Trimming the Fat on our Food Stamp Bill

After immersing myself in my classmate's articles in order to complete this week's task, I stumbled upon one in particular which caught my attention. Only referring to himself as SmartAleck, this author discusses the unbelievable strain that our little social program of food stamps has had on our current economy in his aptly named blog "The Cake is a Lie" (a game reference, coined to represent chasing an unattainable goal.) Living in this current era of economic downturn, one would be hard-pressed not to be on food stamps yourself or at the very least know someone who is. Lets face it, if you qualify, you've probably been in that office at least once. It has become a staple in our society. Living in a poorer Austin neighborhood, I often see people using and abusing this program. I can rarely make a visit to my local grocery store without being accosted by someone trying to sell me their food stamps for half price, in order to get some cash, or seeing the privately owned gas stations accepting food stamps on the sly for beer or lotto tickets. At the very least, I see people on food stamps with mountains of preprocessed, low quality, high fat snacks, that I couldn't even begin to afford, while almost completely avoiding any real food (ie. fresh vegetables, meats and cooking ingredients) of substancial nutritional value. SmartAleck brings up a few great points and and some nice statistics that really put this debt into perspective. His argument for welfare reform was compelling and well formed as were most of this author's articles, however this particular article did lack in any concrete solutions. I also wish this author could have spent some time discussing the fact that grocery prices continue to skyrocket, while they offer us lower and lower quality foods, and yet we continue to use our tax money to pay farmers not to grow food. Our system is definitely flawed, but unfortunately this may be one system we just cannot easily fix without starving out a lot of good people who just need a little help.

Stamp Me Foodless (SmartAleck, The Cake is a Lie, March 31 2012)

Silly Santorum, Civics is for Seniors

Which Way Do We Vote George? Which Way Do We Vote?

     As we all know, our favorite GOP less-than-likely, Rick Santorum, made quite the blunder on March 15th. While being interviewed by a local Puerto Rican News Paper, Silly Santorum let it slip that Puerto Rico could not become a state unless they adopted English as the primary language. Despite the name of this article, this is less about Santorum's actual slip-up and more about the meager quality of candidates we as voters have to choose from both currently and in recent past.
    The closer we get to solidifying our GOP candidate, the more this reminds me of the South Park episode where the school children had to choose between two very unsavory school mascots aptly named "Giant Douche" and "Terd Sandwich." What does it say about our system when we require more knowledge from someone applying for citizenship, than we require out of our own presidential nominees? What does it say about modern media when Comedy Central seems often, less biased and opinionated than extremely prominent news sources? What does it say about our political parties when we are continually offered the worst and the dimmest as opposed to the best and the brightest, and what does it say about us as citizens who consistently accept our situation and allow this to continue? How is someone getting nominated as a presidential candidate who has, mind you, served in office for years, not even know enough rudimentary high school civics to understand that there is no such law, neither by constitution nor by statute, requiring English as a condition for statehood? Or, how about just keeping track of the 3 government institutions your planning on eradicating? As was the case with Rick Perry. And don't get me started on the whole "Uzbecky Becky Stan Stan" comments from the laughable hopeful Herman Cain or Newt Gingrich's master plan to solve our economic disaster by hiring 12 yr old janitors. I could go on like this for pages, just on the GOP hopefuls in the last year, but I feel as though these incidents should be more than sufficient to convey my point.
    Our political electoral system has come to resemble less and less any true evaluation of competence and policies, as was the original intent, while more and more a high school gym class where the bullies perpetually hold all the dodgeballs, while us nerds are left to cower behind the bleachers. I, as a citizen, am absolutely fed up with ignorant and self-serving career politicians. Its high time we as a nation take a stand and set a limit to the amount of total time one can spend in politics, instead of allowing them to hop from one office to the next, totally entrenched. Its time we limit their financial benefits. For instance, why pay congress year round for work they do so rarely. Isn't it conceivable that congress could be considered a second job or like military reserves; 1 weekend a month, 2 weeks a year.  Its time the "common man" held office for the right reasons and then left before falling prey to it's inevitable corruption, and its time that we as citizens accept politics not as a profession for the few, but as a duty and privilege for us all. Some people believe that, much like Switzerland, every citizen should serve their country. Although I don't believe it should be mandatory, I do believe that we should think of politics much  in the same light as joining the military, or serving on a jury; a short, unrequited (in terms of compensation) yet necessary civil service to ensure our continued prosperity. Though I do sympathize with the 99%ers, and our common plight, one cannot ensure change merely by sitting on the side of the street holding signs and chanting kumbayah. We must roll up our sleeves, and change the system from within. Take your arguments and debates to city hall. Run for office. Enable real change. Pave the way for the next generation to take the reigns. Then... for your own soul's sake and the good of our country, please, step aside and return to the REAL world.


PS: We may have to declare war on Uzbeckybeckystanstan next.
       I heard they have weapons of mass distraction.

