The Right Left

This Blog Is Moving

2006-05-07T23:08:00.000Z

I am in the process of moving all my blogs to one location. Please set your bookmarks to the new home at http://www.callendamornen.co.uk/blog/

The Mentally Ill Are People, Too

2006-05-05T21:07:00.000Z

This is a topic most people don't want to visit. The unfortunate fact is most likely we all have someone who is labeled mentally ill in our families, maybe even several members.

Why do I visit this unpleasant area? Most who are frequent visitors to my sites don't realize that at one time I was diagnosed as "schizophernic". I was in and out of hospitals because of the condition. Yes, I had issues. The doctor even told my parents there was no hope for me. They predicted I would probably end up on medication the rest of my life and depending on family to help me.

Needless to say that "prediction" caused a lot of stress in my family. It is not like a mental illness was a new thing to our family either. My uncle who I really loved as a kid was also diagnosed schizophrenic. The difference between him and me is he really is that way and I was not. I was mis-diagnosed.

I still have very vivid memories of the hell I went through trying to get through very hard times in my life. I was disillusioned after quitting a life long religion of the Jehovah's Witnesses. I was taught almost all my life that this was the only true religion and everything outside of it was evil. Do you have any idea what that can do to someone when they start to see flaws? Scared of the real world and not wanting to be part of your old world? It was not a pleasant time, but that was not all I was holding in...

When I was 9 until the time I was 16, a close friend of the family, my mother's best friend's husband more than molested me. I am still haunted by that. I really can't even talk fully about it. I was also raped when I was in college and had a miscarriage.

All of those problems along with the normal confusion of getting out of school and not knowing what to do with your life gave me a nervous breakdown. I attempted suicide several times which landed me in a hospital. It was not a good time, but fortunately, I don't remember very much of this time. The times I do remember were bad enough.

As it turns out, I was actually suffering Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. I was treated as a schizophrenic with the same medications which only made me a zombie who could still remember all the problems I had, but unable to do anything about them

When one is diagnosed as a schizophrenic, everyone gives up. Your life may as well be over according to the doctors who will only lock you up for as long as the law will allow you in the state, give you your meds and a safe place to stay until your time runs out and then kick you out. The lucky ones have a home with loved ones who will tolerate them. The not so lucky are on the streets or in halfway houses. Most treated as if they were criminals for something they cannot help.

Fortunately, in my case, I started to question. I did not settle for what my particular doctors were saying about me. I found my own doctor who gave me a different perspective.

Doctors can be lazy. It is a human weakness. If someone already made a diagnosis, it is easier to just accept it as the truth without looking into it instead of coming to your own conclusions. Besides, schizophrenics mean money. They just don't question and are often on state and federal benefits and no one takes them seriously. It is easy to keep them in their place and make what you can from them.

And just how are they treated? The institution I was sent to quite often in Tinley Park, Illinois was typical of state run institutes for the poor "insane" people. These are not criminals, but people who are having a difficult time coping with reality. Keep that in mind as I describe the place.

When I was just released from the E.R. from an overdose of pills, I was still out of sorts and very depressed that I did not succeed and looking for my next opportunity to finish the job. None of my friends were really there for me because they did not understand what I was doing. My family acted as if I was an embarassment and did not really want anything to do with me. I had no one. I was angry that the idea I had of what life was supposed to be was all a lie. I was afraid of always being a victim of people like the ones who raped me. I had no vision of life ahead. I was afraid the end of the world would come at any time and I hated god at the time. My whole world was upside down and no one could relate to what was going through my mind.

They had intake volunteers who would feed me a line of b.s. that everything was okay and all I had to do was look at things in a positive way. When you are depressed, you don't even hear such things. When you don't respond to such cheery messages, they label you further as a hopeless case before you are inducted into the manditory sentence -- 21 days in the hospital, after all, suicide is against the law.

What happened there? In a ward of over 50 people in a locked unit with only 30 chairs and hard floor and a television set by the nurses who stayed behind their cage to be protected from us "lunatics", I was wandering about for most of the waking hours hoping to find a place to sit and avoid the really serious problem cases who would fling their feces, go around slapping people for no reason, or talking out of their head.

People would smoke just to pass time or stare blankly at the television. What was on did not matter because all they did was drug you into a zombie-like condiditon. When in that condition, you were just too out of it to act up, but deep inside your thoughts which made you "insane" are still actively there. It was a horrible condition to be left in. The doctors would visit with you once a week for only 15 minutes, most of which you were silent while he did paperwork. Then he would see if the meds you were on made you behave and write down notes whether you could be recommended for release.

He never actually talked to you about your problems or tried to help. His job was just to see how the meds worked. When he was done, you went back to the general population. In the general population, there was nothing to do and every opportunity to be harassed by someone who was bored. When things got out of control, you could easily be taken down by a team of nurses who would have a straight-jacket and a shot to calm you down before being locked in isolation for hours. Quite frankly, they got it easier than the rest of us.

Imagine spending most of your waking hours in a small room with lots of other people and nothing to do but watch tv and smoking in the room when you are not a smoker. No place to lie down. No place to take a nap. Not really a good place to get a book to read. Points knocked off your behaviour sheet if you sat on the floor because there were not enough chairs to go around. It was hell. I was not the only one who had escalated thoughts of suicide in that place. Prisioners get treated better than the mentally ill. Because while the prisoners may have broken the law, they are considereed more human than those who have a break with reality.

Unfortunately, my uncle is really schizophrenic. There is no cure for his condition.
To this day he thinks he is personally in touch with god to cleanse the world of their sins, but one could say the same of any religious person. The only difference is he is labeled as not sane and therefore he is somehow less than human.

There still needs to be a lot more done when we consider how we treat the mentally ill. There are people who really believe in outdated notions that they are under demonic possession. Instead of giving them the understanding they need, they are usually treated as something repulsive that they should just snap out of.

I hope you can understand my rant and why I had to make it. It is just something I can't really hide much longer. It is not a pleasant experience and I have my act together a lot more than I did back then. Now that I have kids, I worry all the time someone will hold my past against me. I also worry that it may stigmatize them in some manner.

Sometime people can change if they are determined, but in the case of many with mental illness, they will always have that condition, but they need to be treated with humanity as well as medication.

May Day Boycotts

2006-05-01T22:54:00.000Z

May 1st, also known as May Day is the International Workers' Day which commemorates the struggle of working people throughout the world. Every country except the United States, Canada, and South Africa observe this day.

May Day began in the 1880s in the United States to fight for an eight-hour work day. Ironically, in the US it is now viewed as a socialist/communist agenda based day and for that reason this American created day is not celebrated freely in this country...unless it was downplayed and only by those considered Left.

2006, May Day had a purpose... to protest a pending bill which would in essence boot out all illegal immigrants and force them back into their countries without a second chance and discounting any contributions they have made to the US economy. Hundreds of thousands of people in the US participated, whether legal or illegal, by not showing up to work or school and not buying anything in an attempt to show the real clout this population has on the US economy.

As a result, many businesses with a large consumer market of first and second, even third and fourth generation immigrants as well as those who employ them had to shut down or suffer monetary losses.

Some critics could argue this amounts to economic terrorism, but a point is made clear, this country is made up of immigrants and immigrants are the backbone of this country. Without immigrants, we would have no one here but the original natives. If you felt so strongly against the immigrants, you could have easily tried to walk in their shoes by working their jobs and spending their share of the money.

I don't know if I believe in this tactic for awareness, but I do sympathize with the message as my father is an immigrant from Jamaica. My mother is an American because she was born here, but she was raised in Jamaica and only came back shortly before I was born. I could have just as easily been born Jamaican.

Not all immigrants are illegal and not all illegal immigrants are trying to ruin this country. The law illegal immigrants are breaking is not on the same criminal level of murder, rape, extortion... The law they are breaking is on the same level of a parking fine, forgetting to file taxes on time, breaking curfew. It is only a minority which make a run for the border. Most come into the country legally, but due to forgetting to file the right paperwork in a timely manner have become illegal.

Illegal immigrants are here to make a living because opportunities in their country of origin is limited. Many of them even pay taxes as well as contribute to our society.

For those who are fearful of immigrants taking over and losing all the good jobs to them, there is a remedy, but you may not like it.

Start insisting that large corporation who export all the good jobs outside of the country pay a decent living wage which is comparable to what they pay in the US. It would lead to higher prices on all goods you buy, but it would also assure that the countries which are getting the jobs have some security and incentive to stimulate their own economies and create new businesses which would employ more local people leading eventually to better education and more opportunities in those countries.

At the same time, it would also mean more jobs would stay at home paying decent wages with benefits. We cannot have fair trade unless it is fair all across the board. Unfair trade is why we have illegal immigrants. Not all come here illegally, but most have just overstayed a work permit and continued to work as normal because the desire to go back home where there is nothing available is not an acceptable option.

And insist other countries do more to stimulate their own economies and assure their citizens are treated fairly when they work. If they accept funds from other countries to help them support their people, insist they are responsible with the money and can account for it in the form of better education and more job opportunities. Most foreign aid is wasted by corrupt governments who do not help their people at all. All this wasted money could have been used to make their country better.

When you have an upside down economy, eventually the fallout will come to surface in ways we do not like. That day will come soon to the US and it will not be easy. The workers in the rest of the world are realizing they have the right to be treated humanely and deserve better working conditions as well as better trade terms.

Sooner of later, the US will not have the upper hand and it will be a very sorry day for everyone. I do not say it to gloat, but out of fear. Unless we come to terms with the fact that it is not the US above everyone else, we will go down in flames. This narrow-minded view of immigrants is only one aspect of how this tunnel vision will ruin our country.

US Immigration Laws

2006-04-10T02:08:00.000Z

The United States is very lenient when it comes to letting people come into the country. Honestly, it is not that hard to get into the country if you can stand the screenings at the borders and the airport. We really love having people from all over the world come to visit. The problem is Americans don't like foreigners coming to stay, taking over their jobs and doing it illegally. Then there is the element of racism.

The problem is there is no official US language. While the most common language is English, it is not the official language. Many English speakers feel threatened by the growing Hispanic population who refuse to learn the common language and feel put out by having to accept Spanish as the growing language. This is why the distinction of trying to force the Southern border to be harder to cross rather than the Northern border.

This kind of fear is not a new thing. There was a time when the target of fear was the incoming Irish, the Polish, the Italians and so forth. In times before political correctness, you would see signs in business windows wanting to hire people that specifically said, "Irish need not apply."

The Mexican, Cuban, and other Hispanics come to the US because of the lack of opportunities at home. How hard-hearted and cruel must one be to suggest that we shoot these desperate people trying to cross the border? There are actually people who think this way. They view these people in the same light of criminals who kill or sell drugs. While they are breaking the law and are criminals, the crime they committed is against immigration laws. Most who come to the country under illegal means and start working are usually law abiding people who just want to work and would been in their own country doing the same thing if the opportunity was there.

However sorry one may feel for their situation, one must argue that they are welcomed to come into the country in legal ways. As long as they are contributing to society in a positive way, we should welcome them. There are so many groups and organizations willing to help people acheive legal immigration, even if one crossed over illegally or overstayed a legal visit. When one has breeched immigration laws, they may have a harder time getting legal status, but it is not impossible.

I don't completely buy the argument that immigration is the sole threat to the US job market. We reward big businesses by giving them tax breaks by sponging off the government and outsourcing jobs. We have a congress that has not agreed to up the minimum wage law leaving many people living below poverty. The whole NAFTA and CAFTA deals have only made things worse. It has created substandard wage jobs in Mexico and South America by outsourcing US jobs to places where people will work for less. Those in countries where they do not qualify for such jobs keep coming to the US because picking fruit in fields in hot conditions for long hours and little pay beats starving.

It is not as if Americans won't do the jobs these illegal immigrants are doing. They just want to be paid a good wage to do it. If picking fruit in the field would support a family to cover all the basic needs, you would have many Americans lining up to take those jobs. Those jobs pay less than minimum wage for illegal workers and barely $6 an hour for legal workers. For such hard work, it is not worth the effort when one could apply for welfare.

The danger of illegal immigrants is they are often working for less than minimum wage, are exploited, and as many speak no English are taken advantage of by landlords and other businesses which keep them perpetually at the mercy of others. The businesses and employers exploit them until they can no longer be used and care very little to what happens to them next. That just is not right.

The reason employers seek out illegal workers is so they can get cheap labour. It's all about the cost of doing business. As they are illegal, many do not pay taxes, but can still access the services paid out in taxes. However some do pay taxes and blend well into the population that no one asks questions.

The main fear is coming from a notion of what America is supposed to be...Anglo/Saxon in nature, traditional Protestant Christian, English speaking, everyone the same. It has changed and truly become a melting pot which is disagreeable to those who used to be the majority ruling class.

This kind of culture blending is happening in Europe as well and most people want to discourage it. National identities are being lost to multiculturalism. If this trend were to get out of control, the fear is there would be no distinction of one place to another. We could have a one earth race of people with identical blended cultures of everything. The things that made it special to visit another country would no longer be there. It would be like going to France and expecting a unique French cuisine only to get McDonalds which you could get at home.

Official Site of Callen Damornen

Is Iraq In The Middle Of A Civil War

2006-04-10T01:48:00.000Z

There has been a lot of trouble in Iraq ever since the US led invasion 3 years ago. In retrospect, even the most hard-hearted supporter of G. W. Bush has to admit the way this war started was a mistake. But even the most critical of Bush have to admit that just pulling out right now would create a certain crisis.

Is it a civil war? That's debatable. Yes, there is trouble. There has been trouble since the alleged "mission accomplished" that has never gone away. Now this trouble has shifted from outside insurgents to inside conflicts between the Shias and Sunnis. The biggest spark was blowing up a sacred mosque followed by retaliation after retaliation.

Most of the Iraqi people just want to get on with their lives without having to worry about being blown up while doing it. They would like to have regular electric power and access to gas. Is it too much to ask that they be allowed to live a normal life without worrying about the safety of their families just because some in both camps are good at holding a grudge?

There are no clear demarcations to divide sides. There is no clear cut agenda that groups are rallying around. It is kind of a vague conflict with a lot of brutal fighting, but an all out civil war is not exactly there yet.

The US Civil war started off as a vague conflict and resulted in all out war. I don't think this is a stretch to imagine the same thing could happen in Iraq. A civil war, in some aspects, is a positive sign of growth. The invasion of Iraq and its rebuilding has mostly been an outside intervention. A civil war is the ultimate way the people themselves can show they do have the power to make their own decision. However, they are not in a position where they can afford to flex such muscle without doing further damage to their infrastructure.

War is not a thing one should consider as a first option. Diplomatic means should always be sought before deciding to shed blood to prove a point. They do have the power in their hands to settle their matters in a peaceful way, but it may require the currently elected Prime Minister stepping down and having a new election.

Who knows, one Iraq may work if all the people are willing to have it. Then again, they may be better off as seperate countries with their own will and agenda. A critical part of staying together is the oil reserve. It is the only main source of wealth. If one area gets full control of it, this could lead to a desperate economic situation for those who do not have access to it.

Saddam may have been a ruthless dictator who needed to be toppled, but it really should have been an inside job. The Iraqis need to feel their own power and to make their own decisions, no matter what the rest of the world thinks. It was a mistake going in the way it happened. I can only hope any future leaders will look back at the way that war started and learn something to prevent such disasters.

It may have been a disaster, but it can always be corrected. Hopefully not at the expense of more lives lost.

AAA Resources

The Call To Censure Bush

2006-03-16T12:34:00.000Z

It may not be full impeachment, but it is a step close. Our President just does not have what it takes to lead this country. If you have a moment, consider helping MoveOn.org with their petition drive to Censure Bush.

Sign This Petition Now To Censure Bush.

Why am I for this petition?

Among all things President Bush has done:

1. Illegal wiretapping
2. Invading a soverign nation without due cause that ended with thousands of lives lost
3. Ties he and his administration have had with corporations under scandal with stock trading
4. His reckless disregard of the Constitution
5. His reckless disregard of the national debt
6. His hiring of cronies no matter how unqualified for the job
7. His lack of response during Hurricane Katrina
8. His lack of response on 9/11
9. The secrets and half truths he and his administration plans which affect the rest of the nation
10. And a quote that is attributed to him that MUST be investigate where he says, "The Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper."

If even one of these are true, that is more than enough for a censure. If more than one is true, I think it calls for impeachment.

Bill Clinton has committed far less serious deeds while in office and he was quickly put up for impeachment. What Clinton has done did not endanger the lives of people in this country.

I have to ask, where do your loyalties lie, with the people of this country and this country itself or with Bush and his cronies who are selling us out? Your decision on this matter will let me know clearly whether you are for this country or against this country.

If he and his type can claim that line, so can I.

It's All Food Related

Vegetarian Visitation

2006-03-02T11:56:00.000Z

Over the past 2 months, I have been on a diet. Thanks to shows like, "You Are What You Eat," I have been adopting a diet that relies on foods that are fresh. I have avoided anything with artificial ingredients and which are processed. I have stayed away from alcohol, caffeine, dairy products, and most meat with the exception of fish. Everything I put in my mouth takes effort to prepare and consists mostly of fruits, vegetables, and plenty of water. In the process, I have lost 25 pounds.

Feeling pretty good about the results, I have decided to continue in the process. In the past 2 months, I did experiment by sneaking in one item at a time of the forbidden list and found out my body has bad reactions from almost every form of processed food, dairy products, caffeine and sugar. I don't even crave these things any more.

Then I did some research for an essay on vegetarianism. I watched a few videos "Supermarket Secrets" and "What's Really In Your Christmas Dinner" and between that and what I have read on the subject, I have mixed feelings on the vegetarian lifestyle.

While what I have done with my own diet is not what I would have referred to as vegetarian at all, some would classify it as such in terms of macro-vegetarian or pescetarian. What exactly is a vegetarian?

One becomes a vegetarian for various reasons including health concerns, economic issues, environmental issues, ethical or moral concerns, or even socially. The extent of vegetarian is defined in several ways.

A true "Vegan" is one who abstains from all forms of animal products. They won't even eat dairy products such as cheese, eggs, or ice cream and will refuse products such as honey. A vegan will also not wear animal skins, silk or wool. They will not use any product that contains any form of animal by-product or made by animals.

Some are vegans because of medical necessity as they may be allergic to such things, but most who are vegan are so by choice. They have a deep commitment to ending the exploitation and mistreating of animals and refuse to participate in supporting a system which contributes to such suffering.

The breakdown of other forms of vegetarians depend on what is included in the diet.

A "Lacto-vegetarian" allows dairy based products in their diet, but still abstains from meat and some will also abstain from using other animal based products while others will not. This all depends on if this form of vegetarianism is based on health concern or ethical/moral/environmental concerns.

An "Ovo-vegetarian" allows eggs and egg products in their diet while abstaining from meat. As with the lacto-vegetarians, some will and some won't use animal based products.

A "Macro-vegetarian" will not eat processed foods, including flour and sweeteners, and choose unprocessed, unrefined foods like whole grains, beans, seaweed, vegetables, fermented foods and even fish. Depending on why this method is chosen, followers will either avoid or use animal based products.

"Pescetarians" avoid eating all meat except for fish. Some may or may not include dairy and egg products in their diets. And as with the other branches of subcategories of vegetarians, they may or may not use animal based products depending on the reason they chose this path.

The pescetarian is a controversial vegetarian because many who would never consider themselves a vegetarian eat this way from time to time. Many in this group are occasional meat eaters.

The other end of controversy comes in the extreme vegans known as the "Fruitarians." They will not eat or use any product of animal origin, but they go a step further. They will not eat anything that harms a plant. If it involves uprooting and killing the plant, it is not on the diet. If it comes from the plant and that will regenerate itself, it is allowed.

For instance, a fruitarian will eat fruits, nuts and seeds, but they will not eat any plant that is completely uprooted and destroyed from its lifesource such as turnips and potatoes.

Why on earth would one become a vegetarian of any form? After all, it is human nature and part of the food chain to include meat in our diets, right?

If any animal was hungry enough, it would cast aside any issues and eat you. Hunger must be fed in whatever form is available. If you are in a land hit by drought and the only thing standing in between you and death is a roaming chicken, your survival instinct would say eat the chicken. If you refused and died, that hungry chicken would certainly peck at your corpse.

For ethical and moral reasons, many choose to be vegetarian. Animals raised exclusively for slaughter are mostly in very cruel conditions. They are given very little room to move around and kept indoor in very dimly lit environments that are often unsanitary. They are overfed, pumped with steroids and antibiotics to keep them artificially healthy and big. Then when their end comes, they are either given electrical shocks or gassed into submission in order to be slaughtered.

It is not a pleasant life for these animals. Due to concern for the welfare of how these animals are treated, most vegetarians refuse to support a system that is cruel to animals.

While free-range animals may have a better life, killing another living thing in order to support the diet of a human is unacceptable to most vegetarians. Even hunting game in the wild is not acceptable. At least with free-range or wild animals, they are allowed a more natural life with less cruelty inflicted upon them (except for an untimely death.)

If all meat products sold were hunted or free-range, there would be an increase in the price of meat which would make it hard for most low income families to afford.

The way animals are raised should be a red flag for those concerned about health issues. What goes into these animal's bodies is what goes into yours. If you have no problem with the killing of animals for food, at least consider how they lived before they came to your plate.

Another issue is on the environment. Land use where these animals live often leave toxic results within the soil they live, the toxic fumes put into the air from the methane gas by-products on the animals as well as the fumes on the trucks that take them away. A slaughter-farm is detrimental to the ozone as well as to the soil and water.

However, free-range and wild animals alone can become detrimental to themselves. While land space starts to shrink, the areas these animals can roam without human interference will be limited. This creates a danger of more animals which could become extinct if they are not bred in environments which are safe and someone is out to look after them.

Political and social concerns can also weigh in on the matter. The land used to raise the feed for these captive animals could feed many starving nations. In the Western world, we eat far more meat than anyone else in the world where meat access is considered more of a special treat rather than a daily must.

Even if we could use all the excess land for feeding people instead of cattle, this does not necessarily mean people won't go hungry in other countries. Most often, aid is blocked from getting to the people in need by war conflicts and unethical governments. We could raise all the excess food we wanted on this land, but it would go to waste anyway if the ones who need it cannot get it.

Of course, some are vegetarians because of religion. They believe the life of an animal is just as sacred and valuable as the life of a human. Just as they would not take the life of a man, they would not take the life of an animal.

As with issues of faith, I cannot argue with a belief system, just agree to disagree.

When one chooses vegetarian because of health issues, it is usually not out of concern of how the animals are treated, but what the animals are doing to them. On this issue it is one I can truly related. The way these animals are raised, crammed into tight spaces and pumped up with chemicals, drugs and over fed, it is asking for an invitation to cancer or heart disease.

Protein is an essential part of the human diet. It is a complex balance to achieve. One could get protein from rice or beans, but they are two different elements of the complete protein structure you need. If you combine beans and rice, you get the complete protein structure.

Meat has a complete protein structure. Meat also is rich in iron and certain minerals. On the other hand, meat has cholesterol. Any living thing with a liver or a brain produces it. Cholesterol eaten in excess will harden your arteries, but balanced with oils containing certain fatty acids which break down the cholesterol effects can cancel out the bad things.

Of course there are other options for a complete protein structure. The rice and beans combo is almost worldwide for that reason. Soybeans, once touted as the great substitute for meat, has come under fire lately as not that great. Most soybeans in the US are genetically modified. And the health benefits are not exactly as great as some claimed in the past. Non-GM soybeans are still an acceptable alternative to a meat protein. An added benefit is you can get other minerals such as calcium which you cannot get from meat. For women who need to get calcium, soy is a good supplement.

I don't like what is being done to animals, but then I am also more concerned with the life of humans.

Those farm workers who help pick the vegetable that are available in your supermarket are often earning low wages with hard working conditions. Family owned farms are being muscled out by big corporate farms who are merciless with the land and the people who work it. All those buy one get one free deals in the store are not losses taken by the store, but losses taken by the farms and essentially the farm workers who must produce twice as fast to compensate.

Low income workers have a hard enough time with feeding their families while many of these vegan advocated come from upper-middle class societies. It is easy for those who are better off to get to a farmer's market and buy fresh foods direct from the growers. It is easy for them to raise their own products for consumption. What is not easy for them is to relate to those who do not have the same advantages.

A family where both parents are working full time near minimum wage jobs may not even have a car and must rely on public transportation. They cannot just ask for time off in the day to go to the farmer's market which is often not anywhere near where they live. To take such a journey would require really going out of their way, by bus, missing time from work (less pay) to buy products that cost more than they can afford.

Such families, the working poor, who do not qualify for government welfare benefits, often cannot afford fresh foods. Processed foods and meat are cheap in the local stores which look the other way on ethical issues. The food choices of the working poor is killing this group. The working poor often are the most overweight of all Americans due to a poor diet choice. Affordable food is often very fattening and very bad for your health. Time is also not on the side of the working poor who do not have time to prepare a fresh meal from scratch, so fast food takeaways become a way to feed the family.

And to boot, how would the working poor be able to grow their own food if they live in a city in an apartment? Some may be able to do a very small garden, if they are lucky, but it would not be enough to feed a family.

Yes, it is bad what is being done to animals. What is being done to humans is worse.

Travel Peaks

UAE To Guard US Ports

2006-03-02T11:38:00.000Z

Have they completely lost their minds or is there more to the story?

There was a deal set in motion behind the backs of the public and most government officials, allegedly, even the President knew nothing about it. A foreign nation, a so-called ally in our war against terrorism with ties to terrorist organizations within its country, is set up to take over a port on US soil.

Dubai Ports World, a private company based in the United Arab Emirates, has agreed to delay its actual management takeover at ports in New York City, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami and New Orleans, to allow for a new 45-day review period.

Bush, who claims no knowledge of this deal, is adamant that this deal must go forth in the spirit of global economic issues which will help trade from our end. Does anyone really believe he had no knowledge of this deal?

This is yet another example of how secretive the Bush administration operates. For the sake of money, they are willing to neglect of homeland security concerns. Has everything really changed since 9/11?

On the other hand, yes, there is another side of the issue. It is a private company coming for the sake of business. On the surface, there seems to be nothing wrong with that. We should encourage foreign investors to come to the US to set up shop, after all, most foreign countries love it when we set up shop for the sole purpose of hiring people in their area.

However, this is not the case with this particular deal. There are many security firms within the US already who could take over port security who would be hiring US workers to fill the vacant slots.

Shouldn't there have been a panel to look into the credentials along with a detailed business plan as well as an investigative background of the people who will be in charge of running the port security? Why was this hush-hush?

It does seem a tad hypocritical on our end when we have our troops on foreign soil guarding oil fields and running general security as an occupying force. Can you imagine how they feel about the same situation?

Cellular Phone Place

Cheney - Too Easy, But I'll Take A Shot At It

2006-02-14T13:53:00.000Z

Does the White House really know how to cover up and keep secrets? Everything they have tried to hide always leaks out and makes them look even worse. The story with V.P. Dick Cheney is no different. There are so many levels to this story. There is the humorous element, the sad element and the outrage element all wrapped around what he did and how his friends tried to keep a lid on it.

Sure, I could say the obvious - "Enemies of the US had better take note, if our own Vice President will shoot a friend he likes in the face, just imagine what he will do to our enemies!"

Or even, "Guns don't kill people, Vice Presidents do."

All that could be said that is funny about the situation is plastered all over the news and by late night comedians and spoofed in almost everyone's blog.

Just remember, Dick Cheney (age 65) and Harry Whittington (age 78) are men in advancing years. Cheney also has a heart condition (although critics will wonder if he really has one.) The incident happened as it was starting to get dark (although one would have to wonder why they were still out that late.) Mr. Whittington supposedly got in the line of fire and did not announce his locations while Mr. Cheney fired at what he thought was a quail breed in captivity for the purpose of being hunted. (On so many levels that is wrong, mainly because it is not real hunting if the animals are not born with that kind of survival spirit of defense, it is akin to shooting fish in a barrel.)

Both Cheney and Whittington get a warning citation for not having the proper $7 permit for hunting. No other charges have been brought on the Vice President, but if it were any other Joe Nobody, would have at least spent some time in a jail cell for the reckless use of a weapon. Then again, we all know that the Bushies are above the law and wouldn't even deign to follow the rules that apply to everyone else.

Cheney, the chickenhawk, would shoot the animals bred in captivity as a challenge, but would not serve in the armed forces - YET - he has no problem in sending our young men and women overseas to die needlessly in a pointless war that only made a bad situation worse.

Shouldn't he be impeached along with George?

Travel Peaks

Freedom Of Expression Vs Freedom Of Religion

2006-02-02T13:18:00.000Z

There has been a very publicized controversy lately over a comic strip in a Danish newspaper. There has also been a little heard controversy over a television show in Nashville. These two cases stem from what happens when you try to mix a society where you have both freedom of expression and freedom of religion. It also shows how two different groups react.

For those unfamiliar with the Nashville case, there is an NBC show called The Book of Daniel. It is probably one of the most lame pieces of garbage out there on network television that on its own merits would have eventually been cancelled due to poor ratings. The premise of the show is a preacher who has lost his edge and is basically lackluster in his enthusiasm for his job. It also depicted a jokish image of Jesus.

People are probably more familiar with the Danish cartoon which showed pictures of the Prophet Mohammed, one of which depicted him of wearing a bomb-shaped turban.

Both of these offended a religious group. In the Nashville case, it offended Christians. In the Denmark case, it offended Muslims.

Why did the television show offend Christians? People who belong to certain Christian groups are under the notion that their religion has come under attack by secular people who disrespect their core values and flaunt it in their faces. This show depicts many points that offend their sensibilities. As a result, these groups made letters and calls to the local NBC station in Nashville to get it pulled off the air. The WSMV studio wanted to make a compromise and show it at a later time, but NBC said they must air it at the proper time or not air it at all. As a result, people in Nashville cannot see what the rest of the country can see.

It's just a TV show. It's a pretty bad one and kind of tasteless that would have gone away on its own. Couldn't they just turn the channel and not watch? Had they not created such a spectacle over it, there would not have been more of a hungry audience for it. Their reaction has given this show a cult following.

Personally, I find Pat Robertson highly offensive. In the same manner, instead of not watching his show, should I organize a boycott and curtail his freedom? Or should I be better than his petty Christian followers and let the babies have their bottles of milk until they are ready for some meat? [Hebrews 5:11-14] If, as they claim, God gives everyone free will, why do they choose to take that element away from everyone, followers or not?

Compare this with the reaction of the Muslim world to a cartoonish depiction of the Prophet. If left alone, no one would have been exposed to it other than the usual Danish audience. If kept civil, perhaps the paper could have apologized for hurting the feelings of the local Muslim population and been able to move on. Unfortunately, they made a big deal about it.

Why is it offensive? Like Allah, it is forbidden and offensive to depict images of a prophet. It is akin to idol worship. Depicting the character alone is offensive enough, but on top of that to depict him as a war-monger was over the top. Most Muslims only wanted an official apology from the paper which carried it.

Not all Muslims proved the caricature wrong. There have been threats of physical violence against innocent Danish people over this issue. The EU building in the Gaza area has come under siege by groups threatening acts of terrorism.

Note the difference between the two groups. The Christians organized peaceful protests. Certain groups of Muslims organized threats of violence.

If one is to live in a free world, they must accept tolerance as part of living in that society. Yes, the television show was tasteless and showed a lack of empathy to how a Christian would view it, but no one was being forced to watch it either. Yes, the comic was in poor taste, but no one was being forced to view or believe it.

It is cases like these that bring out the anger in many secular humanists about the need to do away with religion. It curtails the freedom to the rest of the masses who are not caught up in these belief systems.

In the West, we do have freedom of expression. Censorship is a bad thing. Yet, in the West, we do censor all the time, but it is usually in the form of self-censorship out of respect for others.

Google, Yahoo and other search engines have filters set up to show results that won't offend the easily offended. Software companies have devolped programmes to keep children from certain web sites. Television commercials will not air cigarette commercials and are regulated on when to air alcoholic products. Television shows will try to air programs not for children on a later schedule. Newspapers even censor their own content depending on the agendas they reflect.

But things will get out there by people who crave expression and thumb their noses at everyone else. They don't care if it offends, but will let it hang out as boldly as can be. The 700 Club does it all the time.

I do not try to go out of my way to offend any religious group. I just wish religious groups would show that same policy with me. Perhaps if more secular humanists were to sink to the same levels as the religious, we could finally have less meddling in public affairs on a religious agenda.

Official Site of Callen Damornen

Is Shame Something The West Is Missing

2006-01-20T00:15:00.000Z

Whenever there is a corporate scandal in Eastern countries like Japan, we hear more incidents with suicide from the ones who are accused to be involved. In the West, we see those who blatantly have done wrong and want to blame others for what they have done while doing all they can to get out of any form of punishment.

Middle Eastern countries look at Western nations with disgust at our lack of morals. I, for one, don't buy into this whole Judeo/Christian/Muslim set of black and white ethics, but they do have a point. I am not even suggesting we, in the West, use pre-historic intolerance and cruelty to those who do wrong or think the idea of suicide is a great way to combine vengence with justice.

Look at television. Where is the shame in some of the people we see? There is a show called Big Brother in the UK where they get the most insane people in the country and stick them into a lock-down situation where they get as raunchy as possible for ratings. Yes, it is entertaining, but with guilty pleasure surely you have to wonder what drives a person to degrade themselves just to be on television.

Fear Factor is another one. Nothing really fearful about it, just a bunch of disgusting games to degrade yourself for the money.

Jerry Springer is still in business presenting the worst behavior society has to offer.

Even sports players and superstars can flaunt terrible behavior and get a pat on the back for cutting loose.

When even a royal can dress up in Nazi costume and not have a clue on how offensive it could be without one ounce of shame, we have to wonder where did this merit go?

Our President Bush can get caught up in scandals, break laws, step on the wrong toes, and offend others, yet if he is backed into a corner he will reluctantly apologize with his phony mia culpa. Until he is backed into the corner, he will deny and blame instead of owning up to his mistakes. Either way, he isn't sorry for what he has done and would rather flaunt it in your face.

Back in the 1960s, people would dress up with a reasonable fashion sense to even go to the store to get groceries, walk the dog, or go to the cinema with the kids. It would be unthinkable to appear on stage, on the job, or in a restaurant in tacky clothes. The concept of going to those places in jeans, sweatsuits, or t-shirts would be scandalous.

To treat people poorly was considered an ill mannered thing to do and unacceptable behavior. A person who constantly acting that way would have no friends. Today, if they have money, power, or fame, they have people milling about them as if they were gods.

So I am asking, where did the shame go?

AAA Resources For Information And Entertainment

New Year's Resolutions

2005-12-31T23:38:00.000Z

Getting older is exciting and sucks at the same time. It seems as if 2005 just started and now it's ending. What's worse, my mind has no comprehension of time. I still have to think hard when someone asks me what date it is which is hard when you have to think about what year it is currently.

When I was younger, I was raised in a religion that taught us the world was going to end SOON. They promised us young kids that planning for the future is moot because we would not get to be adults in this world which was ruled by the Prince of Darkness. Wow! If I had still taken that advice to heart instead of dropping out over 18 years ago, I could only imagine how different my life would be now.

The moral of the story I am trying to tell you is to stop worrying about what may or may not happen tomorrow as right now is the only moment over which you have any control. It is nice to have hopes and dreams and to plan for the future, but you also have to roll with whatever changes life throws out at you. You can't go around living in fear or you lose out a lot of life experience.

This brings me to the tradition of New Year's Resolutions where everyone likes to make promises they most likely will never keep in the next year when the going gets tough. Unless you have mentally prepared yourself for such goals and you want it more than anything going on in your life, that resolve will dissolve the moment something more pressing interferes with your plans.

There are so many things I want to do and experience, but there's no way I am going to set myself up for a disappointing fall. When such things become buring desires, then I will acheive and surpasss those goals. Until then, life goes on in the manner I enjoy it most.

I still plan to continue to write stories. I still plan to keep up with my web sites while I keep learning more and more about JavaScripts, cgi, and other helpful hints to make my sites more interesting. I plan on keeping the crusades going to fight on behalf of things I believe in, no matter how unpopular.

As for my personal life. I plan to give my family as much love as I am able and do as much as I can for them.

Sure, it would be nice to lose a lot of weight, get nice clothes, make a lot of money, travel the world, make new friends, start a daily exercise routine and so forth, but some things are just not as pressing to acheive right now. So much has happened in 2005 it is hard to wrap my head around to sort out what else, other than my family and my beliefs, would be the most important goal to acheive.

As for all you wonderful people who make it to see my blog, I hope you know I do appreciate you. Have a great new year and play safe tonight.

AAA Resources

A Serious Accusation - Grounds For Impeachment

2005-12-19T16:27:00.000Z

From The Wilderness
Capitol Hill Blue
San Francisco Independant Media
The Aggressive Progressives

Far more serious than the accusation of faulty information on WMDs in Iraq.

Far more serious than the accusation of spying on Americans without a warrant.

Far more serious than letting his buddies in sensitive office positions.

Far more serious than allowing his financial supporters get away with crimes against the enviornment.

George W Bush has crossed the line. I don't care if you are a Republican or a Democrat or an Independent. If you agree with what he said and do not think he should be impeached, you are as unAmerican as the President.

What did he say that was so bad?

*****************************************************

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the [Patriot] act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."

"Mr. President, one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

*****************************************************

Do you have to even think for more than a minute why Bush should be impeached? His job as President is to uphold the Constitution. It is not just a "goddamned piece of paper", but his sworn duty to protect while in office. It is that piece of paper that makes America what it is.

If a Constitution is only a "goddamned piece of paper", then why did he make such a big deal that Iraq was on the right track because they have a similar piece of paper together? Why did we risk the lives of our soldiers for them to protect our own so-called "goddamned piece of paper." Thousands of people died to protect that document to which he places no value.

I do not think it is an overreaction to say he should be immediately ejected from office. His comments have reflected exactly what he thinks of our Constitution and our people. He is not even worthy of being called an American.

Impeach Bush Now!

Impeach Bush Org
Impeach Bush TV
Impeach Bush Meetup
Impeach Bush Coalition

The Real Threat To America

2005-12-17T19:10:00.000Z

Neo-cons! The whole dang Neo-con movement along with it's circus master, President George W Bush are the most dangerous element to the basis of what this country means.

It is very hard for me to turn the other cheek or be silent or even tolerant for the likes of that man when he does certain things. He came into office ignorant of the job and still chooses to remain ignorant of where his job begins and ends.

Have you heard the top secret?

Bush approved of wiretapping and eavesdropping on people's conversations without going through proper channels. He said, "This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security,"

When that secret was leaked out, he was the one who got angry for the ones who rightly exposed the secret and said, "This authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives. The American people expect me to do everything in my power, under our laws and Constitution, to protect them and their civil liberties and that is exactly what I will continue to do as long as I am president of the United States."

On several levels, this shows how backwards he has his job as President.

Civil liberties, being one of the things as President he is supposed to uphold and defend, is discounted on this fear-mongering campaign. Yes, there has always been a threat. 9/11 was not the first attack here and many attacks have been stopped before that happened. Terrorism will happen in the future. There is nothing that will stop it 100%.

The same threat has been there during Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton. The terrorists have always been lurking at the gates looking for a way to attack. 9/11 was massive, but Bush's Administration had ample warning of this impending threat and did nothing to stop it only to over-react after the fact.

A fear campaign does not stop terrorism, it just infringes on the rights of people who may or may not be guilty. The whole color system of warning of level of alert are meaningless the way it is used. An inept campaign to fight terrorism is just as bad as having no campaign to fight it.

Bush said the program was narrowly designed and used "consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution." He said it is used only to intercept the international communications of people inside the United States who have been determined to have "a clear link" to al-Qaida or related terrorist organizations.

Based on the numerous people who have been falsely accused of threatening terrorist attacks who have been kidnapped, taken off their homelands, put into prisons to suffer torture, without even being charged with a crime, I think we MUST question this Administration's judgement when it comes to whom should be wiretapped and followed.

There is a reason for Checks and Balances. HE is the one who has some nerve to say the actions of those who leaked about the wiretapping were illegal and improper. He is the one acting illegally and improper.

His attitude of he will do what he wants to do as long as he holds office and to hell with everyone else is wrong. He is President, not King, not Emperor, not Dictator. We, the people, are HIS boss, not the other way around. He discounts following the Constitution and laws in a bid to protect the people. That is not the job of the President.

Now comes the Patriot Act renewal. After this leak came into light, although many suspected he was doing it, so no big surprise, then came the vote to renew. It did not pass. Senate Democrats, with the aid of a handful of Republicans, succeeded Friday in stalling the bill already approved by the House. The vote to advance the measure, 52-47, fell eight votes shy of the 60 votes required to end debate. This Patriot Act will end December 31.

Again with the fear campaign in order to get his way, Bush stated, "In the war on terror, we cannot afford to be without this law for a single moment." He claimed that senators who are blocking renewal of the terrorism-fighting Patriot Act are acting irresponsibly and standing in the way of protecting the country from attack.

Bush and his cronies are the ones acting irresponsibly and standing in the way of protecting our Constitution and civil liberties. Without the Constitution, what exactly are we protecting?

No, I am not saying we should throw up our hands and do nothing to fight terrorists. It is not a cut and dry, all or nothing, do it Bush's way or no way situation as his neo-con team want you to believe. It is about choices, alternatives, and thinking outside the box, but operating within the law.

Should wiretapping never be used? No, but I think we should do more than approve it for a mere suspect based on shady accusations. This is why such things had to be done with a court order. There needs to be proof that this action is necessary. The witnesses must prove to be credible. Surveillance picked up in this manner should properly be recorded and not just transcribed in notes as the supposed witness or ones conducting the tapping hear it. There is too much room for abuse on hearsay. Is it too much to ask of the people who are supposed to protect our civil liberties not just fling them aside on a whim?

There is a reason for due process. It is in our Constitution. When the Constitution was written, it did not say these rules do not apply to people who are suspected of crimes against the country. Even those who are traitors are guaranteed due process in the Constitution. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Why must people who are suspected of having links to terrorists groups or "lone wolfs" be subjected to false arrest, imprisonment and torture, without the right to counsel or to even talk to their fammily?

Yes, there are lone wolfs and terrorist suspects who indeed plan on doing damage, but there are many getting caught in this net where they are treated harshly for merely having done a totally unrelated business deal with a real suspect. A person could go to the same church, mosque, or synagogue with a real terrorist suspect and if you are seen talking to them then you could automatically be a target, even if all you did was ask them for the time.

This law is put up in fear of the radical Islamic groups, but the real question is when does this harsh law turn around on the rest of us? Tim McVeigh was a lone wolf by those terms. The group of white men who tied up a black man and dragged him on the back of their truck fit those terms. The people who gang up and kill homosexuals for the sport of it fit those terms. The children who have problems with bullies in school and threaten to kill fall in those terms.

These are all different levels of terrorism under the terms set up. It has not been enforced against Anglo-American citizens, yet. If you are a person of colour, you know exactly what I mean and where I am going with this.

If an otherwise cute looking blonde haired, blue eyed boy who was being bullied came running home teary-eyed because no one was able to stop the bullies threatened to kill them on the way home suddenly had a SWAT team surround his house in the middle of the night, knock down the door, put a hood over the child and keep the parents at bay without telling them what was going on or where they were taking the child...then to spirit the child out of the country into a dungeon where people could torture him based on his threat and try to tie other crimes on him, all the while he is not allowed to call his mom and dad or have a lawyer or someone in his corner...

Do you see the big picture, yet? How do you think the people in this country will react if it goes that far? By the terms of these anti-terrorist laws going around, that same child is no different than a leader of a radical Islamic group of terrorists.

Sorry if these extreme words offend you, but what our President is doing is frankly more offensive than anything I have mentioned here.

Holiday Blues

2005-12-15T23:02:00.000Z

The months November through January tend to be hard on most adults in the Western world where it is the holiday season. Some of us put up with Thanksgiving, New Year's Day, Christmas, Kwanzaa, Hanukkah, Boxing Day and other holidays depending on who you are, the family/religion/culture to which you belong, and your personal preferences on whether to celebrate or not.

The pressure of the time of the holiday season is not really the holiday itself that causes so much stress, depression, and anxiety, but it can come in the form of family relations, expenses, high expectations, and the settling in of cooler winter weather which may consist of days that are also cloudy and damp or extremely dry. Inevitably, there is always the cold/flu season lurking about waiting to find a worn out victim with weak defenses.

One good thing to say about the season as it is celebrated in our parts is that we are lucky to be able to celebrate it or not as we see fit. It is our choice, at least, if we can afford it. There are many who do not have the choice to enjoy the season because they are part of the poor/working poor underclass, some who will be working the retail stores and restaurants on Christmas day.

There will be children going to school with your child who may be surpressing sadness knowing their families will not have enough money to give them presents like the rest of their classmates. Perhaps it is your child. Perhaps it is a close friend. Maybe such families will decide to have a simple observance and go without lunch for a month. For such families, this time of year can be really stressful.

My point in bringing this up is there is something you can do.

The Salvation Army, The Red Cross, and UNICEF as well as local homeless missions are always in need of a handout this time of year. Your local police or firefighters may have a drive called Toys For Tots to help children get toys at Christmas. Be on the lookout for other charities that are not as well known. Get some information on charitable organizations before you make a donation.

For everyone else who has the holiday blues, the best advice I could give is to take it easy. Don't expect perfection because it will never happen. Did you ever watch National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation? That poor guy was trying to strive for the picture perfect holidays with the whole family and it ended in one disaster after another. The point is, the harder he tried to make it perfect, the worse it got. The same will happen to most people who are expecting perfection instead of just going with the flow.

I know when it comes to dealing with family, some families are easier to get along with than others. No matter how difficult they can be, you might just miss them the next year if they pass on. If you have to deal with difficult people, try to avoid the things that trigger the worst of their personality traits. If that person becomes too much for you to handle, give yourself a little space and mingle with someone else or take a walk.

Keep a budget! The depression of January is always intesified when you see a big bill paid for on credit and you have the normal living expenses to deal with. The gluttony of Christmas has gotten out of control. Parents really do not have to stuff the tree with lots of boxes of toys just to impress the children. Give them a few items of what they really want and what you can afford. Encourage homemade gifts! Get a few decorative tins and make cookies, brownies or candies for people whom you do not know what they would like. And for really simple and stress free, get gift certificates.

Take care of yourself. Drink plenty of fluids, especially orange juice and green tea to combat the many viral infections in the air. Get plenty of sleep at night. If you feel too stressed, take a walk or turn on the music and dance.

Organize yourself. Make a list of all tasks you want to get done. Keep things you know you will need handy. If you can't find them, either search for them or buy them new and then put them in a spot where you can access them quickly. For instance, you may be sending out lots of cards and gifts, so be sure you have a shelf where you can store cards, envelopes, stamps, address labels, tape, gift wrap, gift cards, ribbons, bows, scissors and so forth.

Avoid the carb overload and alcohol. If you suffer seasonal depression, stuffing yourself with carbs or drinking alcohol will only make you feel worse. Try instead eating cubes of cheese, a hard boiled egg, or slices of luncheon meat. Instead of alcohol, try an herbal tea or flavoured coffee without caffeine.

I hope you will keep these tips in mind and you will enjoy the holiday preparations.

Beating The Holiday Blues

The Anti-Walmart War

2005-12-06T11:40:00.000Z

I don't think most reasonable people will argue that the Walmart of today is certainly not the Walmart Sam Walton started so many years ago. By all accounts, he was a devout Christian who believed in American values, hard work and the American Dream. He wanted to start a business for the typical American who had lack of choices and prices which were too high for them to afford the basics and created a superstore with so many choices and very low prices all made in America.

At least, that was how it started. At some point it changed drastically. Whenever you let the power of the stockholders press your core business model and shred it for pure profit generation, you lose the soul of your business. It happened with Walmart.

Have you seen it yet? If not, I would highly recommend the movie, Walmart - The High Cost Of Low Price by Robert Greenwald. When you do see it, take it with a grain of salt.

Yes, he does bring up very valid points on how Walmart has literally brought small communities to its knees by making it impossible for family run stores to compete and drowning out almost all its competition so the only jobs available are menial jobs paying low wages at the town's Walmart.

Allegations include Walmart's insurance and benefit package - employers tell the employees to sign up for welfare benefits and show them how to do it. Walmart, a company that takes government welfare in order to make a profit and gets tax breaks puts far less into the system and does not pay their employees a decent living wage expecting the taxpayers to cover them as well as Walmart's welfare.

To bring you low prices so they can still make a profit, Walmart uses cheap labour in impoverished countries under poor working conditions with fear motivation to make them pump out more products.

Walmart is very anti-union in the US and if you even think about starting a union in a store, you will have a private investigator follow you around and spy on your activites at work and even on your time off will follow and intimidate you until they find grounds to fire you or force you out.

Yes, these are horrible things and Walmart has done them. However, be really honest, how many large corporate owned retail stores are any different than Walmart? To villianize one very successful giant is shooting fish in a barrel. Most of the big retail corporations are guilty of the very same things.

If you want to get really honest about where your outrage should be directed, where do you shop? Do you feel you MUST have a lot of product as cheap as you can get it just because it can be had? If so, you are part of the problem. This consumerism has spiralled out of control. The need to get more and more things of lower quality just for the sake of having things is obscene and contributes to the growth of stores like Walmart.

And I don't believe the small town stores could ever compete with the giants because they had a limited shelf space and could only carry what their customers were likely to buy, even if the prices were a bit higher. They took the time to know their customers and if a customer wanted something special, most store owners would see what they could do to supply it. That level of service rarely exists. It is completely non-existent in big corporate owned retail stores.

The Walmart monster did not create itself. We created it.

Callen Damornen's World

It's Time - Part Two

2005-12-04T13:11:00.000Z

Stranger has made a few good points in my previous article, however, as I said before it is up to Iraq to pull the plug not the US. We should be at least willing to walk away as if this is not a matter of pride that we MUST stay to prove our point. It is the Iraqis who MUST prove their point. Most want us out. It is time for us to let them decide their fate. If they want us there, fine. If they want us gone, fine. Either way, it should be in their hands.

As the troops are doing squat right now to protect the people from the secret military force and are only encouraging more attacks from outsiders, then what's the point in staying if they want us gone? Walking away now will create a free-for-all among the factions that only a brutal dictatorship can stop. There were big issues in the beginning of the history of Iraq that should have been worked out decades ago that have only been simmering under the Saddam rule. Iraq should have been split up along the lines of major groups to make up smaller countries in order to fit in the neat idea of boundaries that the West insisted they must have. Before the UK defined borders, there was no Iraq, just groups of people living happily taking lead from a local leader while the people just lived their life, religion and culture mostly undisturbed.

The whole Western idea of forcing a culture upon people who don't really want it is part of the problem. The European/US mindset for hundreds of years was to make the rest of the world exactly like them no matter what the natives in those lands think. While it has brought about more life quality issues for the few as these were mostly to benefit the settlers in the land, it has usually not brought most of the quality of life issue to the people who are native to the land. These natives usually function at a fraction of the quality of life brought to them and a lot less of the happiness before the settlers came in. Eventually, it tends to backfire.

Take a look at the US. The settlers came in and took over. How many happy, well adjusted, and equally footed Native Americans do you see competing with the rest of the settlers?

Take a look at India. The natives were happy and living simple lives before the Europeans came fought over it with the British winning out. They brought their culture, standards, and political influence while turning the native people basically into a slave class to carry out the needs of the settlers in order to survive in their world. Now the British have left it, it left India still today struggling to catch up to its own natural order. If India were allowed to evolve at its own pace, it would be a completely different place.

Take a look at most of Africa which had outsiders define what it should be. They used it to serve their own purposes and forced their ideals and cultures on a people who were not given the same opportunities as the settlers to benefit from the new order causing an underclass of people. As the settlers ducked out, the people had to come to terms with who they are which is causing much of the wars we see today.

So of course, if we pull out of Iraq and allow them to take over the reigns, there will be chaos. It is the only way they can define themselves and allow them to evolve to what they are planning to become. Yes, it sounds cruel on one level, but staying is also cruel on another level. Unless THEY request we stay and keep order, then we should be prepared to go. They are the ones who must decide what they want. It is not up to us. We went in and made a mess of their country which was already a mess before we entered. Imperialism is what messed up a perfectly happy bunch of people.

In US history we can also look to the Civil War. The South wanted their economy to stay the same which was based on slave/farm working societies. The North was pulling more towards an industrial society and not only did not need or want slaves in their country, but wanted to force the South to join the band wagon and ship the slaves back to Africa or in a corner of the US while they could expand the borders of the North American continent. To split the North and the South at that time would have risked the expansion plans and despite what the Declaration of independence set out to do in defining why we started this country -

"...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

As a result, the South wanted to be free from the North's influence and a battle began. In the end, the South is still a part of the union, but got the short end of the stick for almost 100 years after. The stronger part dictated the way things were to be run at the expense of the weaker, but the South is very slowly evolving to its naturally defined way of life. It is not a culture that matches the North in many ways, but there are similarities.

If this evolution of Reds versus Blues continues, I expect sooner or later there will be another revolution as is par with human nature. Many will die for what they believe is right. War crimes and cruelty will ensue. Blood will run in the streets. Then there will be a winner, a loser, and everyone in the middle who will forever be cleaning up the mess wanting to just live their lives without a government telling them how to live.

War will always happen. There will always be different ideals, some of which people will think are worth dying. The people of Iraq are no different. The idealists are the ones doing the fighting while everyone else, the civilian population, is doing most of the dying and cleaning up the mess. Whether the US stays or goes, the civilians will be dying and cleaning up the mess until the idealists stop fighting for their cause and come to an agreement. US troops are only slowing down that process of coming to an agreement in the first place. When they come to that agreement of the way things will be, then there will be room for diplomacy.

I was also against the war before it started. Long term play at strategy games such as Risk, Civilisation, and chess to name a few have taught me a few lessons anyone contemplating a battle should know -

1. Know the enemy, the weakness and strengths.
2. Know the people, the culture, the land, the history and what they are about to use it to your advantage.
3. Know how much the battle will cost in money and lives and prepare for both before going into it.
4. Get full support from your own people and your allies.
5. Always use diplomacy until it is exhausted.
6. Playing dirty may win short battles but will only make a dirty war and the dirtier you play the more likely you will come out a loser.
7. Make sure it is something you want to stake your reputation on because it is not just for now when you make your mark, but throughout all of history.

Our "beloved" President did none of this before the war. This is why we have the mess.

AAA Resources For Information And Entertainment

It's Time

2005-12-03T16:12:00.000Z

Another Ten Marines from the 2nd Marine Division were killed and 11 wounded by a roadside bomb near Fallujah. This is more than a year after the war was supposedly over in Iraq.

The Iraqis have held their elections. They have their own fledgling military and police force. Our own President wants to assure us all is going as planned, yet alternative news sources show that it is a complete mess over there. Our troops being over there is encouraging more violence against the Iraqi civilians. Reports that up to 80% of the Iraqis want our troops out of their country show we have overstayed our "welcome".

Think way back into our own US history books. Part of the protest the colonist had was being forced to put up with the British troops who were there to protect them from the Natives whom the colonists were provoking antagonism. The colonists did not want to pay extra taxes to support the troops who were there for their own protection and did not want them lounging about their homes because there was nowhere else to put them up. Meanwhile, the troops were taking far too many liberties with the situation and taking advantage of the hospitality of the guests. Pretty soon, the colonists just wanted these troops out of their land. Sure, it was their fellow British soldier, but they wanted their own soldiers on their own turf to play by their own rules.

What happened next? The colonists got together and decided they could do better. Without much of an organized army, not much money, not much leadership or support from the rest of the world other than well wishes, they decided to take on the soldiers and start their own country. It wasn't easy. It wasn't pretty. Many people died in the process. As a result, we have the United States today.

Today, the Iraqis have a fledgling democracy. If a democracy is to thrive, there comes a point in time when THEY need to cut the apron strings from a country treating them like a nanny treats a child.

Having our US soldiers on their soil is inviting outsiders with an axe to grind against the Western world and killing innocent civilians caught in the middle.

Of course, if we just pull out they will have problems. The problem with starting that particular war in the first place was the simplistic thinking that if the dictator were dethroned all would be well and everyone would get along. The fact is Saddam is what kept order, even if it were a brutal dictatorship.

Iraqi's borders were defined by the UK as a spoil of war. Within that divide were very distinct and differing people who had no common link whatsoever. It is akin to the offense most African descended people would say to a white person who say all black you people look alike. This is what put a group of people who had no interest in being lumped together in the first place in a country the world would call Iraq.

They had a very rocky start and regime changes were frequent because the heart of the problem is there was no common Iraqi, just a bunch of people with different outlooks on life, different beliefs, different ways of doing things and even a religious difference as if you would try to lump together Catholics with Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Evangelical and force them to cohabit the same church building and share a service.

Yes, there are some Iraqis who want to give Iraq a chance with democracy. Some want to try to overcome all the differences and live together with their neighbors despite their deep rooted feelings. Others cannot get past these differences and want complete independence. Others still, the majority, just want to live their lives without anyone or any government oppressing them or locking them in and go back to the pre-Iraq days when it was their local leaders who lead their groups.

Isn't it about time we just handed them the keys to their brand new country and let them finally, once and for all, decide what they want to do with it? The US troops being there isn't helping.

The thing which really is keeping true order in most places are the extreme groups of people with their secret military force which our troops are allowing to do whatever they want to keep the peace - no matter how harsh they are being with the civilians! These groups are doing things that make Saddam look like a humanitarian. The rights for women have taken a giant step backwards in many parts where the women must be covered head to foot and in the presence of a man or they risk being beaten, tortured, raped and murdered while being accused of prostitution. These areas are slowly turning into what the Taliban created in Afghanistan.

Our troops are not keeping the peace and are only causing hostility by the locals. Whether they are there or not, there will be massive violence in Iraq. We have a duty to our soldiers not to put them in harm's way unnecessarily. This is not necessary. They have done what they were told and now Iraq is a mess and they are powerless to do anything to help. Bring them home now.

Official Site of Callen Damornen

The Holidays Are Here - A Lot On My Mind

2005-11-26T20:39:00.000Z

I really appreciate all who come to visit my blog and I know I have been out of touch for awhile, but there have been a lot of things on my mind which I will share with you.

About two weeks ago, my father-in-law passed on. He had been sick for quite some time, so it is not really a surprise. He was suffering from memory loss, depression, diabetes, high blood pressure and cholesterol. He was a mess.

They say it is not nice to speak ill of the dead. Truth be told, he was not exactly a nice person. He had his moments where he would take the shirt off his back to help someone in need. Although he never really showed any affection for his five children, he did love them in his own way.

As I thought about his life at the funeral home, I was actually touched by how many people showed up to say goodbye. He may have had his faults, but he did touch many lives. No one is perfect. Maybe, at long last, he finally has peace. God knows he did not have it in this life.

Then I got outraged at the thought of how his life ended. He had been sick for awhile, but because he was on TennCare he was booted out of health care when the system needed to be overhauled. He went without insurance until his wife could get him on her policy at work which cost an awful lot of her income. His medication alone was costing about $500 a month out of pocket. His condition was getting worse because he was not able to afford to see a doctor.

One of his buddies was at the funeral. He was also a victim of the TennCare eviction. He also has diabetes and is working at poverty level wages just to get by. He cannot afford to see a doctor or get regular medication.

Where is the heart with the people who thumb their noses at the idea of a National Health Care plan? Do they not realize there are over 40 million people in the US who cannot afford to see a doctor? Do they not know that a serious illness could put these people into bankruptcy? Sure you get better choices and selections when you have a private insurance carrier, but not everyone can afford private insurance. This is almost tantamount to saying if you are poor you deserve to die early.

TennCare was an experiment to let the state take over the insurance so Medicaid could be eliminated. There was not enough tax money in the program to support it and too many crooked politicians who abused the system to its downfall. This left way too many people out in the cold who were kicked off TennCare and do not have access to Medicaid. They have NOTHING.

How is it most European countries and Canada are able to run a National programme? Sure, they also have the option of private insurance and have a certain amount of choice, but at least they know when they pay into the system, they will see a doctor and can get treated. For some, they may have a long wait, but at least they know they can see a doctor eventually. Unlike here, some people know they can NEVER see a doctor because they do not have insurance at all.

Many companies try to get around the insurance benefit for employees because it is so expensive which leaves them no other choice but to make the workers part time or off the clock so they will never qualify for the insurance. If we had a National Health Care plan where everyone would qualify, this would free one hassle from employers everywhere.

The problem in this country is everything is always about the money. The drug companies are in the business to make money, not necessarily focused on curing anything unless a profit is to be made. The medical professionals are being scarred out of business by lawyers who see money to be made from the insurance companies who keep hiking their prices to feed the lawsuits while doctors are retiring early or quitting and fewer want to become doctors in the first place.

Greed has ruined the health care industry. Health care is about caring for the people. Sometimes there are things in life that are more important than the money. The greed which has spiraled out of control is killing people and disillusioning gifted professionals from practicing their chosen field. Greed has put bad drugs on the market quickly before finding out the dangers which have killed people, but dragging its feet on drugs which could help people because the lack of profit to be made on them.

Where is our national conscience on this issue?

The Official Site Of Callen Damornen

What Do I Stand For? Part 4 - National Security

2005-10-29T12:46:00.000Z

What do you really expect on the national security issue from someone who stepped into office not knowing our who are friends are to the north in Canada and to the south in Mexico? National security should always start at home, not by fighting other countries unless it is really necessary. This is why we are in the trouble we are in now.

Current Events

With more and more light shining on the CIA leak scandal connected to the White House, it appears one of the lesser members of the Bush team is going to take one for the team - a slap on the wrist as the nation is distracted while these people continue with business as usual. "Scooter" will take the bullet by playing the same play dumb act Oliver North did during the "Iran country" scandal - the event that cemented the hatred of the US by both Iran and Iraq. What exactly are they up to now?

If Bush aides took the memo seriously that said we were going to be attacked by terrorists on our soil and actually acted upon that information, this would be an example of why national security begins, not ends, at home. Had they read that memo and consulted with the CIA, FBI, and FAA and picked qualified members from each group to form a team to handle this specific report, they could have done a lot more to prevent 9/11 from happening, or at least reduced the tragedy on that day.

In the case of invading Afghanistan and taking out the terrorists inside, it could be justified. This administration has made that justification invalid. We cannot neglect the fact that the US has trained Osama bin Laden and many who headed Al Qaeda during the war between Afghanistan and Russia. We came into that country to oust the Commies and left them high and dry to defend themselves in the aftermath which brought about ruthless regimes that ended in the Taliban rule that was one of the most oppressive forms of government in the world.

Osama bin Laden was the one who brainwashed, funded, trained, and assisted those misguided young men into doing such a horrible thing. If one is even slightly contributed to a murder, we charge them with a crime and go after them. Osama is more than an accomplice to murder of over 3000 people. Our "noble" president has referred to him as a mere symbol of terrorist organization and was no longer important to pursue. Why?

Wasn't the main point of invading Iraq was to get him and destroy Al Qaeda? Back in the pre-911 days, only a handful of people, myself included, tried to bring awareness of the horrid conditions of the Afghans. Our country did not even really know or care about the plight of those poor people living there, so it was not about liberating them and showing them democracy. They have that opportunity now and that is the only good thing to come out of the war, but it still did not solve the problem we were after.

Unfortunately, we pulled out too many of our soldiers to bring more stability to the country and there are pockets of groups who want to bring disorder and overthrow the government. Drug trafficking is still the main source of national income. They have a long way to go, but by not finishing what we started they are in danger of going back.

Why Start At Home?

It is a matter of logistics and just plain common sense. If our own people on our own shores were more alert and with a reasonable plan of action, we could prevent a lot more terrorists actions. By scaring people with the elevation of the colour chart and telling them there is a danger of an attack at an unknown place during an unknown time by people unknown, merely terrorists, using a method no one really knows for sure is STUPID!!

Yes, we should all be aware of what goes on around us, but we should not live in a paranoid phobia about it. In the 90s, the terrorists did attack us on our soil at the World Trade Center. They attacked then, why was it any surprise they would try it on 911 or again at some other time in the future. Any reasoning person can see that clearly.

Being in the US, we do at least have some protection from an all out battle with Middle Eastern terrorist groups - we are separated by an ocean and they do not have the funds or territory to launch an invasion such as we did with Iraq. However, there are cracks where a few key people can do major damage. If we did not spend all our time and resources invading Iraq, we could have done a lot more to secure our own borders. To secure our borders include the following:

Befriending Our Neighbours

Anyone who looks at a map can see the obvious, Mexico and Canada are our closest countries. If any terrorist wanted to come into our country, those are two large borders to cross. Most people fail to recognize they are not our only neighbours in which we need to befriend. A terrorist cell on a corrupt island nation in the Caribbean, or Central America or even the Northern part of South America full of poor, starving and neglected people could easily look the other way as they launch a nuclear device in our direction.

If we cannot work along with our neighbours, all of them, and see to it their needs are being met, they could just as easily look the other way when we get attacked. Seeing to the needs of the poor and destitute people around us would go a lot further in helping securing our borders than going abroad and starting pointless wars with no real end in sight.

Minding Our Own Business

It is one thing if another nation asks for our help, then by all means give them the help they require. It is an entirely different thing when we interfere with how other countries run their business.

The United Nations has proven to be ineffective in seeing that the desperate areas get the help they need and the United States has been forced into a position as the police of the world with the resentment of the rest of the world. Isn't it time to force the UN to live up to its original ideals and potentials? Either they can get their act together or needs to be history.

The point of the UN was to have a worldwide coalition of representatives from around the world representing the needs of their country in a forum of other diplomats who were supposed to be about offering better solutions for everyone in the world to get along instead of tempting the fate of a World War III.

The problem is the UN relies heavily on the wealthy nations to solve all of the problems of the world. While the wealthy nations could do more to help, the disadvantaged nations need to take steps on their own in order to become more competitive.

Some of those solutions are not exactly expensive, but would require a regime change, introduction to democracy, and free trade on their part while the wealthy nations, instead of exploiting them for cheap labour, could send them more teachers and doctors, help them build a better infrastructure, and assist with loans designed to help people compete in the global market as well as get their lives back together.

Throwing money to corrupt governments to help their people does not actually do much to help the people. The officials at the top always skim the bulk of the money for themselves and give their people crumbs. They have no serious intention of doing anything to advance and help their countrymen with the money. Look at the Oil For Food programme in Iraq as a prime example!

If the nations requesting the money and help from wealthier nations want full cooperation, should we not expect they live up to what they say they are going to do with the money? As this keeps happening, the US has been put in the awkward position to butt into the business of other countries while the key members have used this guise to exploit the people they were supposed to protect.

If we have no real intention of helping others, we need to mind our own business. Helping ourselves on the problems of others only fuels the fire in the minds of terrorists.

Immigration Rules

This country is made from immigrants. The Natives of this land were here first until we had the nerve to relocate them to sh--ty areas of land. We would have some nerve to tell the rest of the world we do not want you here and god forbid if you decide to take a job from someone here!

It may come as a surprise to some here that the terrorists who came into this country for the 911 event were here legally. And since, most of the terrorists who have entered the country have come in from Canada.

When you ask a typical American what they think a terrorist looks like, they will automatically assume it is a Middle Eastern "looking" man with a beard and head covered. There is a big problem with this stereotype.

Many people in the US are ignorant when it comes to figuring out where a person is from by the way they look. Personally, people have confused me with a person from the Middle East and I have no connection with that area of the world whatsoever. Many Eastern Indian men wearing a turban have been assaulted and called terrorists. Even some Hispanics and Native Americans have been attacked because they "looked Middle Eastern".

Terrorists can come in all colours, nationalities and from both sexes.

Tim McVeigh, Ted Kasinsky, Eric Robert Rudolph, John William King and two other men who killed a black man on the back of their pick up truck - all of these are the faces of white terrorists. We have far more attacks by this ilk than of the Middle Eastern ones.

There are reports of American citizens who were born and raised here in middle class white and even Hispanic families who have converted to the radical forms of Islam and have fallen into the spell of the terrorists groups.

There have been reports of suicide bombers in Middle Eastern countries where the perpetrator is female.

If we only go by the stereotype, the MO of the terrorist group is to follow a form to go below the radar of suspicion. Just read the Al Qaeda Training Manual.

It would go a long way to secure our immigration policies. We need an overhaul of the system and to rethink our attitudes about people who come here.

We should not want to harm those who come into the country seeking employment or shelter, particularly from the south of our country. We should try and understand they are not doing it to hurt anyone, but to survive. All agreements like NAFTA AND CAFTA do is to further exploit their poor who still keep coming over the border while taking away jobs from the people who live here. It is not the illegal immigrants who are taking away the jobs we want, but plans like these free trade agreements. The illegals can still make more money working below minimum wage in jobs we won't do than they can in their own countries where our good jobs have gone.

If we want free trade, it also needs to be fair trade. This would create less of the problem with people needing to cross our borders to survive.

As for others coming into this country, we should follow the examples of other nations like Australia that will do a background search before they allow you permission to enter their land. They keep potential unwanted people out before they set foot on soil. Perhaps a background search beforehand on people who want to enter this country would not be a bad idea. Remember, the 911 terrorists came here legally and without a background check to stop them.

Of course, if we did do a background check, terrorists from outside would try to come here from the borders. This is why more focus should be placed on securing the borders. The money spent on fight the war in Iraq would have done a lot more towards securing us from the north and south.

By making friends with our neighbors, it also serves as a good protection because we would be looking out for their best interests and they would be looking after ours.

Travel Safety - AKA Airport Security

It is utterly ridiculous to search little old ladies before they step on a plane. There are famous public figures who get pulled aside for a complete search which is also a useless waste of time and resources. Pulling infants away from their mothers because their names appear on a list of terrorists is just plain wrong.

The men who came into the airport with the intention of using the airplane as a weapon reportedly were acting suspiciously. Political correctness stopped one official who thought they were up to something from preventing them to catch the flight. He had to go against his gut feeling because it would be perceived as not PC to stop Middle Eastern businessmen from catching a flight, even if the alarms were going off that something was not right about them.

The true typical terrorist is male, age 16-45. If people are so worried about being PC about the offending the demographics based on nationality, why not hit the true demographics of the likely terrorist? It is more in the male nature to do these kinds of acts than it is for a woman who would have a harder time in overpowering a flight crew. When it comes to the age factor, people under age 16 have a hard time in planning such things to fruition and would also be overpowered by a flight crew. People over 35 tend to be set in life and generally do not want to throw away what they have done with their lives.

Why not perform a random check on this demographic? And perform a mandatory check on anyone whose name and picture matches a national database of people with ties to terrorist groups? Why not have such a list in the first place so we could check and keep them updated for every national airport? Why not conduct a mandatory search on people who are acting in a suspicious way? Why not use common sense instead of fear based solutions at the airport?

National Awareness

Security always starts at home, literally. We should know our neighbours on our street. We should know who belongs in that area and who does not. When we see people who are strangers in our area AND they are acting strangely, then we should try to team up with our neighbours and find out what's going on. We do not have to attack everyone acting strangely, but at least see if that person is a friend or foe or just someone with mental problems who needs help. Neighborhood Watch is a good programme that more areas should try.

We should show more support for our local and state police. They are the key people who serve as our defense when a problem develops that is beyond our control. They keep law and order. We also need to show the same support and respect to our National Guard who are supposed to be HERE to protect us.

By keeping track of what is going on in your own area, you can do a lot more to aid in the fight against terrorism, but be careful not to become vigilantes in the process. There is no need to have a knee-jerk reaction to everything that might go wrong. This is life, at any time anything could go wrong. There is no way to save people 100%. All we could ever do is reduce our risks in a reasonable and logical manner.

Surviving Disaster

What Do I Stand For? Part 3 - Gun Control Issues

2005-10-23T13:22:00.000Z

The United States has a love for freedom and a love for guns. As a free country, people tend to not take kindly to someone telling them they cannot do certain things or have what they want to have.

We even have a Second Amendment which guarantees a right to bear arms, no matter how awkwardly phrased it might be states, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.". On the one hand it speaks about how a well regulated militia is necessary to secure a free state, then goes on to state the people have the right to keep and bear arms for such a purpose. Which to some implies that they were meaning for all citizens to become part of this well regulated militia and therefore should not be restricted when it comes to keeping guns. To others, this phrase implies two different concepts of the need for a militia and a need to have unrestricted access to guns.

So what's the problem?

When this Amendement cleared into the first draft of the Constitution, a war was being planned against a well armed and organized army. There was no such thing as a United States army during the Revolutionary War. The ones who would fight this battle were militia men with high ideals to fight off what was viewed as the unwanted guest in their land - the British Army.

For these colonists, there were rules and regulations about being armed which would make protecting themselves from these unwanted guests, not to mention the Natives whose land they were eyeing who were getting severely peeved, an easier task to help them in their freedom. In order to have protection without paying any tax to the King, people would have to get access to arms and to meet up in groups to fight for a common purpose.

When the war was won, the Constitution was already accepted as law. Before the actual war itself, this document was already signed and after the war all states agreed upon it. Even if the main threat of the British Army was no longer an issue, the new nation had other threat potentials and needed to maintain an armed militia until a more organized branch of an US Army could be created. With England out of the picture, other countries such as Spain and France could have easily picked at a weak target if there were no armed militia. As part of plans to expand their boundaries West, the Natives were not going to sit quietly as they were being pushed back further and further, so the new US citizens needed armed militias to help with the angry locals.

Times have changed from when this requirement was needed for the safety of all citizens. There are other Amendments in the Constitution that had to be updated to accommodate the changes in society. Whereas there have been changes to accommodate the fact that slavery was no longer acceptable and women had the right to vote and even the anti-liquor rule that was passed and repealed have all reflected changes to the evolution of this nation, perhaps it is time to re-think this one.

We are no longer under the same threat that required a militia. We have an Army, Air Force, Marines, National Guards, and even the local and state police which now serve as our well regulated militia. We are not in danger of being invaded by Mexico or Canada and unfortunately have destroyed the spirit of the Natives of this country who no longer pose a threat the Founding Fathers felt concerned on such issues. Today, we have real threats, but very different ones.

Out of all the countries in the world, the US ranks 8th for the most murders (homicides) per capita by handguns with a .02 per 1000 people who will die in this manner. In other words, for every 20,000 people, one person will be murdered by a gun. South Africa, Columbia, Thailand, Zimbabwae, Mexico, Belarus and Costa Rica all rank higher with South Africa leading the pack at .71 per 1000. These are all countries with loose or no regulations in regards to gun control.

Statistics

Gun control does not necessarily mean less crime. For example robberies which are generally carried out with guns, Spain ranked first with 497,262 in the year 2000. The United States ranked second with United States 409,670 in 1999 statistics. Spain has stricter gun control laws, yet they came in higher for robberies than a country with loose gun control laws.

Statistics

If guns were to be banned, then yes, only the criminals would have guns. This is seen as a dangerous situation when it comes to self defense. If someone breaks into your home, hijacks your car, or tries to rape you - they have a gun and you do not, the criminal will have the power to do what they want and leave you helpless.

It is one way to see the argument, but it is a weak one. Yes, the criminals would be in a better position to do what they wanted, but the likelihood that they would kill you would drop over the fact that they know you probably do not have a gun and are not in a position to harm them.

If guns were not readily available, there would be less guns in circulation leading to less crimes by gun.

Don't get me wrong, it is still America and the idea of any telling you what you can and cannot have will never sit well with anyone. I am not for banning all guns, just regulating them in a more responsible manner.

We need to have a license to drive a car. Why not have a license to own a gun? Why not make it mandatory for gun owners to take classes in gun safety, storage, care, and the law before being allowed to own and use a gun? Why not run a background check on those who want to own arms to make sure they do not have a criminal past or have proven to be a danger to themselves and others? Why not include a ban on people who have a restraining order placed on them?

I also believe the force they used on the so-called war on drugs has overcrowded prisons with people who need medical and psychological help to defeat a bad habit. This would make plenty of room to deal with the criminals who sell arms illegally. There should be a crackdown on these dealers. There are many honest, law abiding gun dealers whose businesses are being hurt by these thugs, not to mention the many honest, law abiding citizens who are being hurt by what these thugs sell.

It is not so much that the legally regulated arms are the problem as it is the unrestricted illegal arms trade that exists.

Yes, there are the temptations for those who are legally abiding citizens who own guns to become victims of their own weapons such as when kids get into them and fatal shoot themselves or another child or if depressed or in a heated family argument the gun is used to end it. Less access to guns would make fewer of these incidents. Among the law abiding, the most common reason for a gun death is by suicide and second domestic disputes.

In 1999, over 17,000 out of 29,000 American suicides were committed by gun versus the over 11,000 murders out of 17,000 were committed by handguns.

Statistics

Emory University professor Arthur Kellermann, one of the leading researchers studying that relationship, has found that a gun in the home is 22 times more likely to kill a household member than an outsider and that it is seven times more likely to be used in the murder or assault of a household member than an outsider.

The impact of injuries:

Injuries account for more years of potential life lost before age 65 than all causes of cancer and all causes of heart disease combined.

Every year more than 142,000 Americans die because of injuries, and another 80,000 are permanently disabled.

Each year, more than 57 million people--one fourth of the nation's residents--are injured, and 2.3 million people are hospitalized due to injuries.

Injuries in this country account for more than $44 billion in direct health-care costs.

The total cost of firearm injuries in the United States in 1990 was an estimated $20.4 billion. This includes $1.4 billion for health care, $1.6 billion due to disability, and $17.4 billion in lost productivity due to premature death.

A new congressional study shows that an estimated 3,000 people with domestic-violence convictions were able to buy firearms between 1998 and 2001, because the FBI was unable to complete background checks before the sales went through, the Washington Post reported June 26.

Article by Join Together

Responsible people act responsibly with guns. It is unfair to completely deprive everyone who will be responsible with them from having access, but it is also a given that fewer guns do mean fewer deaths and accidents.

I am in favour of better, not more, gun control.

Need To Shop? Try The Carefree Mall

What Do I Stand For? Part 2 - The Arts

2005-10-21T16:51:00.000Z

A truly great society values its artists. The Roman Empire valued its sculptures, painters, poets, and other forms of art and entertainment. It was the recreation of the people. The artists performed a valuable service and were paid for their efforts. The people grew in the exposure to such culture. It is what defined who they are and stayed as a reminder throughout history that they were more than just a ruthless empire set out to conquer all they saw.

In the UK and Canada, they truly value government sponsored support of the arts. Even the tax to provide quality television programming allows for creative expression that is not allowable on commercial stations.

The United States did try to initiate such an interest in the arts, but the bottom line here is always profit. If there is no monetary value to such a project, it is viewed as a waste of time and money. It is this sort of thinking that cuts school funding for art and music classes as well as decrease support for the National Endowment For The Arts and The Public Broadcasting System. These things are seen as a burden on taxpayers who may not always appreciate what these programmes create and therefore give no value to the nation.

The arts are a valuable thing, but the key is to realize what is art to one is not to others. Just because a handful of political paperpushers without an eye or ear for art must satisfy the status quo and reject or scoff at the value of art to society does not mean it is true. The system is set up wrong and needs to be dismantled and rebuilt, but that does not mean we should not support the arts as a nation.

National Endowment For The Arts [NEA]

There is a good notion in the idea of supplying grants and loans to artists to help them get started with a project they have in mind for the good of the people. However, the way the money is distributed is wrong.

Politicians, not artists with a proven track record in their field, determine who gets the money and who does not. When it comes to giving out money, shouldn't the money go to those who have the talent and ambition to actually create something for the benefit of mankind get the money as opposed to just a crony of someone on the board looking for a handout for a project they can play at which will not really be seen by anyone?

I suggest there should be a board on the NEA of experienced painters, sculptors, writers, and other artists from different background who should interview the ones requesting the money. If an artist wants the money, they should present examples of their work and give the panel an idea of what they want to do with the money along with a detailed report on how the expenses will be used and a timeline for completion and how the work will be shown. This panel of qualified artists can determine if this is truly a person with talent who will use the money for the purpose it was meant. A peer to peer panel is much better than politicians who cater to the whims of whomever put them in the job as to what is a worthy project.

Anyone given a grant by the NEA should then be required to sign a contract that if, as a result of the work accomplished by the grant brings in an income of 5 times the value of the grant, he or she should pay back 10% of future earnings into the NEA to help fund new artists who need the help. Such profitable artists can then deduct this contribution from their income for tax purposes. It at least serves as a way to repay the system that brought to them success as well as fund a system that will not overburden taxpayers.

PBS And NPR

With PBS and NPR, it proves troubling to keep many local stations to keep up with expenses. They must continually have drives to raise money from local listeners in order to stay in business so they can provide content that is informational, entertaining, and different from the mainstream media. It may not seem like a popular idea among those of us who do appreciate such things, but perhaps it is time for them to go commercial or to explore other options such as charging extra for cable and satellite access or developing a premium station where one can only access by paying an extra fee or with NPR using a pay service for those who want to reach them through satellite radio.

The idea of PBS and NPR was more financially feasible before the access of satellite and cable. Today, there are just so many different choices for people in the US that both tend to not seem as appealing as other programming. For these valuable programmes to survive, it needs to think in new ways and evolve with the public.

I think both PBS and NPR should still qualify for help when it comes to creating new and experimental programming, but the actual day to day expenses of running the stations need to be addressed in terms of practicality. If the local market is not interested in what they offer, it is not economically viable to support the station. Perhaps if both were taken out of the local hands and put more on a national level, it would be easier to manage. PBS could run in the same league as NBC or CBS with only one location airing the main content and allowing local affiliates to air shows of interest to their audience at certain times.

Copyrights And Such Issues

All creative people should have their work protected and they should be paid for their services. That being said, there is a big problem out there with copyright infringement laws because of the set up of the system.

Big corporate movie and music studios today are seen as the poor underdog who are protecting the rights of the artists which is why they are so strongly going after anyone who steals the work of the artists. What heroes they must be?!?

To put it bluntly, these people are only trying to shake down those who refuse to pay their hookers which they pimp out. They don't give a care about artists in general, just the artists which they use to create a profit for their shareholders. They are living on an income generated by the talents of other people. They are making more money on their artists than the artist will ever make who is doing all the real talented work.

It's not like these artists or budding filmmakers can go out in business for themselves because these big companies have slanted the field heavily in their favour from the beginning. Unless you do business through them, you have very little chance of success.

The work of the artist should be protected, not just from those who steal their work, but also from those who leech from their talent.

Official Site Of Callen Damornen

What Do I Stand For? Part 1 - For The Children

2005-10-20T23:04:00.000Z

I have been awfully hard on the Democrats over the very nature that they seem to have no soul, no direction, aimlessly wandering about the political arena with their heads up their arses. Then it got me to thinking, why exactly is there no political party out there for me. Perhaps if I could define what I stood for then maybe there would be others out there who are in my same boat where I do not feel so alone, at least politically.

Childhood Obeseity

This is a growing problem among the children. In my apartment complex, my children have a total of 23 friends who I see quite often. All but 3 are overweight. 11 are quite obese. One poor boy often has red cheeks when he goes up the stairs and is out of breath just walking across the parking lot. Most of the children have parents who are also overweight. To boot, many of these kids are in homes with low incomes who border on the line between qualifying for welfare and the working poor who do not qualify for help.

As I have stated in one blog entry, one of the factors of being overweight is being poor because the inability to afford quality foods including fresh fruits and vegetables. The diet of the lower income classes are almost always higher in carbohydrates, bad sugars and bad fats because it is cheap food.

Lower income also means fewer visits to health care physicians who can better keep tabs on the children and their weight.

Health Care

When there are so many children belonging to low income families that have little or no health care and do not qualify for federal or state programs for help, they can often get in serious medical complications by having to ignore symptoms until they get so bad that a trip to an emergency room becomes necessary.

A national health care plan, such as the ones in the UK or Canada could work in the United States. Of course there will always be the options for those who wish to have insurance plans where they can have better control over whom they see, but as a safety net for everyone else without insurance, a national health care plan would help the most desperate. It could be set up with a sliding fee scale if necessary to allow those with no income or very little income to see a doctor free up to the regular fees to those with a higher income. Prescription costs for vital medicines for children should be free.

And along with a health care system, it should also involve preventative medicine. There should be more access to fitness centers where even the poor can get in some exercise. There should be provision to help families who cannot afford essential fruits and vegetables to obtain them.

Food Standards

There should be stricter standards on the foods we are allowed to sell in stores because part of the health problems rest on the dyes, chemicals, artificial products, corn syrups and other perverted sugars, perverted forms of fat, and other dangerous artifacts added to make a cheap product. Long term, this is what will kill us all and to feed them to children is allowing them to go to an early grave.

There is no proof one way or another that genetically modified food is dangerous. It allows food that can grow bigger, stronger and resistant to disease and insects. I think more research should be done in this field to satisfy the question of the long term nature of this proceedure. While it may be good in the short run, we do not know if this could backfire in a very serious way in the future.

The abysmal things we do to the animals we raise for food is also an issue of concern. The so-called Mad Cow disease came about basically by feeding vegetarian animals dead cow flesh. So wrong on so many different levels! We do that in the United States and have not had this happen here...yet. We pump them with steriods, antibiotics, and other unnatural chemicals while we keep them in cramped quarters in miserable conditions in order to maximize the profit potential and bring cheap meat into the market. The meat may be cheap, but it comes with a price to our health and especially the health of the children.

Day Care/After School Programmes

Not every family has the luxury of having one parent stay at home to watch the children. If most employers would pay a decent living wage, even a single parent could be able to work just one job and afford day care at the same time. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

Some have figured out the black hole in a two parent family. Unless both parents are working jobs paying more than $15 per hour and have one or more children, they cannot afford to have one parent go in the workforce OR both parents could work with one or both of them working two or more jobs to make ends meet. Often it costs more for the other parent to go to work which defeats the point in working outside the home.

A single parent does not even have that luxury to entertain the notion of always being home for the children if they must work.

I think businesses should be encouraged with tax breaks, government contracts, and special perks for paying decent wages and benefits to their employees. Forget about corporate welfare for companies that use it for the CEOs and stockholders to use in their profit margin or to take jobs out of the country. Give this money instead to the businesses that truly love the country and the people who live in it. Give it to those who value their workers and their customers.

There should be more grants and loans for those wanting to start their own businesses, especially for single parents who may want to start a job they can do at home where they can be with the kids when they need them. Give these grants and loans to business minded people who want to create more local jobs which can hire people in the area who wish to be close to their home and families.

If more people could work decent jobs with decent wages, the problems with over inflated daycare cost would be decreased.

Violence And Outreach

Our society glorifies violence. This is wrong. People tend to act out more and it is considered socially acceptable. Movie and sports stars will get lots of press when they break out in a fit of violence sometimes with a pat on the back or with a slap on the wrist. The news covers so many paranoid stories without all the facts and whips people into a fear based frenzy. Is it a wonder that kids pick up on the fact that the world is not a safe place and violence is an okay way to vent your frustration?

Guns are not the problem. Video games and movies are not the problem. The problem is the embedded attitude that violence is cool. As with the anti-smoking campaign which has reduced the image of the smoker from being cool to being a social outcast, the same needs to be done with violence. It is not acceptable to vent out your rage on others. Children see this and imitate this as normal.

When children pick up these habits, they often get in trouble or become bullies. No one seems to take it seriously. Even if the parents beg authorities or government agencies to intervene, nothing will be done unless the child breaks a serious law and then there is no going back. They will not do something to prevent the child from getting to that point. This is wrong.

There needs to be a campaign against violence. Violence and rage are not cool. It is dangerous and socially unacceptable. We should not praise those or look the other way when people do such things. They should be called on their behaviour and made to see how foolish it is. If the children could see that those who participate in such actions get mocked instead of praised, perhaps they will think twice about venting their rage.

School Prayers

I strongly believe in the seperation of church and state. A public school is not a church, but an entity that is run and funded by the local and federal government and through taxpayers' money. It is not the job of such an institution to enforce or strongly favour any particular religion which is what having a school prayer would do.

That being said, I also strongly believe in freedom of religion. Just because one is not in church does not mean they must stop being religious and that includes being at school. While I would be fully against a school endorsed mandatory prayer during class time, I see no objection to students who wish to come together with or without a teacher or pastor when class is not in session on a voluntary basis. Let the Christians, Jews, Muslims, and any other religious group be able to express their religious freedoms, but do not enforce it or make it mandatory for the rest who do not wish to participate.

Pledge of Allegiance

I know some people are getting bent out of shape over the very nature of the pledge. It seems like a bad 50s conformist code forced upon the masses to prove oneself to be an American. The words "one nation under God" were not originally in this pledge, but added to verify that all Americans are in fact different from those godless Communists. So if you wanted to be considered an American and not a Pinko, you were wanting to be under this nation of God, implying a Christian god really.

There are other arguments to saying it other than the "under God" part. Others object to the fact that the nation was started where all states were more independent of the big nation and could seceed at anytime until the Civil War made that impossible. Still others object that this nation does not grant liberty and justice for all. While others still object to saying a loyalty pledge on the principle that they have nothing to prove to anyone. Should one be forced or even pressured to say a loyalty oath as part of a daily school routine?

There used to be a time for a few decades when both the Pledge and a prayer was the way to start off the school morning. The prayer was always of the Christian variety which would exclude anyone not of the faith who were forced to participate in a state run religious ritual. The Pledge was also considered a religious ritual with the added words, "under God."

I do not wish to say it myself. My children have come to their own conclusion that they would rather not say it. Most of their friends think it is a pretty stupid waste of time even if they don't see the full impact of why because to them it is just something boring they have to do.

Even if those words were taken out and it went back to the original wording, I do not think we should impose loyalty oaths on children who do not actually understand what they are saying. It is a subtle form of patriotic brainwashing and I think it should be eliminated from elementary and high schools.

Sex Education

I am all for teaching children to not participate in having sex until they are ready for the full realm of consequences that go with the territory. In order to teach this form of abstinence, it would require the full details about sexual intercourse, the biological functions of males and females, how one could become pregnant, the sexual diseases and the consequences of them, the emotional aspect of sex with love versus lust, and then the prevention of pregnancy and disease with an emphasis on avoiding it until they are ready for the consequences.

With a good program, it would also include more adult topics such as experimenting with an adult life. The children could get a newspaper and pretend to find a job with the teacher letting them know what job they would get and at what pay. Then they could find a place to live in the classified ad and have to create a budget on what they would live on during the month. When they get the budget together, then they could have the experimental robot babies to carry around and have to care for during a month so they could get a picture of what it means to become a parent.

In addition, they should be allowed to talk to people who have had sexual diseases and AIDS to see first hand the consequences of unprotected sex.

The final judgement as to whether a child will have sex or not is more of a result of what the parents teach. Morality is the parent's job, not the school's. The school can only educate to guide the children with all options available while the parent can guide the child in what is expected from them.

Evolution Versus Intellegent Design

Intellegent Design is a cover for teaching the Biblical account of creation under the guise of being a real science. No matter what it is called, it still is not science and in no way belongs in a science class. For those who strongly believe in teaching Intellegent Design, really ask yourself honestly what are your motives. There is a religious group that believes in Intellegent Design. They believe aliens from another planet formed life on our Earth. They take it just as seriously as Christians, Jews and Muslims take the Adam and Eve story. Is this version of Intellegent Design also acceptable or is it really just a cover to introduce a religious bias within a science class? There is no scientific basis on which to use a Biblical story. Evolution is a scientific theory which follows all the rules of scientific proceedure. There IS a difference.

Education

Teachers are doing the best they can, but are often underpaid and unappreciated for all they have to do. In areas where people are wealthy and pay a higher property tax, such schools in those districts can have the best of everything to make a better education possible. Not all areas are so lucky. The bussing issue only masks the deeper problem that only putting a handful of lucky students in a better school will never make up for the ones permanently left behind.

The schools that need the most help are in the poor areas. The No Child Left Behind sounds great in theory, but in practice is severely lacking. It punishes schools that cannot acheive the standards set out before it and if it fails to meet those standards then funding is cut. A school that is already bad off cannot afford to have more funds cut. They will have enough trouble trying to reach those goals due to decades of being behind the standards and not enough help to get them up to meet the goals. It becomes a sinister way to punish poor schools and shut them down while making the school voucher programme become a more viable option to allow more kids to go to private and religious schools for the same money that could have been used to just improve the school in the first place.

School buildings which are old either need to be repaired or rebuilt. There needs to be programmes to encourage people in college to pursue a teaching career. Teachers need to be paid more and better teachers even more. School books should be current and at least made within the last few years. School libraries should be expanded with more book choices and access to computers. The reading and math should be drilled into the children on every single grade level. If a child cannot perform reading or math at their grade level, they should be kept back or allowed to go to summer school to catch up.

Classrooms need to be split up like it used to be with the advanced level kids in one class, the average kids in another class, the below average kids in another class, and the troublemakers in yet another class so all students can perform at their proper level. It has been a bad experiment to mix the students up. The slower kids are not really being encouraged to be smarter by the mere fact of being in the same class, but are often intimidated and less likely to want to try. The smarter kids are often the target of ridicule and tend to act dumb and not live to their full potential. School is supposed to be for learning the skills they will need as adults and a politically correct system is only dragging everyone behind. Let the kids learn social behaviour on the playground, at lunch, during classes such as Physical Education, Music and Art.

I will comment more later on the things I stand for, but for now, I leave it at this.

AAA Resources For Information And Entertainment

The Democratic Party - Where's The Love?

2005-10-18T12:55:00.000Z

I found it quite irritating when I began vocally airing my opinions against George W Bush that those on the Right automatically clumped me in the same camp with the Dems and all the Left. Up until the point where Bush ran against Gore, I have never voted for a Democrat. Why did I vote for Gore instead of Bush?

I didn't have much faith in the Independents who were running. Bush failed the test for me when he was asked who were the leaders of Mexico and Canada and could not answer it nor showed any intellectual curiosity in the answer. The only saving grace for Gore was he had experience as a Vice President and perhaps would try and do the right thing.

What failed Gore is what also failed Kerry. It is the issue that has sunk the Democratic Party while the Republicans have taken over. It is something that goes far beyond just the politicians themselves, but also the typical Democratic voter. That thing is lack of definition.

Since the late 70s and the development of the Christian Coalition through people like Falwell and others with a strong faith were looking for a political party that would reflect their values. They found it in a Conservative Republican party that was more about the business of running a country than the Liberal Democrats that were more about the social issues which many bordered on things these groups found offensive.

As the Evangelicals were growing in numbers and becoming more vocal, it was a natural thing for the Republican Party to embrace the so-called family values of a group of people who are organized and faithful voters. To ignore such a demographic would be political suicide, so the Republicans went hand in hand with the Religious Right and the label became synonymous to the point where the media painted those in the Republican Party as real Christians and those not in that party as something worse.

Of course, the rational thinking person knows that not all in the Republican Party embrace those same Christian values and a lot of Democrats do embrace Christian values. The difference is the Republican Party allowed this group to define a purpose for what they intended to do which could rally more people behind a safe, secure vision of America that was nonthreatening to the majority of its supporters.

How did this backfire on the Democrats? While the Right was defining its purpose, the Left became a free-for-all, one size fits all agenda for every single social concern that not all within its own party could support. Then when they felt some turn away, they retracted full support over these issues hoping to get some members back into the fold while angering those they promised to help in the first place. A half-hearted campaign to try and please everyone does not work.

The Republicans took to certain issues and values and stuck with it. The Democrats tried to please everyone and in effect pleased few. You cannot be everything to everybody.

Here is one instance of the failure of the Left. If the Democrats truly were for Gay Rights, it could have done more to rally behind the cause instead of half-heartedly trying to cater to the homosexual communities. By even acknowledging they were going after this demographic, they distanced themselves from the stronger Christians in their own party who feel it is sinful and should not be accepted in society. When voters were starting to push away because of the gay issue, the politicians decided to only sort of allow gay rights only where it is convienent. They would never go on record as fully pushing for gay marriage or adoption rights because it would scare off too many people, but because they failed to take a positive stand one way or another, the Republicans saw this fatal flaw and backed them into a corner over this issue.

Here is another issue, corporate welfare and pork projects. While the Dems are famous for tax and spend, they were quick to point the finger at Republicans who were spending a lot of the tax money in giving kickbacks to rich corporate sponsors who backed their campaign and projects which only benefitted their states. Instead of taking a firm stand against this injustice, they participated in it and passively let future investigations of this wasteful spending slide. It could have been an opportunity to stand for something, but instead it was an easier out to just let things go on as usual and perhaps participate in it themselves.

And the issue that really got me steamed over the Democrats who seem to stand for nothing - they allowed the Patriot Act to be passed not only once, but twice. The first time around, they allowed themselves to be rushed through in passing it without reading what it was. The second time, they only half-heartedly thought about it, made an irritated protest and agreed to it.

Could we rely on the Democrats on the free trade arena? No. Knowing that NAFTA and CAFTA both would mean transferring jobs out of the country to give low paying jobs to people in other countries which amounts to exploiting the poor and betraying their own citizens by leaving them jobless, they did not put up much of a fight, just a hissy-fit with a few Democrats before passing it.

There is no standard definition of what it means to be a Democrat. The one size fits all party needs to pull in its reins if it wants to have a serious chance of winning. Despite the foul ups of the Republican Party as of the last few years, they still have a better chance of winning again because they have a united definition of what it means to be a Republican. This is something the Democrats do not have. Showing token support for a lot of different causes is not the same as boldly standing for something. This is why the Democrats will continue to fail. This is why they need to get together and decide where do they go from here.

The Official Site Of Callen Damornen

Bush - His Cronies, His Choices

2005-10-17T14:54:00.000Z

I'm back! Did you miss me? I just had to come out of hiding after reeling in the sickness that has overcome the leadership of the United States. It has always been bad, but now it is even so bad that the staunch Right are now seeing what they deem those of us on the Left have seen from the beginning. We all see clearly that not only is George W Bush unqualified to be President, but he is also unqualified to call himself a Republican.

A Republican, or at least a Conservative in general, believes in responsible government, fiscal responsibility, and handing out benefits towards businesses that actually make a contribution to society at large. Bush has not followed the core Conservative principles at all.

His picks for important jobs have gone to unqualifed cronies who have screwed up in their past, but by the mere fact they praise him were deemed qualified for pretty important positions. Government contracts have gone to strong supporters without allowing bids to qualified competitiors which would have saved taxpayers money and put money into the hands of the deserving. The National Debt has grown so swiftly during the past 5-1/2 years and mostly due to the war he started on false grounds. He has irresponsibly made tax cuts at a time when more revenue is needed to cover the bare necessities of the people he is supposed to watch over. He hands out government welfare to his wealthy cronies to help them take jobs out of the country and gives supports to large corporations that dole out minimum wage, part-time jobs just to say his administration is creating more jobs.

His rule is not only irresponsible, but it is immoral.

Stewart Simonson is the Bush administration's point man for a flu pandemic but he has no public health management experience. He got his job because he is a close associate of former Health & Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson.

Simonson is Assistant Secretary for Public Health Emergency Preparedness at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). His job before joining HHS was as corporate secretary and counsel for Amtrak when Thompson was chief of the rail service. Prior to Amtrak, Simonson was staff lawyer for Thompson when he was governor of Wisconsin. In short, he is not qualified for a public health job that hundreds of millions of people are counting on.

Harriet Miers, from all accounts, is a gracious lady who has spent decades in the law and served ably as Bushâ€™s lawyer in Texas and, for a year, as White House counsel. But her qualifications for the Supreme Court are non-existent. She is not a brilliant jurist and has never been a judge. She is not a scholar of the law. She has not had a brilliant career in politics, the academy, the corporate world or public forum. Were she not a friend of Bush, and female, she would never have even been considered.

Michael D. Brown was nominated by President George W. Bush as the first Under Secretary of Emergency Preparedness and Response in the newly created Department of Homeland Security in January 2003. This department was created in response to handling emergency situations after the New York incident on September 11 2001.

Mr. Brown holds a bachelor's degree in Public Administration/Political Science from Central State University, Oklahoma. He received his J.D. from Oklahoma City Universityâ€™s School of Law.

After Hurricane Katrina, President Bush, initially praised him saying "you're doing a heck of a job, Brownie", but later deflected questions about the resignation, except to deny having discussed the resignation with him.

Before joining the DHS/FEMA, Brown was the Judges and Stewards Commissioner for the International Arabian Horse Association from 1989-2001. Numerous lawsuits were filed against the organization over disciplinary actions and Brown was forced to resign. Some members interviewed felt Brown showed an imperious attitude, and nicknamed him "The Czar."

John Robert Bolton was nominated by President George W. Bush to become the Ambassador to the UN on March 7, 2005. His nomination had been the subject of a prolonged filibuster in the United States Senate by Democrats. President Bush used a recess appointment to install Bolton as Ambassador to the UN. This recess appointment will last until a new Congress convenes in January 2007.

Bolton is the rightwing's leading declaimer of the United Nations. He once said, "If the UN Secretariat building in New York lost ten stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference." And when the Bush administration failed to persuade the UN to back its war in Iraq, Bolton observed that was "further evidence to many why nothing should be paid to the UN system."

Bolton has vocally decried the UN for years. Of course the UN has flaws and is in grave need of reform, but what message do we convey to the world when we send the UN someone who has called for total defunding of the institution? The rest of the world already thought the people of the US were arrogant, but to place such a man who thumbs his nose at the rest of the world in a position that requires diplomacy is beyond just a big mistake.

And we cannot forget about those big no-bid contracts made to Haliburton and other Bush supporting firms to profit on the messes left behind by his rule. He mangles Iraq and his cronies profit while doing a half-hearted job at rebuilding the country. Such spots could have been better filled by local Iraqi contractors who know their own people and could hire people in need of jobs. His crony botches the emergency efforts during Katrina and his cronies get lots of money in contracts to rebuild the city with the permission to pay below the normal wages. These spots could have been given to local contrators who could really use the money to rebuild their towns while giving the local citizens much needed jobs at a decent wage. Can you tell me this behaviour on Bush's part is not immoral?

I really feel for those who lent their support and praise for Bush over the past few years where they were blinded by his faults to see the truths we all saw before. I'm not even saying the Republican Party is not a good choice of government because they have some very qualifed people with real values who would have made a better choice such as John McCain or Bob Dole. If either were running against John Kerry, I surely would have voted for either instead. At this point, I would rather have Pat Buchanan in office than George W Bush.

Why not a Democrat? The last election it was more about the lesser of two evils. The problem I had with Kerry and the Democratic Party in general is there is no real definition of what is the agenda of the party. It is a party that fails to make a real stand on any particular issue and panders half-heartedly to a lot of little issues instead of uniting everyone on a big picture. It has been said, and I find it true, "The Republicans are a party of bad ideas and the Democrats are a party of no ideas."

Need to shop? Visit Carefree Mall

Am I Supposed To Buy This?

2005-09-16T12:45:00.000Z

I thought perhaps I could take a little vacation from blogging, but a story came up in the news that I cannot ignore. The more I hear it, the angrier it makes me.

I can already hear the response of the critics before I write this piece, but someone has to say it. It certainly is not being said by the major media.

George W Bush FINALLY accepted responsibility for the ineffective leadership of a branch under his control and vowed to do what it takes to fix the problem. He admitted to the existence of the underclass with strong roots of racism keeping certain people behind.

Call me a cynic. I am. When Bush was running for office in the beginning, he did not know nor did he even display an intellectual curiosity to find out who the leaders were of Canada and Mexico. On those grounds alone I did not think he was the best material to be the leader of our own country.

How exactly did he get in the first time around? Let me see...there seemed to be a question in Florida when DISENFRANCHISED AFRICAN-AMERICAN VOTERS were brushed aside and NEVER been acknowledge of this offense to their civil rights. Now Bush wants to suddenly appear sympathetic with the poverty amassed upon the minority populations?

What has been his track record with issues affecting African-Americans and other minority citizens? When it comes to education and the so-called "No Child Left Behind" programme as well as strongly favouring vouchers for children to go to private and religious schools, his plan was never taking into consideration the needs of some of the poorest and most disadvantaged schools of the nation. If they failed to do well, funding would be cut. Schools that were already underfunded, understaffed, and ill-prepared were not getting assistance in advance to catch up to the level of acceptance and set to fail for help from the plan.

Let's see, how many times has Bush met with NAACP? How about at least during the time of election? What about meeting with ANY minority group that is not a Republican based organization? I think his record goes to show how much he REALLY cares about how the racial issues affect the poverty.

And about the poverty itself...how much does he REALLY care? Tax cuts to the rich, breaks to companies to ship well paying jobs to other countries, welfare-to-work, cut in socio-economic programs to give the poor access to food, housing and health care... I could go on, but I deflect on it for now.

Now, why exactly is he taking the blame for this one? There were many people at fault for this malfunction of action. On the Federal level, he was just the ring leader to this circus show. He cut the funds needed to repair the levee in New Orleans which led to the massive flooding problem that killed many people. With all the tax breaks for the rich, there was not enough money in circulation to help with such problems.

It also did not help that, and I know you on the Right probably do not want to hear it again, he started a war based on lies!!! Yes, it is too late to undo the damage that has been done. We cannot undo a war and the damage we have created in Iraq nor the damage of the US reputation around the world and to make our citizens and the citizens of Iraq more in danger from the terrorists, but doesn't there come a point where Bush can just admit he missed the mark here?

What happened in the Deep South was tragic. What happened in Iraq was even more massive. If Bush had acted wisely, he would have finished up in Afghanistan, found Osama and brought all troops back home without picking on Iraq. There were truly more serious threats around the world and more evil dictators who were doing worse to their people than Saddam.

By butting into this problem, we have destabilized a stable government, both here and in Iraq. And in the process of no bid contracts, the rich buddies of Bush and Cheney won the rights to rebuild and make lots of money from the tragedy they created...Just like in New Orleans.

Where exactly is this liberal media? I stand somewhere in the middle of the Left and Right and I can't even keep quiet about this. Why exactly is the media not jumping all over this if it is indeed so liberal? Why is he getting praise for taking responsibility now when his inaction made this situation worse than it had to be due to his coming into office over 4 years ago?

My prediction...time will pass. Bigger stories will becloud what happened with the hurricane. Financial issues will deflect the promised funds and aid to those who needed it the most. Victims will be cheated out of the promised aid and asked to pay it back because the government will realize they can't afford to do this. This issue will be buried until the 2008 elections and if Bush has not changed his tune in regards to the matters of the poor and oppressed in our own country, the Republican party will not make it for the next Presidential elections and to fill seats in the House and Senate when those are up for grabs.

It is just my opinion, but I think there needs to be a clean sweep of the government. I think everyone serving should be voted out. What a feckless bunch!

AAA Resources For Information And Entertainment

Hurricane Katrina Part II - Who's To Blame

2005-09-10T12:07:00.000Z

It's pathetic, but everyone who said now is not the time to play the blame game is doing just that. As predictable as our society can be, the blame game goes very much along political lines without both sides really listening to the complaints of the others.

Actually, there is a lot of blame going around. Some of it is right on target while other blame is misplaced or put upon certain groups too harshly. Just where does this blame belong?

The Federal Level

When private charitable and business organizations can give humanitarian aid better than our own federal government, one must start to really question why are we paying taxing? Sure the Bush Administration is all about the tax cuts to the wealthy Americans without thinking about the real life consequences on what it does to the 95% who are not among the wealthy class. A small percentage of the non-wealthy class is getting by comfortably while everyone else is barely getting by or not at all, yet this Administration argues all these tax cuts were designed to benefit all Americans. How?

The National Debt has grown immensely during the Bush years in part of 9/11 and in part of his inept manner of handling the economy. In theory, the tax cuts were designed to get the wealthy business people to create more jobs to make sure the poor would have the work so he could further make cuts to welfare and benefits for the poor. How did it work in reality, as opposed to on paper because people do not live on paper?

The well paying jobs have been exported overseas due to government encouragements and kick-backs to take these jobs out of our country and into places where they can get away with paying a sub-standard wage. Big corporations have indeed created lots of new jobs within the United States because of the tax breaks...McDonald's, Wal-Mart, K-Mart, and other service industries have created many job opportunities within their companies. Unfortunately, most of these are part time, without benefits, and very close to minimum wage. With the welfare to work programs, this means the poor people now have the option to work for barely minimum wage for a little bit of government assistance while spending more money than they have on daycare for children and other expenses related to working a job while benefits of health care, housing, and food are cut drastically.

What does this have to do with their fault of the hurricane? It is to show their lack of compassion and humanity to the lower classes of people. It has been a repeated pattern within this Administration. They do not concern themselves with things not in their own agenda's best interests. Unless it affects them directly, they do not care.

The state of Louisiana knew they were in trouble. They had a large amount of poor people who could not pay out the kinds of taxes needed to keep up with something that seemed insignificant to the Federal Government - repair of the aging dikes, levees, and pumps. It has been known for quite some time that a sustained category 3 hurricane or even a brief 4 or 5 hurricane would completely overwhelm the system causing a calamity. They asked for help, but instead of raising needed funds from the Federal level, the Feds cut funds.

This is what created the most dangerous part of the disaster. The hurricane was massively bad on its own, but neglect of the systems designed to control the flow of the water is what killed a lot more people who were stuck there. Had the government took more control over what was actually happening on our homeland instead of destroying the infrastructures of another country, perhaps they would have been able to oversee such details before it was too late. Fixing the problem would have been less expensive than trying to repair a whole city.

The Federal level blame game goes as far as blaming the poor people who chose to stay during the storm for putting themselves in harm's way. It is a Federal level problem why there are so many poor people. Without enough money pumped into the educational systems, or jobs, or housing, you get a poor class without the resources needed to dig themselves out of the hole they are in. It becomes a vicious cycle that lasts many generations. After awhile, people lose hope that things will ever get better and believe they live in a country that does not represent them nor care about their needs.

The hurricane proved their fears. When they were crying out for help, the Federal government dragged their feet. When journalists, private charity groups, and brave individual people like Sean Penn could roll up their sleeves and lend a hand on a drop of a dime, why could our own government not do the same?

And why should the Federal government insist on forcing people out of their homes which went relatively undamaged to become a burden on the system and displace others who truly are in need? There are self-sufficient people in parts of New Orleans who have a lot to lose if they leave. They are not in any immediate danger and are willing to get by with limited power, phone service and to boil their water. Why should they be displaced into shelters and become a burden to the already overcrowded system against their will?

The State/City government Level

Louisiana is known for its corrupt government. Everyone knows that New Orleans during Mardi Gras can be a very dangerous place to walk alone on the streets. There have been reports of kickbacks and bribery and nepotism among the state and local governments as well as mishandling of the budget and an ineffective police force.

Why should anyone raise an eyebrow when people want to point the fingers at them? After all, when they saw they were in serious danger, they did cry for help from the Federal government only to be ignored. The fault with them is what happened BEFORE the hurricane.

True, there was not enough money to be generated from the income of the citizens to fix the levee and pumps. They knew before the storm a hurricane of that size would virtually destroy the city. They had a few days notice that this brewing category 3 was turning into a vicious 5 while waiting out in the gulf. They had a few days to enact a plan of evacuation, but the problem is they did not have a very good plan of evacuation.

The roads were so crowded with people trying to leave that many gave up trying to leave and chose a shelter instead. Gas stations closed up early because they ran out of gas from the people trying to leave and those with no gas had no other choice but to stay. Some of the citizens were lucky to get through the mess of leaving while many others could not even think about embarking on such a journey in the first place. Why? Again, because they were poor and many lacked the means to access transportation out of the city.

A sufficient evacuation plan should have taken the poor into account as well as all other citizens. An emergency plan should have been rehearsed, or at least published and be made well known way before a disaster took place. People could have gotten out of the city faster if there were less people crowding the highways in individual cars and the city could manage buses to carry a lot more people out at a time with less space occupying the highway. There should have been many access points to catch a bus out of town to go to specific shelters in a safe zone which would have kept more families together. The hospitals should have been a high priority to evacuate first followed by nursing homes. And for the places within the city destined to be the last resort shelter should have been stocked for food, water and medical supplies as well as a team of law enforcement and medical workers to help with the crowd.

If the state/local government were really on the ball, they could have done a lot to prevent a bad situation leading to such a tragic circumstance. It was a lack of emergency planning that made a bad situation worse.

The People Themselves

Outsiders do not understand something about people who live on the East Coast and Gulf, they deal with the threat of hurricanes all the time. They are bombarded with so many scare news stories that when the news cried "wolf" one time too many and some blew off the warning to leave.

When people are accustomed to waiting out a storm and become immune to constant reports of danger, is it surprising they discounted warnings to leave the area, especially when the roads were too crowded to move anywhere and gas stations were closing up when running out of gas?

Of course, not everyone was even in a position to leave. Some had to make use of the local emergency shelter. Most tried to make the best out of a bad situation, but there was a criminal element among them that took advantage of the situation by raping and robbing people. When no help was coming fast enough, even the good people went into a panic mode instead of keeping calm. Thus the people engaged in looting what they could to survive while others just pillaged the town because they were angry for being forgotten.

Global Warming

There have been scientists stating the category 5 hurricane is a direct result of global warming. Had it not been for this condition in our atmosphere, the hurricane would have been a lot milder in nature. As the hurricane spawns and gathers its force from warm water, global warming has created a pool of very warm waters which are creating more and more hurricanes and a lot more powerful ones than in the past.

Many take global warming as a proven scientific fact not to be questioned. Others discount it as fluff science. Still, there is a point in between the two grounds. While the overall effects of global warming is more sensationalism than proven, there is cause for concern over what is being done to our environment.

Some will blame the government for global warming. It allows big corporations to get away with polluting in order to create more profits. They do very little with any form of initiative to create alternative energy sources. It relies too much on fossil fuels and coal without considering solar, wind or water power.

The government is not alone in this blame. It is the responsibility of everyone to conserve where they can. Why drive around in big SUVs or even worse, the Hummer? It pollutes the air and depends on too much fossil fuel. As a people, we do not make good use of the resources we have and waste it without a thought. Why not turn of the lights or televisions or other electric appliances that are not in use? Recycling now is too expensive because there is no key model on how to run a program efficiently. Other countries do it successfully, but in the United States it creates a monetary loss situation to handle the program.

While we, the people, have to own up to some of the problems with the global warming situation, our government should take the lead in doing something about it. We need to act now because when the atmosphere becomes so toxic, it will be too late to do anything about it when it is killing us all.

UCPFUL Ministries

The Failure Of The US Government

2005-09-07T14:18:00.000Z

Before you get all up in arms without reading this, let me tell you upfront that this is not about Left vs Right or Democrat vs Republican. This is about the general failure overall that needs to be corrected now.

The United States has become a country divided far too long. Turning people against each other over issues that really don't matter while clouding over things that are really important has led to the mess we have now.

It is great the people can reach out to others in time of emergencies. US citizens are reknown for this. We will go to great lengths to help others in need. The problem is where was the government when all this was happening? People, the average citizen, can only do and give so much.

Forget about what side you were on over the war in Iraq for the moment. Consider this -- the National Guard has a duty to serve the country where the need is greatest. They were never meant to do the heavy duty fighting in lands overseas, but to defend our actual shorelines. If trouble were to happen on US soil, they were the ones to fight those battles. Instead, they were far away from home. They were dying off by sensless attacks. And with them went a lot of the helicopters and emergency vehicles which could have been used in this recent emergency. This tragedy has exposed a dangerous loophole in US security.

What if another 911 happened at the time of Katrina? I am thankful it didn't happen, but I cannot rest too comfortably in the fact that our government's emergency response, FEMA, could barely cope with the hurricane and our National Guard has mostly been overseas. A terrorist could have easily taken advantage of that bad situation and made things much worse because we had no way of coping with anything more. We can barely handle it now. If we are attacked any time soon, how would we cope?

What is disturbing is reports of how average citizen volunteers were turned away from going to New Orleans to help in the rescue efforts. How trucks of water from Wal-Mart were also turned away. How ships carrying extra disel feul were turned away. How a group of college students had to fake media credentials to get into the area to save people and drove into town. All this because FEMA would not let anyone without a press pass into the area. How is it the media could come and go, but the buses were not allowed in to take people out quicker?

While the people have been great in dealing with the situation as best they can, the government has not. Before another crisis develops, I hope they can get their act together. There will be more hurricanes and other natural disasters that will reek havoc on the land. If we cannot get past this one, how will we deal with the next one? And of course, what if there is a security breech during this time?

It is time to put partisan issues aside and work to fix the broken system.

Church of UCPFUL

A Farewell To Gilligan

2005-09-07T14:08:00.000Z

Among the big news of Hurricane Katrina and a typhoon that hit Japan, one of the stories that got buried was the passing on of an Americana icon - Bob Denver.

He was better known as Gilligan from the 1960s television show Gilligan's Island where he played the sweet, lovebale, dim-witted first mate to the Skipper while stranded with 5 other passengers on a deserted island somewhere in the Pacific.

He also played a bit part on The Andy Griffith Show and recurring character Maynard G. Krebs on Dobie Gillis. He was seen a few times on The Love Boat, Love American Style and Fantasy Island. However, most of his television appearances were cameos of him playing himself.

In August of 1998, Denver pleaded no contest to misdemeanor charges of possessing marijuana and was sentenced to six months' unsupervised probation. He was, otherwise, a model citizen.

Bob Denver had surgery earlier this year on his heart. He never really recovered.

May he rest in peace.

AAA Resources For Information And Entertainment

The Hurricane

2005-09-04T15:38:00.000Z

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, have we learned any lessons?

I watched a report on the BBC news with a professor clucking his tongue and wagging his finger at Americans during this time of tragedy. He said all these poor people who were starving and in need of food, water and medical attention were more concerned about looting goods such as television sets in an atmosphere where they cannot use it nor carry it to safety. He said this is typical of American self-centeredness and we have our priorites screwed up and should worry about our own "third world" country in the South before we try to interfere with other countries.

While part of me is inclined to agree with part of his statement, I could not help but feel outrage at such a blanket condemnation of the whole society. Did he just not see what I saw? I saw churches, businesses, and individuals reach out to help those they could. People who have opened their homes up to total strangers. People lined up to donate food, money and blood.

Did he just not have a clue about how big the United States is and to reach these people at the beginning was impossible? Sure, the government could have acted a bit faster, but the neighboring states did what they could when handling the incoming refugees as well as dealing with the damage has done to its own states. It wasn't just New Orleans that was hit. The devastation was the size of the United Kingdom. The ones who were not submerged underwater could leave the area and get help. Unfortunately, there were many who did not walk away from it.

To say that Americans are all self-centered is unfair. Americans will line up and rally around people in need at a drop of the hat. They wouldn't be interfering in other parts of the world if they did not think in the beginning they were doing it to help others. The government may have hidden agendas when entering into others affairs, but the people supporting the cause are doing it for a purely humanitarian reason. The typical American is not profitting from this interference, but often are the ones laying their lives on the line and many times for no good reason, even if they were duped into it.

There was a criminal element among the suffering trapped in New Orleans. In any big city there will be a criminal element. In this particular situation, they were trapped for days without food or water. Of course those trapped in a criminal mindset were going to take advantage of the situation. This is not just a condemnation of the US, but it could happen anywhere in the world when people are desperate, think they are going to die and cut off from all forms of communication.

Yes, parts of the South are like a third world country now that it has been levelled by the storm. To compare it in normal operation to a third world country is also unfair to those who actually live in a third world country. In the United States a safety net for the poor and disadvantaged. It may not be much of one, but it is there. A third world country does not have it at all.

What we should learn from this event is no one is more powerful than the forces of nature. If something happens to these storm chasers, don't make them into heroes. This is just stupid.

Every city, especially the bigger ones, need to have and rehearse disaster plans before such incidents occur. Many could not leave New Orleans because the traffic was so backed up that no one could move. A better evacuation plan would have save a lot more lives.

Why rebuild a city that is that far below sea level? This is throwing money down the drain. The insured homes will mostly get very little money back because most policies do not cover flood and some do not cover hurricanes. Any future insurance policy will either be so expensive or non-existent. With people setting fires to their homes, fires will probably also be excluded under certain circumstances. A hurricane or a flood will happen again in this region. Due to lack of funds in the national budget, money was already cut which made the system of pumps in New Orleans ineffective to handle the overflow of water. 80% of the city is underwater now. Anything in those areas are completely ruined. With only 20% still standing and in utter chaos, one has to ask, why rebuild there?

As for the rest of the victims in the path of the storm, they will again face hurricane forces as long as they live along the coasts. They knew that when they moved there and built their homes. There is nothing to be done to stop the hurricanes from coming, but they are doing all they can to plan better evacuation techniques and setting up shelters to house people in need.

Americans, as a whole, are a good lot. We have our elements that are downright awful and some evil, but don't blanket over everyone as being the same.

The Preciousness Of A Fleeting Existence

Pat Robertson Needs To Retire

2005-08-25T13:38:00.000Z

9/11 was God's way of punishing America's gays, liberals, and feminist females.
People with Tourette's Syndrome are under demonic possession.
"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability," in reference to President Chavez' comments about the US government's attempts to assassinate him.
Robertson made suggestions that the explosion of a nuclear weapon at State Department Headquarters would be good for the country.
He agreed with sentiments that judges were fair game for violence and murder.

These are among many of the stupid comments and assertions made by Pat Robertson. I do not doubt that his comment which advocated assassination of someone was done out of frustration, but he is also a very public figure with a large audience and has a responsibilty towards them. Such comments do them no service.

As a man of the cloth, one who gets tax breaks because of his call of duty, he should not be so heavily involved in politics. Religion should not try to influence the decisions of the government which is why the First Amendment made it clear that the government was not to favour a religion of the state which is what Robertson and his people are trying to do within the government. People like Robertson and to the Left, Jesse Jackson, should choose one side or the other -- religion or politics.

As a citizen, Robertson has the right to any opinion and to voice it. As a public figure and head of his own media center, he has a responsibility to report his "news" in a fair manner. He is the ultimate pre-curser to Fox News.

He and Jerry Falwell are both getting up there in age. Jesse Jackson, too. It is time for them to go back to their calling and stand up in the pulpit to preach which is what they do best. It is also time for them to get out of the political spotlight. They do not have the pulse of America and they do not have the moral authority over everyone in the land. Not all Americans are Christians and not all Christians are Evangelical or Baptist. Stop trying to give all Americans and all Christians a bad name. You people are an embarassment.

Callen Damornen's World

The Three Sides Of The Sheehan Story

2005-08-25T11:47:00.000Z

I am so tired of the news in regards to Cindy Sheehan, but not for the same reason the media wants to box one in. There are three sides to this story given, but only 2 are shown and with very biased positions. Here is the story as I see it and the reason why I am sick of it.

Cindy Sheehan - She is a grieving mother who lost her son in the Iraq war. She, like others who grieve, is angry over the loss of her son and is venting. As an American, she has the right to protest. As a mother, she has a right to grieve in whatever way is productive to help her move on. Even if the things she believes in are somewhat to the Left, if they are tied into the Bush Administration, for which she holds responsible for her son's death, they are fair game for her venting. She should be encouraged and supported for what she is doing. She needs help in wrapping her mind around her son's death. This is Cindy's cause on behalf of her son. She needs to do this.

President Bush - If President Bush had to personally address each and every single family member of someone who died in Iraq as a direct or indirect result of the war, he would NEVER have time to do other necessary things that are part of his job. Granted, he was on vacation during this protest, but that did not mean he was any less busy with his finger on the pulse of the office. He saw her there, but had other things on his agenda. I'm sure he felt bad about her loss and the loss of so many others, but he had other things to do and as far as the war goes, there really is not much he can do about her loss because the war supposedly is almost over.

President Bush is a former drug and alcohol addict. He is doing a very stressful job as leader of the country. Anyone familiar with addicts knows they really need to do constructive and positive things to stay on the clean path. He NEEDS his vacation. Put the shoe on the other foot, if you were on vacation and your boss kept calling you about work that you never agreed to handle while you were off, wouldn't you be a little bit stubborn about it?

The President's time would be best spent in addressing ALL who have lost family members in one setting and meet with them instead of having them insist on seeing him at any time of the day. He does have other things to do, whether you want to hear that or not. Cindy Sheehan just is not high on his agenda when Iraq is close to finalizing the constitution, there are still hot spots within Iraq who could cause trouble, the trouble that could happen at any time in Gaza, the price of oil, the economy, and very many other issues here and abroad.

The Outsiders - This group includes the Left, Right and media. Let me say this to the entire group of outsiders - SHAME ON YOU!!!

The Left - It's one thing if you are supporting Cindy Sheehan in a friendly manner as one would want to give humane help to one who is hurting, but how dare you put a political spin on her hurt and anger! She may have opinions that merge with what the Left believes, but you do her no service by making her the poster child for your political platform. This is not about helping her, but helping your own cause. Unless you are there to support Cindy Sheehan as a person, a grieving mother, then leave her alone.

The Right - How dare you determine how this poor woman should or should not grieve? What gall you people have for villanizing a lady who lost her son at war! This is the same group of people who USED a poor comatose woman to further their pro-life agenda who are complaining about the Left USING a bereft mother for their cause. Then to applaud the tactics of bringing in mothers with sons in Iraq who are NOT dead as proof that most Americans are behind him is absurd because the majority are NOT behind this President, but ONLY support the troops.

The Media - You people really know how to beat an issue into the ground. This story, at best, is one of those human interest stories, the kind you devote 5-10 minutes coverage before you move on to the real news. While this whole Sheehan story was front and center, you completely blew off or under-reported several big events such as the floods in central Europe, a plane crash in South America, an earthquake,... and there's more, but since I have to watch the BBC News in order to get see what's happening in the world because you people forget to report just the facts, I don't feel the need to give you news leads.

What Do I Feel About It All

I am so happy my brother-in-law came back in one piece. I watched him grow up when I met my husband from the time he was 6. I helped him get ready for school in the mornings and watched him when he came home from school. I helped him with his homework and taught him how to read. I was there for him to take care of him when he was sick or needed help. When his mother and father were seperated, I was basically in full care of him.

Like so many other kids his age, he had no clue as to what to do when he got out of school. He did not want to go to school again because his last experience with it was less than pleasant. He knew he needed to do something different and get more out of life, so he joined the Army, just like his father did during Vietnam.

Unlike Michael Moore's portrait of a typical soldier over there, the majority of the kids sent there were in fact white suburban or Mid-Western boys who were NOT disadvantaged. They grew up with the idea that the armed forces was an option to do something with your life instead of sitting around doing nothing and going nowhere. They knew by joining they could be called on to fight at any time, regardless of how they feel about any conflict going on.

And like MANY troops serving over there, my brother-in-law thought the whole pretense of war was bogus. He was there to do a job and to stay alive. He served his time and came home. We supported him for doing what he had to do, even if we also thought the circumstances of the war was bogus.

There are a lot of our people still over there who need our love and support. Whether or not we believe in the war is a moot point. Even if a lot of us against the war or how this war was conducted believe Bush should be investigated, IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH SUPPORTING THE TROOPS AND THEIR FAMILIES!!!

If Cindy Sheehan wants to protest, let her. If George Bush wants to ignore her because he has other things to do, let him. Everyone else really needs to put this whole thing in perspective.

Editorials By Callen Damornen

Why Are People Fat

2005-08-20T22:15:00.000Z

Of course the obvious answer -- people eat more calories than they can burn off in a day. What I am getting at is how do people come to this?

An often overlooked part of the puzzle is the hideous diet, especially among the poor and disadvantaged living in a rich country. One thing that is hard to miss -- the poorer on the socio-economic level, the more you will find overweight people. Why is the diet of the poor a leading contribution to obesiety?

Good, healthy food is expensive. McDonald's is cheap.

Face it. Those with lower incomes generally do not buy organic food or higher quality food products because they are often out of their budget. At times fruit and vegetables are the last considerations on a shopping list because feeding a whole family and making sure they are full can often be done cheaper with starches and meat.

