Egypt: Lessons for US Foreign Policy

Ramez Naam
Ramez Naam
Ethical Technology      

Posted: Jan 30, 2011

Those who help to oppress a people inevitably will be targets of their rage.

---

---

Over the last few days, Egyptians have taken to the streets, demanding that Egyptian president and dictator Hosni Mubarak step down. The protests so far haven’t had a religious or anti-American bent. They’re not Islamist. They are a wave of people – mostly young people – expressing their frustration at corruption, joblessness, economic stagnation, and above all, at the lack of political and personal freedoms that we in the West enjoy.
I am a US citizen, but I was born in Egypt, have returned multiple times, and have family there today. It’s difficult to find fans of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. Mr. Mubarak is the third ‘president’ of Egypt and has held that role for 29 years. While Egypt has elections of a sort, they’re largely charades orchestrated to rubber stamp Mubarak and his National Democratic Party. Egyptians essentially have no say in who governs them. Nor are they allowed to speak out against the government. That alone is an offense for which one may be imprisoned, beaten, or occasionally killed.

Yet Egypt is also a recipient of American aid. Since 1975, the US has sent more than $40 billion in direct military aid to Egypt, out of a grand total of $60 billion in military and economic aid. That aid keeps the totalitarian regime in power.

The US has done this for clear reasons. Egypt was the first Arab country to recognize and make peace with Israel. For that, Egypt is rewarded with aid. In addition, Egypt is a key military partner. US and Egyptian forces conduct joint exercises in the area every year. And Egypt is the site of the Suez Canal, a vital shipping lane that connects Europe and the Mediterranean to the Gulf, India, China, Japan, and more. Along with the Panama Canal, it’s one of the most vital and vulnerable sea passages in the world. The US, along with rest of the industrialized world, has a vested interest in keeping the Suez Canal open and under stable management. Egypt provides that.
For those reasons and more, the US has continued to prop up the government of Hosni Mubarak for decades. President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton have both urged Egypt to embrace free speech and allow more dissent and hold more open elections, but those words ring hollow when the US continues to send $2 billion a year in aid to the country. What’s more, no administration has been willing to mix the issues of US support and domestic political reform.
Vice President Joe Biden said a few days ago that Mubarak is not a dictator and that he should not step down. Mr. Biden knows full well that Mubarak is a dictator – an unelected and unpopular leader who uses torture, summary arrest, and a perpetual ‘state of emergency’ to maintain power.
Ten months ago, in March 2009, Hilary Clinton said that human rights violations shouldn’t interfere with a planned trip by Mubarak to Washington DC, and that she considered Mubarak and his wife friends of the family.
There are good reasons for the United States to want a stable and pro-US government in place in Egypt. Yet the protests on the street today show how supporting convenient dictators can have negative consequences. If those protesters on the street do manage to topple Mubarak, what will a new government in Egypt look like? What will its attitude be to towards the US, given that the US has supported a regime that has oppressed the Egyptian people for the last 30 years?
The reality is that if a new Egyptian government is hostile to the US, that will be in part a natural response to US behavior. For multiple decades, the United States has put dollars into the hands of a dictator who suffers no dissent. The tear gas Egyptian security forces are hurling into crowds was made in the United States. When Egyptian security forces open fire and kill protesters, there’s a case to be made that they’re doing so on American dollars.
The US has a long history of supporting convenient dictators. America did so with the Shah of Iran, who rewarded American patronage with sites for US military bases useful for force projection. America did so with Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan, reversing the US stance on the coup that brought him to power and even on his country’s flagrant violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, because Pakistan was a potential ally help in tracking down Al Qaeda. And the US has done so with Hosni Mubarak, helping him suppress democracy in exchange for his support of Israel and of US military and foreign policy aims in the region.
These policies are extremely shortsighted. They belie a lack of faith in one of the founding principles of the United States: that governments are created by the people, for the people. Americans generally believe democracy to be the best form of government ever created, and yet in US foreign policy America often turns its back on freedom and democracy in order to achieve short term goals.

There will always be short term threats. There will always be economic resources the US needs access to. There will always be locations where the US wants to place military bases, or countries to fly over on the way to others. Yet we Americans shouldn’t allow these temptations to distract us from either our long term safety or from the values and principles that have made the United States such a great nation.

Those values and principles center on liberty – on personal freedom of expression, on the right of the governed to choose who governs them, on protection from tyrannical excesses. If we believe that all men and women are endowed with certain inalienable rights, then we should behave that way in our international affairs. Today the US behaves as if only Americans are endowed with those rights. The world sees this behavior, and the trust afforded the United States is diminished by it.

Moreover, all principles aside, it is simply in the long term best interests of the United States and the entire world to encourage democracy, liberty, and widespread prosperity across the whole of the planet. Democracies seldom war with one another. They seldom produce terrorists. They do tend to lower corruption, lower populace frustration, and lift prosperity. More democracies in the world would mean fewer hotspots for the US military planners to worry about. They’d mean fewer potential terrorists in training. They’d mean more natural allies for the United States and other democratic powers to work with to solve global problems.

The coming decades will only increase the extent to which spreading democracy is in the best interest of the United States, and to which supporting dictators, however tempting in the short run, is a threat to American security and global security. The last decade made it clear that highly motivated individuals and small groups can wreak tremendous havoc against vastly superior nation states. Witness 9/11. Yet the continued development of technology makes it possible to imagine terrorist actions that would make 9/11 pale by comparison.

Nuclear terrorism, always a threat, remains on the table. Bioterrorism, until now largely a hypothetical, will become more and more plausible as the basic tools of biotechnology continue their exponential drop in price and their dissemination to hobbyists.  Electronic attacks will become more and more dangerous as industrialized nations built computer-controlled smart grids and increasingly connect physical infrastructure to the global net.

No amount of security can be guaranteed to catch all threats. And as it becomes possible to put together terrorist threats with less money, less expertise, less time, and fewer people, traditional security mechanisms will become less and less effective. That does not mean the US and other democracies should give up on efforts to catch and stop terrorist acts. It does mean that we need a complement to enforcement. Prevention, as they say, is the best medicine. And the best form of prevention is to eliminate or reduce the conditions that lead to the frustration, hopelessness, and anger that help breed terrorists.

John F. Kennedy once said, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.” I believe Kennedy was correct. I would augment his statement with a corollary: Those who help oppress a people will inevitably be the targets of their rage.

When Iranian students toppled the Shah in 1979, they rightly perceived the United States as the sponsor of the corrupt and unelected dictator who’d oppressed them for decades. That did not help their attitudes towards the US. It stoked their anger and helped build a new regime that fundamentally rejected the US and the western way of life and which has spent the past 30 years training, funding, and arming anti-American terrorists.

If Egyptian protesters do manage to topple Mubarak (which, as an American with roots in Egypt, I hope they do), they will have every reason to be hostile to the US. That hostility is unlikely to translate into better governance or a better ally. American complicity in oppressing democracy produces blow-back in the form of anti-American sentiment and anti-American action.
It’s time to stop thinking short term. It’s time to stop placing military alliances, access to economic resources, or even peace treaties above the spread of the principles of liberty and self-determination. It’s time for America to place its principles above its short term self interests. And if the US does so, I firmly believe that it will enhance its standing in the world, its safety, and the condition of hundreds of millions of men and women.

In the long run, democracies make the best friends and allies. In the long run, encouraging democracy – through free and fair elections, through personal freedom of expression, through the establishment of a free and uncensored press – is the best foreign policy investment any free nation can make.
I look forward to the day when an American administration makes encouraging worldwide liberty and democracy – for both pragmatic and principled reasons – the #1 US foreign policy goal.

---

Ramez Naam, a Fellow of the IEET, is a computer scientist and the author of More than Human: Embracing the Promise of Biological Enhancement. He writes at the Unbridled Speculation blog.

---

House Approves Measure to Test TANF Recipients Suspected of Drug Use

In a move to tighten the scope of citizens on public assistence programs (i.e. people on unemployment benefits, food stamps, public housing assistence, etc) and limit the burden of normal missourians, the republican led MO House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a measure to test recipients suspected of drug use. 

 

 

1/26 – House Approves Measure to Test TANF Recipients Suspected of Drug Use

 

Jefferson City –The Missouri House of Representatives gave initial approval to legislation that would implement a system of drug testing for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families recipients suspected of using illegal controlled substances. The House perfected HB 73, sponsored by Rep. Ellen Brandom, R-Sikeston, by a vote of 121-37. HB 73 would require the Department of Social Services to develop a drug testing program for applicants and recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program benefits. Tests would be given to individuals who the department has reasonable suspicion to believe engage in the illegal use of controlled substances. An applicant or recipient who tests positive would be ineligible for benefits for one year. Household members of an individual who tests positive could continue to receive benefits as protective or vendor payments to a third-party payee. As diligent and honorable as Speaker Steven Tilley-R and the rest are, somehow that fail to answer the one question:  How do they determine who these certain applicants for and recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program benefits to be tested for the illegal use of controlled substances are? Click the audio links below to hear arguments on both sides.  Make a comment and let your representative know your opinion. Listen to Rep. Ellen Brandom speak in support of the bill. Listen to Rep. John McCaherty speak in support of the bill. Listen to Rep. Shalonn “Kiki” Curls speak against the bill. Listen to Rep. Karla May speak against the bill.

If You're Broke, The NAACP Doesn't Want You

Unless one has upfront money, one should not assume that one of the nation's oldest and most prestigious  civil rights organization (the NAACP) wants your membership. ...because they don't. 

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (or, NAACP) makes it perfectly clear that, unless you can donate money to them, you will not have the right to become a member and join their cause in fighting for justice.                                               

Founded in 1909 by W.E.B. DuBois and several other prominent Americans in response to the Springfield Race Riot of 1908 and the need for a movement to secure the voting rights for millions of African Americans and women, the NAACP set out to consolidate the expertise of liberal-minded professionals and mobilize disenfranchised minorities into a force for change. The birth child of the Niagara Movement of 1908, the NAACP found success in growing its membership and influence, ultimately, culminating with the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

During those days, one's willingness for participate (i.e. volunteer time, ideas, and heart) was the only requirement for involvement.  Today, however, one needs to drop down $30 in order to gain membership (for a year).  Recently, I made an attempt to join this storied group.  However, after logging onto www.stlouisnaacp.org, I found that I could only join (as an adult) with a $30 donation.  That was it....no alternative....  My next thought was to learn the local chapter agenda, study its initiatives, and determine whether or not the 30 bucks was worth it.  Well, to my surprise, the local initiatives were nonexistent.  Instead, I found the resumes of the leadership and a "Save the Date" promotion for their 2011 Freedom Fund Dinner.

These revelations made me wonder how this once great organization was able to assist in accomplishing great feats, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 with free membership, yet today seem to initiate and accomplish nothing (with their money first strategy).  I don't mean to down the NAACP, for who am I to do so, however the group truly needs to get back to the ground level and return to its purpose of proposing and initiating legislation that will improve the plight of those of us who aren't rich or wealthy.  I want them to make headlines for something other than their opposition to zealous statements made by some Tea Partiers.  There is oodles of work to be done, such as:  grant programs for minority and women construction companies, updating the technology within urban public schools, partnerships with Haitian, Jamaican, and African countries, extending the school year in order to decrease the gap in math and science, gun control improvements, stiffer penalties for violent criminals, greater tax incentives for companies, and so on.

Bottom line, the NAACP has the name recognition to join forces with women groups, Latino groups, church, and LGBT groups in develop real legislation and placing some heat on our elected officials.....  swallow your pride and study the Tea Party, study the Obama campaign of 2008, and study the forefathers of the NAACP itself. 

If the NAACP wants $30 before signing a member, prove to us that it's worth it.  

Go Ahead And Die! (Pirates Of The Health Care-ibean)

Article submitted by:
 Patrick Daniels

Facts About Medicaid And Health Care Reform

The new health care reform has many people up in arms for the most part because they fear that this plan is going to put more people on Medicaid in the past then, but the numbers are provided to Medicaid that the new plan shows a very slight increase in the number of people are being added to this health insurance program of the government.


The new health care reform has many people up in arms for the most part because they fear that this plan is going to put more people on Medicaid in the past then, but the numbers are provided to Medicaid that the new plan shows a very slight increase in the number of people are being added to this health insurance program of the government. In fact all those who are to be added are for the most part going to pay their own way with some poor young and those who work for small businesses the opportunity to obtain vouchers to help pay for their health insurance.

Overall the plan seems like a decent one but the number of people who will be getting insurance for free will not really be increasing even though you will hear people out there talking about the health care reform as being some sort of Robin Hood type plan with the intent to steal from the rich and give to the poor, it is really not quite so extreme. Actually, the thought process seems to be that the more people who are included in the plan the greater the risk pool and this means the less the overall cost of health insurance for all.

Of course, some small business owners are frustrated that they must now ensure all their employees, but they will receive government money to do this if they are not financially strong enough to do them themselves and all this will help reduce the cost structure of healthcare in this country. It is important to ensure that everyone has coverage, because it is the best way to make a difference.

While it may seem that providing these individuals with health care coverage will be too expensive, one of the largest expenses in the health care system currently is the cost of those uninsured patients and the bills that they leave behind. These bills do eventually get paid but they result in larger expenses for those that are insured.

Let's face it, the system is not perfect and the new health care reform is not going to be either but it is important to realize that these changes are being made out of necessity for the entire health care system and for the financial stability of the government as well. It is important to realize this and even though Americans may not want this change it is coming their way like it or not.

Source: Free Articles from ArticlesFactory.com

Campaign Finance Reform Equals True Freedom!!!

Author:  LA Williams

With all this talk of calming the political tones and stemming the tide of vitriolic political fervor in order to nurture a softer, kinder, more pleasant and less violent political climate, one of sound mind must ask the obvious question as to how exactly does America answer this call and promote lasting change? 

We all share this silent fear that once the presidential race ramps up (summer 2011), all that we've learned, in the past few weeks, will be mostly forgotten and both sides will continue the practice of metaphorically assassinating their opponents.  ....the big bucks will storm into each camp, lobbyist organizations will be ejaculating their poison onto the landscape, and we, the people will doze back into our proverbial slumber and digest the contents of this poisonous stew.

What exactly has American democracy morphed into?  Our advanced and complex system of a republican form of government mixed with capitalist values has given birth to a creature that (mostly) doesn't resemble the child that our fore fathers conceived.

The problem:  MONEY (and too much of it); the answer:  CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM.  Far too many companies, organizations and the like care more about the monetary game of politics and less about finding real solutions.  The formula seems to be thrown way out of whack and doesn't seem to lead to a real solution.  Scores and scores of lobbyist groups, ranging from environmental groups, health care groups, insurance groups, union groups, energy groups, second amendment groups, madison avenue groups, wall street groups, education groups, public safety groups, gay rights groups, media groups, deep sea diving groups, minority groups, and many more work year-round raising and contributing millions and millions of dollars to candidate(s) that will vote in favor of their selfish causes. 

To make matters worse, the U.S. Supreme Court only added fuel to this brush fire in their recent 5-4 ruling (Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission) removing all monetary restrictions in donating funds to political candidates.  Gone are the days of One Man, One Vote, a principle enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court (1964) in Reynolds vs. Sims.  In that case, the supreme court ruled that a state's apportionment plans for seats in both houses of a bicameral state legislature must allocate seats on a population basis so that the voting power of each voter be as equal as possible to that of any other voter. 

How can one citizen's vote be equal to that of any other voter when the chips are stacked on the side of those with the biggest wallets.  Mass media outlets prostitute themselves to whom ever has the most mullah.  Meanwhile, the "huddled masses" are spoon-fed the propaganda that the wealthiest among us serves up.

A true, unadulterated level playing field is the only way for the American people to find and elect viable candidates free to truly serve the public.  The main mantra of our society is the promotion of a system free from tyranny, yet the tyrannical arm of American lobbyist groups keeps us under its thumb of oppression.  Let us level the playing field of ideals.  Let us make true the constitutional promises of yesterday, today.  Let us be unafraid to debate the issues with zero monetary influence from lobbyist.  Let us not be afraid of a government of the people, by the people, and for all the everyday people of this great land.  Let us be that great nation once and for all.

Should Euthanasia Be Legal And Is It Justifiable?

Author:  Charlene Lacandazo

Euthanasia has become a burning social issue in a growing number of countries, with a general societal trend towards greater liberalisation. Is this necessarily a welcome development, though?




Euthanasia comes from the Greek word “eu” which means good, and “thanatos” which means death. It is the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her benefit.  Wherever it is permitted, it is for one main reason: to stop suffering and pain.

Euthanasia is a form of murder, but shall we legalize euthanasia in our society? This question has been a dilemma since the beginning of medicine and medical ethics, but until now this issue remains controversial. In some countries like the Netherlands and in the State of Oregon in the U.S.A, euthanasia is legal and accepted. But on the other hand, all countries in Asia as well as institutions like the British Medical Association and Royal College of Nurses are against the legalization of euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide.

There are two kinds of euthanasia, passive and active euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is a deliberate withdrawing of medical treatment that causes a patient’s death, while active euthanasia is a direct way to cause a patient’s death through giving a high dosage of painkillers and sleeping pills. But whether passive or active, euthanasia has the same purpose – terminating a human’s life and denying them the right to live longer. This automatically makes it a crime in most jurisdictions.

In Ancient Greece, , euthanasia was approved by society, and by philosophers such as Aristotle. People could voluntarily refuse the continuation of medical treatment, or they could just decide to remove or stop the main necessities of life such as foods, water and medicine.  But some Christian believers condemned the practice. In Plato’s Phaedo, when Socrates drinks hemlock, a poison, he retains his dignity in death through this act, an action immortalized in the modern pro-euthanasia organization, the Hemlock Society. However, Pythagoras for example expressly prohibited the premature end to any embodied soul, thus in his eyes euthanasia was something of a religious crime.

But should we consider legalizing euthanasia?  Is there a right to die?  And what would be the effect of legalization be on our society?

Religious people state that nobody has the right to take somebody’s life but God. No humans should be allowed to play the role of the creator and so legalizing euthanasia is a way of usurping God’s role. On the other hand, euthanasia proponents will find this reasoning absurd. One convincing argument in favor of euthanasia is that we should not subject another human being to unnecessary mental and physical suffering. Moreover, many arguments arose before and are still arising at the present time about the legalization of euthanasia.  Some people believe that since there is an option to live, there must be an option to die and that further, euthanasia should be legalized precisely because that option of dying can prevent suffering.

As a Christian, it is very difficult for me to accept this kind of way letting go. At the same time,  it is very painful to see somebody that is in agony and suffering. After all, we all value life. Euthanasia evidently disrupts the normal pattern of life. Thinking for instance of the crass abuses of pro-euthanasia arguments by societies such as Nazi Germany, it is easy to see how legalization of euthanasia can lead to a more violent and unjust society.

There is a common saying that in every beginning there is always an ending. I do believe in the great existence of life and that this is the most precious gift to us, and that therefore we must value life even  to the very last breath we take.

Source:  Free Articles from ArticlesFactory.com

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Charlene Lacandazo works for a London translation agency called Rosetta Translation. Its specializations include Dutch translation and interpreting services.

Drink the Tea, Live the Lies

Article submitted
by Mangani 
     libocon.blogspot.com, "The Liberal Conservative"

So, I know it's been a while...                                 

A few weeks ago, Republicans took the house by what many consider a large margin- the largest Midterm gains in history, they say. I have a completely different perspective- more like 14 Million voters aged 18-29 who voted in 2008 not showing up to vote, or the fact that even if they did, that would still only account for about half of eligible voters in that age group compared to over two thirds who show up above aged 60, or how voters in that age group more closely represent the American populace, and how age groups above 44 over-represent whites by as much as 85% (the share of whites among voters above 60), and how whites account for more than two thirds of the Republican electorate... but I digress... That's not what this post is about...

For some reason, America has been drinking this "Tea" of lies. Let me put it simply, and point by point:

1- The "Tea Party", as the "new" "ultra-conservative" "libertarian" "movement" likes to call itself, is named after the Boston Tea Party. We can trace the name back to CNBC's Rick Santelli, who on February 19, 2009, said the following:

(From Infoplease.com)
"Do we really want to subsidize the losers' mortgages?" he asked. "This is America! How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills?" He went on to suggest that he would organize a Chicago Tea Party in July, where capitalists would dump "some derivative securities into Lake Michigan." The video of his tirade became a YouTube hit, and thus the movement was born. Within weeks, Tea Party protests were sprouting up all over the country. The Tea Party name, a clear reference to the American colonists' dumping of tea into Boston Harbor to protest taxes imposed by King George, stands as an acronym as well: Taxed Enough Already.

Here's the problem- The American colonists weren't protesting the same thing. Santelli was going off about subsidizing mortgages- something that, had it been done fully and with less concern about "Capitalism", would have ended the financial crisis once and for all. I wrote a piece a while back on Blacktino.net that lays out what would have been MY "Stimulus".

What the American Colonists were protesting was a much more complex situation. The corrupt East India Trading Company monopolized all tea imports to the colonies. When local officials in Boston refused to send back to England a shipment of taxed tea, a group of colonists dumped the tea into Boston Harbor. This protest was the culmination of colonial opposition to the Tea Act.

Opposition to the Tea Act was for a variety of reasons, but, basically, the colonists were protesting being taxed by other than their own elected representatives. So you got that? The mantra wasn't "Taxed enough already", as the new "Tea Party" would have you believe, rather "NO taxation without representation". Sound familiar?

2- The "Tea Party" is not a group of revolutionary progressives- like the American colonists who started the Revolutionary War, rather, they are backwards conservatives who want to "take the country back." This is not what the Boston Tea Party represented, and the Revolutionaries are surely turning in their graves.

3- The Boston Tea Party (BTP from now on, ok?) was not "funded" by anyone, nor was it instigated by commercial interests. In fact, the Tea Act favored capitalism, while opposition to the Tea Act favored democracy. For those of you who thought they are one and the same, think again. Democracy is a system of government, usually in the form of a Republic, or other form of democratic government. Capitalism is an economic system. One does not require the other, though we have been led to believe otherwise. But, again, I digress...

Who funds the Tea Party Movement (TPM)?
-Rupert Murdoch via the Fox News Channel:

Karl Frisch of Media Matters wrote that Fox News "frequently aired segments imploring its audience to get involved with tea-party protests across the country."

Glenn Beck, a Fox News host, led the Tea Party in a gathering in Washington, DC on MLK's birthday, of all dates.

Media Matters also noted that "While discussing the April 15 protests on his April 6 program, Glenn Beck suggested that viewers could "[c]elebrate with Fox News" by either attending a protest or watching it on Fox News. Beck stated that in addition to himself, hosts Neil Cavuto, Greta Van Susteren, and Sean Hannity would be "live" at different protests. While Beck spoke, on-screen text labeled those protests as "FNC Tax Day Tea Parties."

-David and Charles Koch, Koch Industries: The Cato Institute, Manhattan Institute, and other libertarian/conservative groups were founded by Koch Industries. David Koch ran for President on the Libertarian Party ticket in 1980 (Ron Paul is a staunch libertarian, as well as his son and Tea Party favorite, Rand Paul). Republicans tied to Koch include former attorney general John Ashcroft, President George W. Bush, Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, Governors Haley Barbour and Bobby Jindal, among others. Koch also runs Americans For Prosperity, a think tank that has, from the beginning, disrupted every Obama Administration policy agenda.

I was going to list Freedom Works (the Tea Party's larges backer, and, arguably, Tea Party, Inc. Headquarters), but I learned that it was formed after a merger of Koch's Citizens for a Sound Economy, and Empower America.

Basically, the TPM is not "grassroots" as they love having the American ignorant populace believe, rather it is a multi-billion corporate backed continuation of 30 years of conservative opposition to common sense policy.

4- TPM candidates have been touting cutting spending, while also cutting taxes. Now, I'm not an economist, but I've played enough real world video games to know this is impossible. Cutting taxes IS RAISING SPENDING. Let me say it again- CUTTING TAXES= RAISING SPENDING!!! AGAIN! IF YOU CUT TAXES, YOU RAISE SPENDING!!! If you don't get it yet, let me explain WHY:

If you save 100 per month, at the end of the year you would have saved $1,200. Now, let's say this is a payment on credit for $1,000 with 5% APR interest. By the end of the year, you would have owed $1,500. You would be $300 in debt by the end of the year. You do this for YEARS, until someone points out, "hey, you're never going to pay this off if you keep ending with a $300 debt every year".

So what do you do? Do you raise your monthly payments (taxes)? Lower your credit limit (spending)? Or do you lower both??? Let's see what happens if you cut spending by 1%, and lower taxes by 4%, as many Tea Partyers like Rand Paul have suggested:

$900 per year with 5% APR= $1350
Annual payment = $1152

Hmmm... that lowers my annual debt by nearly $100, but I'm still in the hole.

Ok, I can play with numbers all day, but I think you get the point. It just doesn't work.


I would love to make this post a lot longer, but I have to go to work :/

Basically, don't drink the Tea. If you did, now bear the intoxication! We need a Liberal Tea Party NOW!!!

liberal conservative tea party liberal tea party boston tea party glenn beck rupert murdoch charles koch david koch

Statement from No Labels

Statement from No Labels

The horrific act of violence that occurred Saturday in Arizona has shocked us all to our core and spurred many Americans to ask some hard questions, both about this specific incident and the larger political forces that may have contributed to it. We at No Labels believe this kind of conversation, as painful as the circumstances surrounding it are, is in the best interests and traditions of our country. At times of crisis, when our fundamental democratic values are threatened, we come together as Americans and directly confront our challenges.

But for our country to move forward from this tragedy, we have to talk carefully as well as candidly. We do not yet know all the facts behind this senseless act, and it would be inappropriate and irresponsible to rush to judgment or point fingers of blame at the moment, as some sadly have already done. This is no time for self-aggrandizement or partisan point-scoring -- that's part of the problem, not the solution.
It is clearly, though, a time for self-reflection, as Sheriff Dupnik eloquently put it. Based on the immediate and intuitive reactions of so many Americans, we know enough to say that something is deeply wrong with our political discourse -- and that with this incident, a dangerous line has been crossed. As we grieve for those who died and pray for the recovery of those who were injured, we hope this moment of mourning will lead us to engage each other with more civility and respect and see each other not as opponents or enemies but as Americans.

###

Sexism, Racism, Bigotry: Diaries of a Dirty Tongue [week 20]

As silly as this video is, I believe the producers touch on a very good point concerning the "dress" of today's American women.  As proud as a I am to be an American citizen, I find an equivalent level of shame regarding the clothing attire of our women.

Why do American women find it necessary to purchase and where clothing that accentuates and (often) reveals their woman parts?  The mini-mini-skits, booty-booty shorts, low-low cut blouses, belly rings, and sweat pants with sexy words on the bottom parts tempt and tantalize us me something crazy and we love it.  However, it's whore attire!!!   It just is!!!  If it walks like a rat, talks like a rat, and acts like rat, then maybe it just might be a RAT.  

Woman, don't profess to be something you are not.   If you're dressing like a whore, men will think you to be a whore.  I don't care what you say.  Your arguments of liberation has NO power against this simple fact of life....Men will treat you as the woman you profess to be.  You can't trick us with your clothing.  If I can see your 'gap' when you bend over, then I will assume you want all of us to see it and you are  a "whore."  OK, perhaps that is too strong of a word.  However, you have been CATEGORIZED.  Don't do that to yourselves.  You think it makes you look cute, but we don't need all of that.  All we need is a great smile and a beautiful personality.  REALLY!! These are tough times, so we need partners of substance, not some ass wiggling, cleavage-showing trick who will only cause us trouble.  Oh, yeah, be able to cook a meal or two, damn.


I'm just saying...