Rick Santorum Tells Puerto Rico They Must                                               Rick Santorum's Attempt to Clarify

Speak English Before They Can Become A State

 

Interesting Moments In Presidential Prowess

 

Global Warming might be FAKE, but its still a THREAT

   The subject of "Global Warming" seems to be quite controversial as of late. With the recent rumors/discoveries of doctored evidence and conspiracies combined with differing opinions by supposed experts, it is an enticing and lively subject for any would be author. Captivated, albeit slightly confused by the title: Santorum: Global Warming is 'PoliticalScience' I was drawn into reading this even more confusing article about Rick Santorum's stance on global warming.
    Before I could edify the content that somewhat baffled me, as I could not actually understand the author's (simply referred to as David) point of view outright, I had to first understand who the intended audience of this article was. This article was published in a blog called CrooksandLiars.com, written for a mostly liberal audience, attempting to discredit more conservative views. Originally I was drawn to this blog because of its name, hoping it would be more fact based and unbiased towards party lines while attempting to catch politicians in lies and dirty dealings, instead it seems more like hate mail. Though I do not consider myself republican, I do believe there is some merit to the conservative point of view, and that is why I likely had a difficult time with this article.
    Ultimately, it was almost as though the author just arrogantly expected the reader to accept his views as common knowledge, but in actuality due to much controversy over the subject and the authors lack of a clear stand, became quite confusing. Most of the article consisted of various ambiguous quotes from a brief speech made by Santorum towards the Oil and Gas Industry, in which he attacked his fellow Republicans for their wavering stances on global warming, going on to say that he never supported this "Political Science." Referencing his stand that global warming was hyped in order to strengthen big government while lining their pockets. Upon reading the article the first time through, I was nearly convinced that the author did not support global warming legislation and that Rick Santorum actually came off looking halfway decent. That was my first clue, as this was a very liberal blog, to reread the article more carefully while attempting to glean off more of the subtext. It wasn't until I studied the authors use of quotations in his sentence: Santorum, however, has said he never believed the global warming "hoax," that I began to understand the his intent.
    This article was meant to be a somewhat scathing gotcha, aimed at Santorum's "apparent" ignorance from the point of view of a conservationist, but due to the inability of the author to make his views clear and the lack of more damning evidence, this article just comes out befuddled. Though I, myself am not exactly sure as to whether I believe that CO2 causes global warming, or whether this is just a naturally occurring phenomenon, it is certain that this article did little to help me in my quest for better understanding. 

Original Article:

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/santorum-global-warming-political-science

Additional Information:

NY Times - "Should Corporations Have More Leeway to Kill Than People Do?"

Bringing sHell to a 3rd World Near You

    Peter Weiss, a retired lawyer, and a current vice president of the Center for Constitutional Rights wrote an enlightening albeit somewhat dry article for the NY Times Opinions section on Politics, in which he enlightens the reader to consider the following: "Should Corporations Have More Leeway to Kill Than People Do". Though he formed his argument as a question, he does so to invoke the readers own morals and emotions. I feel as though this was a great tactic to subconsciously invest the reader while they consider his opinions. Mr. Weiss does spend much of the article just enumerating facts, making this article a little dry and difficult to read, he does so, however, in order to formulate his argument on solid ground. Towards the end of the article Mr. Weiss finally states his opinion as such:

    A decision affirming that Shell should go unpunished in the Niger Delta case would leave us with a Supreme Court that seems of two minds: in the words of Justice John Paul Steven’s dissent from Citizens United, it threatens “to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation” by treating corporations as people to let them make unlimited political contributions, even as it treats corporations as if they are not people to immunize them from prosecution for the most grievous human rights violations."  

Stating that the potential effects of such a ruling could lead to "multinational corporations (particularly in mining and other extractive industries) [drawing] the lesson that it is now safer to forge alliances with autocratic regimes that have poor human rights records because they will not be judged culpable in the way individuals can be." 
    Although I whole-heartedly agree with Mr. Weiss' ultimate, yet slightly vague assumption that it is not fair, practical or legal (both by natural and constitutional law) to allow an entity to hold all the positive benefits of citizenship without little to any of the responsibilities of citizenship, I feel as though his argument was mild and unemotional considering the nature of this dilemma. If Shell is not held accountable for something as heinous and despicable as these war-crimes, the final result is the last nail in the coffin of human freedoms and rights, as a supreme new class is introduced into the U.S./World economy and politics, answerable to no one and wealthier than any individual citizen. Considering the stakes, one would like to see the passion.

Original Article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/opinion/should-corporations-have-more-leeway-to-kill-than-people-do.html?ref=opinion

Additional Information (linked due to embedding being forbidden):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US26B0KPW6A

Obama vs the Pope - Ding! Round 2

Maybe we should have drawn that line in cement?

There has been a lot of buzz lately over President Obama's stand on birth control when it comes to Church supplied health insurance plans for church employees (as can be seen here @ MSNBC.com). Since the inception of the U.S., separation of church and state has played a defining and pivotal role in our evolution, and as such can be a very touchy subject to maneuver. As a preacher's son and an avid believer in human/religious freedoms while still being somewhat the conservationist, this is a very delicate subject for me. On the one hand, I believe firmly that no church should be forced by government mandate to offend their own beliefs, yet on the other, in a day and age where we are on the fast track to 7 billion people on this planet with a current starving population estimated at 14% and growing (according to Wikipedia), we absolutely must do something to curb our population growth. Obama's decision to revamp his former mandate, editing in that the insurance companies must provide this coverage free of charge (found here), is quite possibly the James T. Kirk to this Kobayashi Maru, then again, it could be just another wet band-aid. The question now is, will it hold, and will this lead to further erosion of our freedoms as citizens and human beings.

Original Article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46341851

Additional Information:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy