for conflict of interest or lying.
Once I started this research, I realized I, too, am a stakeholder in Halliburton. I am affected by Halliburton’s corruption. Actually, all service members are affected because this seeming corruption only adds to American’s negativity towards the war in Iraq. Plus, service members are getting shafted because their every move is held tightly to a federal budget; it appears that Halliburton is misappropriating some of that budget. To the tune of about $61 million Halliburton is overcharging for transporting gasoline into Iraq. About $27.4 million dollars has been overcharged to taxpayers for meals served on bases in Iraq and Kuwait in 2003. (HalliburtonWatch.org). A routine audit of Halliburton by the Pentagon found that Halliburton was charging for 42,000 meals a day, but only serving 14,000. A letter from Representative Waxman to an auditor of Defense contracts details many overcharges and highlights a motto of “Don’t worry about the price, it is a cost-plus contract.” (Waxman, Henry). The fuel and meal overcharges alone could add $88 million to the defense budget.
In addition to affecting all taxpayer and all military personnel, the accounting fraud of Halliburton affects all of Corporate America, financial investors, and accountants. The stereotypes of fraud and corruption that honest accountants and ethical corporations face daily have only been proven by the willingness of Halliburton and Arthur Anderson tell “half-truths” in their financial statements.
Corporate Culture
In the letter from Waxman, two whistleblowers give great detail to the corrupt corporate culture at Halliburton and its subsidiaries. Whenever these two gentlemen would try to reduce costs on the Army’s LOGCAP contract, their managers would discipline them and then do the opposite. (Waxman, Henry). It was while reading this letter that I was actually brought to tears over the unethical decisions that Halliburton makes.
Social Responsibility
The whole world is somehow affected by this seeming corruption at Halliburton. When taxpayers’ money is wasted or stolen, we have less money for improving the communities in which we live. When defense budgets are wasted on supplying extra food to soldiers that are not there, we have less money for defended the country. When Americans catch wind of the corruption stemming from the Iraq war, Americans are no longer interested in helping the Iraqi citizens who need us.
Multinational Corporation
World-wide growth, like Halliburton KBR experienced during the late 1990s, can have many consequences. An onslaught of new employees in new countries with new cultures, the sudden reality of multicultural clients and unique governments can all make corporate governance a difficult task. As a multinational company (MNC), Halliburton faces very difficult ethical challenges. Though MNCs have the benefit of taking advantage of a global market, these companies must respond to a responsibility to the countries in which they conduct business. Their size and power can lead to corruption and unethical decision-making.
The number one unethical decision made by Halliburton is to use its foreign subsidiaries to conduct business with rogue nations like Iran, Iraq and Libya. In an interview with ABC Television’s Sam Donaldson, Cheney is quoted as saying, “What we do with respect to Iran and Libya is done through foreign subsidiaries, totally in compliance with US law." When Donaldson suggested, "it's a way around US law," Cheney replied: "No, no, it's provided for us specifically with respect to Iran and Libya." If you're a big multinational that's able to incorporate around the world, you don't have to worry.” (HalliburtonWatch.org). To abuse the advantages the government gives for expanding business to other countries is inexcusable.
CONCLUSION
Government entities should never award contracts without a fair and equitable bidding process. The government should write a code of conduct, adopt ethical standards into a written policy and form a value statement to ensuring that their business dealings are ethical. Though it could be extremely costly, the government should conduct an ethics audit and then have ethical decision-making training. Possibly, by contracting with a college, the ethics audit and trainings could be done by interns, thus significantly lowering the cost to taxpayers.
Halliburton will obviously continue to be awarded government contracts despite their history of corruption. Halliburton actually has a code of conduct that is very strict and very thorough. (KBR FAQs). It would appear though, that the culture and the employees do not understand what exactly an ethical issue is. Halliburton needs to first conduct an ethics audit and then have ethical decision-making training on an on-going basis. Through the study of ethical issues we can learn how best to handle them.
REFERENCES
“All in the Family” CBSNews.com. 16 Mar 2006. CBS Worldwide Inc. 21 Sept 2003
Chiappetta, Barbara, Larson, Kermit D., Wild, John, J. Fundamental Accounting Principles. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin. 2005.
Ferrell, Linda, Ferrell, O. C., Fraedrich, John. Business Ethics: Ethical Decision Making and Cases. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin 2005
HalliburtonWatch.org. Essential Information. 13 Feb 2006
“KBR FAQs.” Halliburton. 13 Feb 2006.
Kemper, Dave, et al. The College Writer. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 2004
News Headlines. Military.com. 16 Mar 2003. Military Advantage. 16 Mar 2003.
“No-Bid Government Contracts Up Slightly.” USAToday.com. 27 May 2004. Gannett News. 17 Mar 2006 http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-05-27-government-contracts_x.htm
Waxman, Henry A., Letter to Mr. Reed of the Defense Contract Audit Agency. 12 Feb 2004. United States House of Representatives. 16 March 2006 http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_halliburton_contract_inves_feb_12_let.pdf
I was rereading this research paper and wondering what has happened since then. What I found is even more frustrating than the original disgusting practices of the mega-corporation.
First, they sold off their KBR division, hoping to distance themselves from the ruckus caused by poor business decisions.
Then, they moved their corporate headquarters to the United Arab Emirates, hoping to avoid criminal trials for their crimes. (We do not have an extradition treaty with UAE.)
Here is an excellent article that summarizes the atrocities committed by Halliburton against American taxpayers and the U.S. Military:
Huffington Post
Here is another article that describes their move to UAE in 2007:
Halliburton Moves to Dubai
And here is a website that provides a LOT of information regarding Halliburton:
HalliburtonWatch.Org
And here is my original research paper (it's looooooooong):
Accounting, military, and taxes - all three are a part of my every day life. They also have something else in common - Halliburton. As I study for my Associates of Applied Science degree in accounting, I am increasingly more aware of the corruption that greed seems to cause. Studying Accounting and Business Ethics simultaneously this term helped me see that ethics is an integral part of stemming the corruption in American businesses. By understanding the ethical decision-making process, we learn how, when and why to make ethical decisions.
Halliburton is known for corruption in all three areas – accounting, military and taxes. Halliburton KBR is the engineering and construction division of Halliburton Company. They employ more than 63,000 people in 43 countries. (“KBR FAQs”). KBR designs, builds and provides various services for the energy industry (i.e. Enron), the government (i.e. the U.S. Army), and infrastructure (i.e. rebuilding Iraq). One side of the argument says that Halliburton is a great example of the success of multinational capitalism. The other side sees Halliburton as corrupt, greedy and a predator of taxpayers’ money. Through thorough research and lessons learned in Business Ethics B293, I hope to come to an informed conclusion on the decency of Halliburton KBR’s business decisions.
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Similar to the construction industry, when the government has a job they need completed, they require different companies to submit competing bids. The government then awards the job to the lowest bidder.
No-Bid Contracts
Under a “no-bid” contract, however, there is no bidding. The government awards a job to a “preferred” vendor regardless of their proposal costs. According to State Representative Henry Waxman of California, 37 percent of all government contracts in 2003 were no-bid contracts. Of those contracts, 73 percent were military contracts. (“No-Bid Contracts Up Slightly”). The concern with no-bid contracts is that taxpayers’ dollars are potentially wasted because there is no competition to drive prices down.
Cost-Plus Contracts
A typical cost-plus contract reimburses the contractor for the cost of doing the job plus a fee. Usually that fee is 1 percent of the estimated contract cost and an "incentive fee" of up to 9 percent. (HalliburtonWatch.org). Essentially, a contractor is reimbursed all expenses plus paid a 10 percent mark-up. With this system, contractors actually earn more money by wasting taxpayer money. The cost-plus method of accounting is the primary system today for determining how much government contractors are owed by the taxpayer. (HalliburtonWatch.org).
Halliburton’s Army Logistics contract (LOGCAP) commits Halliburton KBR to provide construction of military housing, transporting food and supplies to military bases, delivering mail, and serving food at military cafeterias. (“KBR FAQs”).
Government contracts are awarded generally through a bidding process. Halliburton’s Restore Iraqi Oil contract, however, was a non-bid award. (“All in the Family”). In the construction industry, corporations with a history of corruption are blacklisted from being awarded government contracts. Halliburton has a long history of corrupt practices: kickbacks, overcharges, questionable accounting practices, etc, but apparently, the government does not consider corruption a reason to stop awarding Halliburton multi-billion dollar contracts.
EXAMPLES OF CORRUPTION
In the last five years, Halliburton has been or is currently under investigation for a plethora of offenses. In the 1995, they pled guilty to criminal charges of violating the U.S. ban on exports to Libya. Through its multinational subsidiaries, Halliburton was supplying Libya with oil drilling equipment that could be used to detonate nuclear weapons. (HalliburtonWatch.org). In January 2003, Halliburton admitted that two of its KBR employees accepted 6.3 million in kickbacks from a subcontractor in Kuwait. (HalliburtonWatch.org). Unproven thus far are two different instances of bribery with the Nigerian government.
Though done in a completely legal way, Halliburton plundered $25 million in pensions from their workers to buy and sell other companies. Soon after, Cheney was awarded a $20 million dollar pension. (HalliburtonWatch.org).
Halliburton is being investigated for possible over-billing taxpayers for government work done in the war in the Balkans between 1996 and 2000. The GAO, the auditors of Congress, found inflated costs for materials and services. Also, within its current Army cost-plus contract (LOGCAP), Halliburton has been investigated for gasoline overcharges, meal overcharges, hotel overcharges, and laundry overcharges. Halliburton has taken steps to remedy the problems with LOGCAP. (“KBR FAQs”).
Contract Restore Iraqi Oil
The biggest controversy Halliburton faces is their no-bid contract to extinguish oil fires in Iraq called the Contract Restore Iraqi Oil (a.k.a. RIO). In March of 2003, Halliburton was awarded a $7 billion contract by the Army Corp of Engineers. Under normal circumstances, the contract would go out for competitive bidding. But in times of emergency, or when national security is involved, the government is allowed to bypass normal procedures and award contracts to a single company, without competition. (“All in the Family”). In 2004, the Pentagon admitted that the RIO contract was awarded to Halliburton after a “political appointee” recommended the company for the difficult task. (HalliburtonWatch.org).
“We are the only company in the United States that had the kind of systems in place, people in place, contracts in place, to do that kind of thing,” says Chuck Dominy, Halliburton’s vice president for government affairs and its chief lobbyist on Capitol Hill. (“All in the Family.”) Halliburton’s competitors, of course, do not agree.
In an interview with CBS News, Bob Grace, the CEO of a well known oil well fire fighting firm, did not get the opportunity to showcase his company’s ability to fight fires, because the Department of Defense told him that the information was classified and there would be no bidding.
“I can accept confidentiality in terms of war plans and all that. But to have secrecy about Saddam Hussein blowing up oil wells, to me, is stupid,” says Grace. “I mean the guy's blown up a thousand of them. So why would that be a revelation to anybody?” (“All in the Family”).
Bob Grace says the whole point of competitive bidding is to save the taxpayers money. He believes they are getting a raw deal. “From what I’ve read in the papers, they're charging $50,000 a day for a five-man team. I know there are guys that are equally as well-qualified as the guys that are over there that'll do it for half that.” (All in the Family.”)
The government gave this contract to Halliburton, without bidding, by adding it to Halliburton’s already existing Army contract. The GAO released a report in 2004 stating that the contract was improperly awarded. (HalliburtonWatch.org).
Accounting Fraud
In addition to all the conflicts of interest between Halliburton and the U. S. Government, the SEC is investigating overstated revenues during the late 1990s. Arthur Anderson, the same accounting firm convicted of helping Enron hide illegal activity, approved the overstatements. Halliburton hid tremendous losses caused by a recession in the oil industry by changing their accounting method and not disclosing it. The consistency principle in generally accepting accounting principles states that a company should “apply the same accounting principles across periods, yet a company can change from one acceptable accounting principle to another as long as the change improves the usefulness of information in the financial statements.” (Chiappeta, et al. 513). If a company does change accounting methods, the change must be reflected in their annual financial statements in multiple places. First, they must recreate last year’s numbers with the new method, in order to offer a comparison. Then, the income statement must have a section detailing the net effect of a change in accounting principles. And finally, there must be a note included with the financial statements describing the change, why it is an improvement and what income would have been under the prior method. (Chiappeta, et al. 514). An interesting note related to Halliburton’s accounting fraud is that the former CEO of Arthur Anderson is now the CEO of Halliburton.
Since the late 1990s, Halliburton has been under continuous investigation for one thing or another. Typically, the investigations do not find illegal activities, but a lot of unethical conduct.
ETHICAL ISSUES
Halliburton’s choice to make unethical decisions has far-reaching effects. Because they are a multinational company, they have more stakeholders than I could possibly address in one ethics paper. But I will try to touch on the most integral.
Stakeholders
Vice President, Mr. Dick Cheney, is the former CEO of Halliburton. As the defense secretary during the Persian Gulf War, Cheney had international contacts that helped to expand Halliburton overseas, and acquire most of Halliburton’s domestic competitors. Under Mr. Cheney’s direction, Halliburton doubled their government contracts from $1.2 to $2.3 billion. (“All in the Family”).
On NBC’s Meet the Press, September 14, 2003, Cheney said, “Since I left Halliburton to become George Bush’s vice president, I’ve severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven’t had, now, for over three years.” (HalliburtonWatch.org).
Unfortunately, that is not true. He received his severance in five annual payments of over $150,000 during his first term as Vice President. His $20 million pension is separate from that severance, as is the $1.4 million bonus he received in 2001.
But the clincher in his financial interest is the 433,333 shares of unexercised stock options. (HalliburtonWatch.org). If Halliburton increases its value through government contracts, Cheney’s stock options are worth more, thus a financial interest. It turns out, however, that there is an insurance policy that awards Cheney the face value of his stock options no matter Halliburton’s financial situation. This insurance policy, according to the Congressional Research Service, releases Cheney from any financial interest in the dealings of Halliburton. Cheney has signed a written agreement to donate all profits from his stock options to charity. (HalliburtonWatch.org). As noble as that is, taxpayers all over the world are funding the revenues that will eventually pay his stock options to a charity he chooses. It is very apparent that Cheney has made unethical decisions; however, Cheney cannot be prosecuted for conflict of interest or lying.
Once I started this research, I realized I, too, am a stakeholder in Halliburton. I am affected by Halliburton’s corruption. Actually, all service members are affected because this seeming corruption only adds to American’s negativity towards the war in Iraq. Plus, service members are getting shafted because their every move is held tightly to a federal budget; it appears that Halliburton is misappropriating some of that budget. To the tune of about $61 million Halliburton is overcharging for transporting gasoline into Iraq. About $27.4 million dollars has been overcharged to taxpayers for meals served on bases in Iraq and Kuwait in 2003. (HalliburtonWatch.org). A routine audit of Halliburton by the Pentagon found that Halliburton was charging for 42,000 meals a day, but only serving 14,000. A letter from Representative Waxman to an auditor of Defense contracts details many overcharges and highlights a motto of “Don’t worry about the price, it is a cost-plus contract.” (Waxman, Henry). The fuel and meal overcharges alone could add $88 million to the defense budget.
In addition to affecting all taxpayer and all military personnel, the accounting fraud of Halliburton affects all of Corporate America, financial investors, and accountants. The stereotypes of fraud and corruption that honest accountants and ethical corporations face daily have only been proven by the willingness of Halliburton and Arthur Anderson tell “half-truths” in their financial statements.
Corporate Culture
In the letter from Waxman, two whistleblowers give great detail to the corrupt corporate culture at Halliburton and its subsidiaries. Whenever these two gentlemen would try to reduce costs on the Army’s LOGCAP contract, their managers would discipline them and then do the opposite. (Waxman, Henry). It was while reading this letter that I was actually brought to tears over the unethical decisions that Halliburton makes.
Social Responsibility
The whole world is somehow affected by this seeming corruption at Halliburton. When taxpayers’ money is wasted or stolen, we have less money for improving the communities in which we live. When defense budgets are wasted on supplying extra food to soldiers that are not there, we have less money for defended the country. When Americans catch wind of the corruption stemming from the Iraq war, Americans are no longer interested in helping the Iraqi citizens who need us.
Multinational Corporation
World-wide growth, like Halliburton KBR experienced during the late 1990s, can have many consequences. An onslaught of new employees in new countries with new cultures, the sudden reality of multicultural clients and unique governments can all make corporate governance a difficult task. As a multinational company (MNC), Halliburton faces very difficult ethical challenges. Though MNCs have the benefit of taking advantage of a global market, these companies must respond to a responsibility to the countries in which they conduct business. Their size and power can lead to corruption and unethical decision-making.
The number one unethical decision made by Halliburton is to use its foreign subsidiaries to conduct business with rogue nations like Iran, Iraq and Libya. In an interview with ABC Television’s Sam Donaldson, Cheney is quoted as saying, “What we do with respect to Iran and Libya is done through foreign subsidiaries, totally in compliance with US law." When Donaldson suggested, "it's a way around US law," Cheney replied: "No, no, it's provided for us specifically with respect to Iran and Libya." If you're a big multinational that's able to incorporate around the world, you don't have to worry.” (HalliburtonWatch.org). To abuse the advantages the government gives for expanding business to other countries is inexcusable.
CONCLUSION
Government entities should never award contracts without a fair and equitable bidding process. The government should write a code of conduct, adopt ethical standards into a written policy and form a value statement to ensuring that their business dealings are ethical. Though it could be extremely costly, the government should conduct an ethics audit and then have ethical decision-making training. Possibly, by contracting with a college, the ethics audit and trainings could be done by interns, thus significantly lowering the cost to taxpayers.
Halliburton will obviously continue to be awarded government contracts despite their history of corruption. Halliburton actually has a code of conduct that is very strict and very thorough. (KBR FAQs). It would appear though, that the culture and the employees do not understand what exactly an ethical issue is. Halliburton needs to first conduct an ethics audit and then have ethical decision-making training on an on-going basis. Through the study of ethical issues we can learn how best to handle them.
REFERENCES
“All in the Family” CBSNews.com. 16 Mar 2006. CBS Worldwide Inc. 21 Sept 2003
Chiappetta, Barbara, Larson, Kermit D., Wild, John, J. Fundamental Accounting Principles. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin. 2005.
Ferrell, Linda, Ferrell, O. C., Fraedrich, John. Business Ethics: Ethical Decision Making and Cases. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin 2005
HalliburtonWatch.org. Essential Information. 13 Feb 2006
“KBR FAQs.” Halliburton. 13 Feb 2006.
Kemper, Dave, et al. The College Writer. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 2004
News Headlines. Military.com. 16 Mar 2003. Military Advantage. 16 Mar 2003.
“No-Bid Government Contracts Up Slightly.” USAToday.com. 27 May 2004. Gannett News. 17 Mar 2006 http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-05-27-government-contracts_x.htm
Waxman, Henry A., Letter to Mr. Reed of the Defense Contract Audit Agency. 12 Feb 2004. United States House of Representatives. 16 March 2006 http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_halliburton_contract_inves_feb_12_let.pdf
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Personal agendas have no place in arguments to protect children
I am not an Obama-hater. I think that he had an opportunity to change the world and so far, he has fallen short. I know that part of that is that there was so much wrong in the world that he couldn't fix it all, but I think he had poor strategy, shitty advisors, and incomplete execution of his plans.
I say all that because I don't want you to think that I am posting this article for the sole purpose of bashing Obama. This article sheds an interesting light on the dynamics of children, of neighborhoods, on gangs, on schools and on the ridiculousness of bureaucracy running our lives. I'm not entirely Libertarian, but I definitely ascribe to some of their ideas.
Just like workers often feel like their boss is clueless to the day-to-day trials of a job, the city, state and federal governments have no idea what is best for a neighborhood. I realize that you would think that city governments know what is best, but they don't. They are clueless to the day-to-day happenings on the streets, in the school and in homes. The government bodies act as one unit - that unit does not know one single person that its choices impact.
I'm not implying that I think schools should be segregated by gangs to avoid violence. But I am pointing out that whomever made the choice to redistrict these schools obviously had no idea the impact it would have on the day-to-day life of the children involved.
School closings may be root of Chicago teen deaths
And now that a child has been beaten to death on a cell phone video camara for all the nation to see, Obama is sending the SAME guy who made the decision to redistrict, back to Chicago. The article doesn't say exactly why he is sending Arne Duncan, U.S. Secretary of Education, back to Chicago to meet with school officials and students...My guess, however, is that they will NOT be discussing the impact absentee parents have on gang activity, they will NOT be discussing the impact violence has on human life, and they also will probably NOT be discussing the idea of expelling all gang members from public schools.
Another interesting article, Chicago Violence Haunts Obama, reveals that "47 school-age children have been killed in homicides, mostly by guns, since the month President Barack Obama took office."
But then in the other article, you see a Child Protective Services worker stating, "The violence claiming the lives of Chicago youth is not limited to the school week or inside the school."
What we seem to have hear is a common case of all parties involved refusing to actually listen, to actually dig in to find the root of the problem, a governement choosing to be reactive rather than proactive, and everybody pleading the case for their own agenda. You have gun-control advocates focusing on the guns, you have fiscal conservatives focusing on the contributions that Section 8 and welfare make to poverty, you have school officials touting the improvement in their test scores, you have Obama-haters focusing on Obama's inability to fix the problems while he was in Illinios, and athletes and city officials focusing on the lost opportunity of the 2016 Olympics.
I'm not so bold as to say I have a solution to Chicagos years of violence problems. But I am saying that if someone doesn't speak up soon to find a solution to the whole problem, children will continue to die.
I say all that because I don't want you to think that I am posting this article for the sole purpose of bashing Obama. This article sheds an interesting light on the dynamics of children, of neighborhoods, on gangs, on schools and on the ridiculousness of bureaucracy running our lives. I'm not entirely Libertarian, but I definitely ascribe to some of their ideas.
Just like workers often feel like their boss is clueless to the day-to-day trials of a job, the city, state and federal governments have no idea what is best for a neighborhood. I realize that you would think that city governments know what is best, but they don't. They are clueless to the day-to-day happenings on the streets, in the school and in homes. The government bodies act as one unit - that unit does not know one single person that its choices impact.
I'm not implying that I think schools should be segregated by gangs to avoid violence. But I am pointing out that whomever made the choice to redistrict these schools obviously had no idea the impact it would have on the day-to-day life of the children involved.
School closings may be root of Chicago teen deaths
And now that a child has been beaten to death on a cell phone video camara for all the nation to see, Obama is sending the SAME guy who made the decision to redistrict, back to Chicago. The article doesn't say exactly why he is sending Arne Duncan, U.S. Secretary of Education, back to Chicago to meet with school officials and students...My guess, however, is that they will NOT be discussing the impact absentee parents have on gang activity, they will NOT be discussing the impact violence has on human life, and they also will probably NOT be discussing the idea of expelling all gang members from public schools.
Another interesting article, Chicago Violence Haunts Obama, reveals that "47 school-age children have been killed in homicides, mostly by guns, since the month President Barack Obama took office."
But then in the other article, you see a Child Protective Services worker stating, "The violence claiming the lives of Chicago youth is not limited to the school week or inside the school."
What we seem to have hear is a common case of all parties involved refusing to actually listen, to actually dig in to find the root of the problem, a governement choosing to be reactive rather than proactive, and everybody pleading the case for their own agenda. You have gun-control advocates focusing on the guns, you have fiscal conservatives focusing on the contributions that Section 8 and welfare make to poverty, you have school officials touting the improvement in their test scores, you have Obama-haters focusing on Obama's inability to fix the problems while he was in Illinios, and athletes and city officials focusing on the lost opportunity of the 2016 Olympics.
I'm not so bold as to say I have a solution to Chicagos years of violence problems. But I am saying that if someone doesn't speak up soon to find a solution to the whole problem, children will continue to die.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Monday September 1, 2008
conundrum
Current mood: pensive
I do not speak much about my political preferences with people. I'll talk about current events, but without giving a whole lot of my opinion. I choose to do this because my opinion seems to offend. I am very conservative, very old-fashioned, and also very resolute in my convictions.
However, I am now faced with a horrible conundrum I do not know how to reconcile…
Ever since I can remember I have heard, "Women can be anything. Shoot for the stars. You can even be President someday!" And for as long as I can remember, my response to such statements has been, "Just because women can do everything doesn't mean that they should do everything."
It is of my humble opinion that women need to tend to their spouses, their children, their homes first. I am not saying women should stay home and cook and clean all day. I'm just saying that a woman's priority should be her family.
It is of my humble opinion that women should be emotional. I am not saying women should be a constant damsel in distress. I'm just saying that a woman's heart brings balance to the man's stoic nature.
During the primary season, I was faced with the decision of voting for either the man I like or the policies I prefer. I adore Obama. I love listening to him speak. He is inpsiring. Everyone of his speeches that I have heard led me to believe that America could be an amazing place under his direction. Then I look at his policies and realize that that is not the kind of America I want…
I am not a huge fan of John McCain. Juxtaposed against Obama and Hilary's campaigns, he just seemed like the old white guy who would give us more of the same. But, alas, I align more with Republican polices and so I resigned to voting for him. Plus, I think McCain would be a better boss for Christopher.
And then…He chose a woman as a running mate. I've been pondering this for a couple days now, and I just don't know what to do that.
I DO NOT THINK A WOMAN SHOULD BE PRESIDENT. Ever. We are emotional, hormonal, moody, fickle and unpredictable…I love all of these characteristics about woman. I think God created us this way for a reason. I just don't think any one of those reasons was to run a country.
A woman should not be president. And with a seventy-something man as president, the chance the vice-president will lead the country is at least possible.
Wow, I write about emotion way better than politics. My basic problem is this –
HOW DO I VOTE FOR THE POLICIES I PREFER WHEN THAT NOW MEANS GOING AGAINST MY STERN CONVICTION THAT WOMAN SHOULD NOT BE PRESIDENT?
Current mood: pensive
I do not speak much about my political preferences with people. I'll talk about current events, but without giving a whole lot of my opinion. I choose to do this because my opinion seems to offend. I am very conservative, very old-fashioned, and also very resolute in my convictions.
However, I am now faced with a horrible conundrum I do not know how to reconcile…
Ever since I can remember I have heard, "Women can be anything. Shoot for the stars. You can even be President someday!" And for as long as I can remember, my response to such statements has been, "Just because women can do everything doesn't mean that they should do everything."
It is of my humble opinion that women need to tend to their spouses, their children, their homes first. I am not saying women should stay home and cook and clean all day. I'm just saying that a woman's priority should be her family.
It is of my humble opinion that women should be emotional. I am not saying women should be a constant damsel in distress. I'm just saying that a woman's heart brings balance to the man's stoic nature.
During the primary season, I was faced with the decision of voting for either the man I like or the policies I prefer. I adore Obama. I love listening to him speak. He is inpsiring. Everyone of his speeches that I have heard led me to believe that America could be an amazing place under his direction. Then I look at his policies and realize that that is not the kind of America I want…
I am not a huge fan of John McCain. Juxtaposed against Obama and Hilary's campaigns, he just seemed like the old white guy who would give us more of the same. But, alas, I align more with Republican polices and so I resigned to voting for him. Plus, I think McCain would be a better boss for Christopher.
And then…He chose a woman as a running mate. I've been pondering this for a couple days now, and I just don't know what to do that.
I DO NOT THINK A WOMAN SHOULD BE PRESIDENT. Ever. We are emotional, hormonal, moody, fickle and unpredictable…I love all of these characteristics about woman. I think God created us this way for a reason. I just don't think any one of those reasons was to run a country.
A woman should not be president. And with a seventy-something man as president, the chance the vice-president will lead the country is at least possible.
Wow, I write about emotion way better than politics. My basic problem is this –
HOW DO I VOTE FOR THE POLICIES I PREFER WHEN THAT NOW MEANS GOING AGAINST MY STERN CONVICTION THAT WOMAN SHOULD NOT BE PRESIDENT?
Sunday June 2, 2007 (I didn't write this; just reposted an email)
Solutions?
Current mood: amused
Politicians wants us to cut the amount of gas we use.
The best way to stop using so much gas is to deport 11 million illegal immigrants!
That would be 11 million less people using our gas. The price of gas would come down.
Next bring our troops home from Iraq to guard the border. When they catch an illegal immigrant crossing the border, hand him a canteen, rifle and some ammo and ship him to Iraq. Tell him if he wants to come to America then he must serve a tour in the military. Give him a soldier's pay while he's there and tax him on it. After his tour, he will be allowed to become a citizen since he defended this country. He will also be registered to be taxed and be a legal patriot.
This option will probably deter illegal immigration and provide a solution for the troops in Iraq and the aliens trying to make a better life for themselves.
If they refuse to serve, ship them to Iraq anyway, without the canteen, rifle or ammo.
Problem solved.
Current mood: amused
Politicians wants us to cut the amount of gas we use.
The best way to stop using so much gas is to deport 11 million illegal immigrants!
That would be 11 million less people using our gas. The price of gas would come down.
Next bring our troops home from Iraq to guard the border. When they catch an illegal immigrant crossing the border, hand him a canteen, rifle and some ammo and ship him to Iraq. Tell him if he wants to come to America then he must serve a tour in the military. Give him a soldier's pay while he's there and tax him on it. After his tour, he will be allowed to become a citizen since he defended this country. He will also be registered to be taxed and be a legal patriot.
This option will probably deter illegal immigration and provide a solution for the troops in Iraq and the aliens trying to make a better life for themselves.
If they refuse to serve, ship them to Iraq anyway, without the canteen, rifle or ammo.
Problem solved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)