Also, many on a lower socio-economic level are usually working more than the standard 40 hour week. Some are working 2 full time jobs per person in a family, or 2 parents working one full time job and sometimes even an added on part time job. With working so hard it is easier to get a cheap takeaway than to take away time from the family fixing a proper meal.

It is easier for those on the higher end of the socio-economic ladder to wag their fingers and say, "Why don't you just save your money and cook at home?" or "Why don't you stop buying junk food and buy more healthy food?" The reality is the cost of buying a proper selection of food for a week is often the same cost of buying the junk for a month. And when you are dog tired from working menial, soul-breaking jobs, it is sometimes the time you spend with the family that gives you a reason to go on.

If people are poor enough to qualify for help from the government, at least there is the good possibility to get fresh fruits and vegetable along with a well balanced diet. However, there are a lot of working poor who do not qualify for help that often have to go without the fruit and veg.

Europeans generally do not understand why the US freely sells irridated, genetically modified, steroid injected food. Without such methods, the price of food would be too high for so many. The drawback is obvious, health risks in eating it. It is either starve or risk your health.

Not to be misunderstood, let me make it clear, people do have some personal responsibility towards their condition. There are things that can be done to cut down on the scale:

Drink more water - If you drink a full 12 ounce glass of water before a meal and another during the meal and another after the meal, you will feel full faster and be able to eliminate the meal easier.
Walk more - Even if it is just walking up the stairs instead of taking an elevator or escalator or walking to a store, school, or any place within a mile distance instead of taking a car can help.
Stand more - Periodically get up and just stand instead of sitting and vegetating.
Exercise during television - It doesn't even have to be full scale hardcore routines. Simple leg and arm exercises, use weights, do crunches all while watching the telly.
Take a vitamin and drink your fiber - If you can't eat a proper diet, at least compensate.
Avoid alcohol and any product with zero nutritional value - There are always cheap alternatives with better nutritional value. Instead of a beer or sweetened fruit drink, go for water or a glass of skim milk. Instead of a bag of potato chips [crisps] try a handful of sunflower or pumpkin seeds. If you crave sweets, make a baked apple sprinkled with cinnamon and sugar.

It's not going to make you lose 10 pounds in a week or anything ridiculous like that, but it is these little things you can do to at least keep a bad thing under control.

A Brand New Iraq - Was War Worthwhile?

2005-08-16T15:21:00.000Z

As the deadline approaches for approval of the new Iraq constitution, we await with baited breath. When they finally take the government in their own hands, our troops can start to come home. The Iraqis will finally be free to live their lives. We will all live happily ever after... at least, that's what the Bush administration wants us to believe. As a realist, I am optimistically cautious.

Make no mistakes about it, Saddam needed to go. He deserves whatever punishment is coming to him at the hands of his own people. The way we went about it was a disaster.

Saddam killed over one million of his own people. The result of two wars against Iraq to deal with Saddam have not even come close to killing that many people, but if you count the by-products of war and the sanctions, we have surpassed the death toll of Saddam when you count the injuries that became fatal, the rise of terrorism that was a direct result of the war, the disease and starvation as well as the lack of running water and electricity which made health care and sanitation next to impossible.

We have lost over 13,800 of our own troops and estimates are as high as 26,700 Iraqi civilian casualties as a direct result of our war. Over 5,300 Iraqi prisoners of war were being held by US and UK forces without the guaranteed rights due in a situation of war. [And if you don't know why this International law in regards to rules on treating POWs, just remember the same applies to treatment of our own soldiers.] As of now, the monetary cost of war is over $187,000,000 and rising.

We do not have enough troops to send over there to help the people, so it is more than necessary for us to pull out as soon as possible. We do not have the money in our budget to feed into this expensive war. We do not have the worldwide support to help in the effort that is needed. This is why it is suddenly necessary to speed things along with the democracy of Iraq when only a few months ago Bush made a stoic gesture that we would not pull out any time soon for the safety of the people nor give a date to leave as it would send the wrong message to the terrorists.

This is not a concession to say the terrorists have won. They have not. They have much worldwide heat on these organizations who will not tolerate such behaviour. In the end, they will be hunted down like dogs. They will spend their lives looking over their shoulders. Yes, they will succeed in killing innocent people, but as more people are aware of these groups, the number of successful missions will be greatly reduced.

So, at the expense of a lot of lost lives, a destroyed country of Iraq, and a ruined American economy, the Iraqi people now have "freedom". I am not against them having freedom, but it was gone about in the wrong way. There's nothing that can be done about what has already taken place. We all must face the consequences of what has already been done and move on from here.

There are so many vicious dictators and genocidal maniacs around the world. I hope we have learned an important lesson about just rushing in without common sense. We have far more dangerous threats closer to the United States that should have been dealt with, or at least acknowledged. Until the US borders are secure, the immigrations standards have been tightened, and the nations around us are at peace and have their needs met, there will always be the chance the new terrorist cells will grow in the neighboring countries who have nothing else going for them -- think Haiti, Jamaica, and Cuba for starters, all close enough to launch an attack by remote or to cross by boat. Why are we more concerned with the Middle East when there is trouble brewing in our own backyard?

Callen Damornen's World

The Gaza Pullout Nightmare

2005-08-16T14:53:00.000Z

Obviously there are a lot of emotions running high in the Palestine/Israel area lately because of the orders sent to the settlers to vacate the area. Being served with eviction notices by their own fellow countrymen is not a pleasant task on either end. There is more to the story than meets the eye.

According to the settlers in the area, this is a grave injustice being served upon them. Looking at it from the point of view of the people being evicted, you can understand why they are upset. No one likes to be kicked out of their home. It happens all the time, somewhere in the world someone is being evicted out of a place they have come to call home. To have the police, their fellow countryment, serve them with papers and orders to follow to have their belongings forced out of the property and lock up. Being evicted under normal circumstances is not a pleasant task for the people being evicted nor for the ones who must carry out the orders.

These settlers have lived in the area for over the last 40 years. They have their roots to the land. A few generations have had time to grow up there. Some have never before left the area. To be told to get out is outrageous, in their minds. They have broken no laws. They paid their dues. They worked hard to get these homes and acquire the property. They had no say in this decision to turn over their homes and it is highly unfair.

At least, that's how they see it.

When I lived in Chicago, I was always floored by people who moved to Bensonville, a suburb in the Northwest, who complained about the noise from the airport. When they moved into the area, they knew there was an airport nearby. What did they think would happen?

When these settlers moved into the Gaza strip area, they knew it was a disputed territory. The dispute had never been resolved while they were living there. It should have occured, somewhere in the back of their minds, that perhaps one day the dispute would be settled and it just might not be the way they wanted.

As Ariel Sharon stepped into office, he was on a platform of not negotiating with the terrorist groups such as Hamas. Back then, Arafat was still very much alive and in control of the direction of these terrorist organizations. When he stepped into office, his decisions were based upon the circumstances at the time. Times have changed and so must his policy.

There has been so much bloodshed, so much loss of innocent lives on both sides. Isn't it time that concessions be made for the sake of future generations? If it means sacrificing one area of land and acknowledging the rights of Palestinians just to have security to the Israeli people, isn't it worth it? It seems as if these Gaza residents do not care about the overall big picture and do not want to give up their "property" for the cause.

Of course, there is a growing concern among some in the Israeli camps. What if it does not stop there? What if they want more? What about those among the Palestinians who just do not want to live next to the Israelis at all who would rather see them all dead? Is giving up this land surrendering to an enemy that wants to take it all away?

Both Palestinians and Israelis see this area as their God given right. Both sides have suffered abuse and genocide and have had to put their plea to a worldwide audience. Both sides have committed war crimes, genocide and general acts of terrorism against each other. Neither side has the moral superiority on this issue.

As an American, I can appreciate the difficulty of the situation. What if one day the Natives wanted to reclaim the land and boot out all the Americans? What if the world was on their side as they claimed it was their God given right to the land and site the abuses, the genocide, and the broken treaties before a world counsel to gain sympathy for their cause? One day, the world could come together and order all Americans off the land and return it to their owners. We would have a similar reaction here.

I wish those departing from their homes well. I hope there will finally come a day of peace in the entire region. In the words of Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?"

Ministry of Get A Miracle

UK To Kick Out Threats

2005-08-11T15:48:00.000Z

Maybe it's that American in me that looks at this and think, "Bravo!" A part of me has a full open jaw over the reaction of the UK human rights activists who object to it because they may face torture when they come back home. Then I am reminded, do we really want to stoop to the same level of the ones we want to follow us by example.

Face it, those who advocate killing, maiming, and torturing citizens in a country to which they are only visitors and have no alligience to the government have no business being there. There is a big difference in disagreeing with the way your government being run and those who advocate killing innocent people in defiance of how a government is running. These people flagged for deportation fall in the later category. There is no love for the country nor respect for the people who live there. They would delight in seeing them all dead. They would enjoy torturing helpless victims. This is more than a difference of opinion. They are strongly advocating people to commit acts of war against the citizens in the place he lives. Why should the people have mercy on those individuals? Why should they not return to their country?

Human rights advocates tell us that the countries where these people will return will never honour the agreements made. They are known to torture and execute their undesirables without a fair trial or even without a fair amount of evidence against them. One could just merely rub an official the wrong way and have trumped up charges lead to their execution. Should these men return, there is no certain guarantee they will remain safe. They fled from their countries for political reasons and to return could mean retaliation. Despite making an agreement not to harm these men to be released into their homeland custody, the worry is their fate will be more dubious than those left to rot in Guantanamo Bay.

Then again, one has to wonder. If they were kicked out of their country and graciously allowed freedom and safety in a new one, why would you rock the boat? Why would you speak against the country that took you in and saved your life? Why would you commit treason against the ones who helped you when you needed it?

In the United States, there are traitorous people who do advocate violence against citizens and hope to see the government overthrown, but we do nothing about them. We do not even acknowledge the problem because they are a threat to only a certain faction of society and not the majority. I'm talking about our racist and religious terrorist organizations who talk of the glamour of killing those deemed unworthy of living in the same country. It is these same people who have no problem in talking about legitimate ways to make the government topple because of what they view as a corrupt system. They advocate violence against their government and own people due to their agenda. Tim McVeigh and others who are in the spotlight are not the only ones who are true terrorists in our own country, but we do have a problem with it -- they are American citizens. Like McVeigh, they have to cross the line and take action before something can be done to them, in his case, he was executed. We don't just lock up these terrorists for advocating traitorous acts against the country.

While the government has no problem in locking up foreigners or people with brown skin, they do have issues with locking up a white man for terrorism. Besides, we can't just send them to another country, they are our problem. We have to learn to deal with them.

In some ways, the human rights advocates are pretty much saying the same thing to the Britons. These people have lived among you for so long and have enjoyed their freedom of expression. Perhaps the UK will have to figure out ways to deal with them so as to not sink to the level of the other countries.

AAA Resources For Information And Entertainment

Call Him What He Is - King George Bush

2005-08-01T16:27:00.000Z

The hypocrisy of the strong majority of the Republican party in the US has really gone on too long. Why pretend it is something called a democracy? It isn't even a republic. The United States is run by the monarchy of George W Bush and his circle of neocons.

Here we are preaching to the world the wonders of democracy, the freedom of people to decide their fate. We love this freedom called democracy so much that we force it on the rest of the world whether they want it or not. We make them play by our rules, install our approved leaders into their regimes and let the people think they made that choice. Why should our position be any different at home?

It really does not matter what the people of the US want, it is what is good for the neocons period. Bush has a long history of owing favours to many powerful and wealthy groups, businesses and people while he was getting started in his adult life. Now it is time for his friends to call in their favours at the expense of the people he is supposed to represent.

John Bolton, one of the most disputed men put up for a position, was appointed as the UN representative for the US. Bush knew how people felt. He knew there would be a long debate before he could be approved, if at all. That didn't matter. He wanted Bolton in - no matter what the people wanted. He decided to forgo the democratic process of an up/down vote to get him approved on the chance that he might not get in. How did he do it? He waited until Congress went into recess and made the appointment behind all of our backs.

Should we be surprised when the US Patriot Act part II gets passed when the first one was passed by preparing the papers by the secrecy of the night? Should we be surprised this group of representatives bowed down to worship King Bush and passed CAFTA to the detriment of the people here and in Central America by cover of the night? There is no representation for the people!!! We have people in office who are so out of control and do not care what the voters want. They are merely playing politics.

The secrets, lies, and half-truths from this group at the White House is not a good example of how democracy is supposed to work. If the neocons want something, they make it happen. They don't care how anyone else feels about the issues. If they want it, they get it. They don't consider long term effects of their choices or how it will disrupt other processes of a true democracy or freedom, so long as they get their way.

Bill Clinton was merely involved in a sex scandal and tried to cover it up. His wife was involved in a bad real estate deal. For this we were subjected to an 8 year witch hunt by investigating him, his wife, his family, his friends, his business associates all to try and pin something on him. What he did to Hilary and the women was wrong. He deserved to pay for what he did to them.

When does justice come to the current President? Out of all the sins of Clinton in the investigation, not one of those crimes resulted in an unnecessary war which killed innocent people. Clinton was in charge of a bombing which did result in killing innocent people. He got flack for that, but it was a mere slap on the wrist and not an investigation. I guess it's okay to kill innocent people as long as you don't upset the status quo.

Clinton may have been responsible for the deaths of innocent people, but Bush has killed a lot more innocent people. He is also responsible for the unnecessary deaths of our own young people who had no other choice but to go to war because of lack of jobs in our country. Maybe that's why CAFTA passed so we can create more unemployed people to fight unnecessary wars while we look the other way at people in Central America working for slave wages.

The seeds this present government have planted will be sown in bad ways. It is like the cartoon of the person who mocks god and the others standing nearby take a quick side step away before the bolt of lighting strikes him. Those of us who can see it coming need to distance ourselves from this idiot in office. Oh, excuse me, he is not an idiot. He knows full well what he is doing and doesn't care what it does to others. That just makes him evil.

Carefree Virtual Shopping Mall

Your Patriotic Duty - And Other Myths

2005-07-26T12:18:00.000Z

In American classrooms almost everywhere, we were given the standard Patriotic brainwashing lessons. We were told, as kids, this is the truth and not to question such things. Many, even into their adulthood, have been afraid to question certain things which were taught such as:

This country was founded solely on the basis of religious freedom
The tax the king of England imposed on the colonies was unfair and started the war
Abraham Lincoln, who wanted the slaves free, thought they should have equal rights
The Civil War was only about slavery
Both World War I and II we were merely defending our rights and did nothing beforehand to make our enemies hate us
The Manifest Destiny was a great way to create a great nation and was fair to all involved
The Pledge of Alligience originally said, "One nation under God"
Anyone could be President
And it is your patriotic duty to always vote

To challenge such notions would be to invite hatred from your fellow citizens. Here I go anyway.

This country was founded solely on the basis of religious freedom

This country was founded, to be quite clear, by businessmen. When the notion that this new world was waiting for the best and brightest to conquer it for profit, the first ones who hopped over the ships were people looking for wealth or those wanting to expand their wealth.

Most of the first colonies in the new world were sponsored by a big company back in England, Spain, or France. Anyone who wanted to seek their wealth could approach these investors to sponsor the journey in exchange for a profit. Many of these businesses went bust, but the ones that were successful invited their families to join them and communities grew from there.

It wasn't until the business communities had settled colonies that the religious from England wanted to have a colony of their own in the new land where they could pursue their brand of faith. They were not coming over to start a nation in the new world based on religious freedom, but wanted an exclusive area where those who did not believe they way they did were forbidden. This was the minority of people who came to the colonies. These religious nuts, as they were thought of back then, had no intention or bold ideas of taking over the entire land and forcing their religion on everyone. They were seperatists.

While the businessmen who founded this country all had some form of religious conviction, that was not the purpose of founding this nation. It was all about the money.

The tax the king of England imposed on the colonies was unfair and started the war

Out of all the colonies owned by England, the colonies of the States was taxed the least. Why the tax?

The settlers would find themselves in trouble from time to time. Agreements made with the Natives about boundaries were often discounted by the English settlers who saw unused land and decided to take it anyway, regardless of the agreements made. This made many Natives angry and was the start to many wars to follow.

The settlers were a combination of businessmen and some religious communes with women and children and slaves who were unable to fight. The English army was there for the protection of its citizens. The citizens kept instigating the wars and the army had to keep protecting them.

An army costs money. The colonists did not want to pay. To save on costs, the army needed places to bunk and be fed, so it helped to impose upon a settler's home for an indefinite time to keep the area safe. Both paying taxes or supporting the army were not acceptable options and they cried foul when they needed help from the attacks if the army was not there to protect them.

The tax was not unfair, but it was part of the events that led to the United States independence.

Abraham Lincoln, who wanted the slaves free, thought they should have equal rights

As many men with a conscience, they saw the slaves as humans who were suffering and it was wrong. However, the majority in this group did not equate that the slaves being human meant they were equal to the white man. Lincoln was one of that group.

While he was strongly in favour for ending slavery, he thought they would either be better off going back to Africa or having a different part of the land like the Natives. His position on slavery did not mean he ever thought the former slaves should have the right to vote or any other liberties and freedoms guaranteed to the white men.

The Civil War was only about slavery

While slavery was a big issue, the bigger issue was about controlling one's destiny. As the United States expanded by taking over almost every part of the land going back to the Pacific Ocean, the issue came up about whether these new areas should or should not allow slavery.

Those on the pro-slavery side needed such free help in order to expand their economies because without free labour, they could not grow. Those on the anti-slavery side had the money and more advance technology on their side and could grow and expand without the need for slaves. If the slaves were taken out of society, it could create more job opportunites for the white man. It was more about the money which could be made or loss than the slaves' rights.

As this country was founded on the idea that each state was basically its own country with its own laws, but part of the big picture of all these others to work together, the states of the South decided the national level of the government was becoming too influenced by those of the North and was going to force a one-size-fits-all kind of law over the entire nation, including overturning slavery. The Southerners wanted to be free to live the way they have grown accustom. The Northerns were afraid a split would destroy all the hard work done with the expansion and a split could take away most of the land they took over.

That is why they fought. Not over slaves, but over money and land. Slaves were just an emotional issue to charge people up, but the bottom line of any war is money and land.

Both World War I and II we were merely defending our rights and did nothing beforehand to make our enemies hate us

Why were we brought into WWI? Because we boldly ignored friendly warnings from the German government to stay out of areas in the sea where they were actively fighting. We were told to stay off of ships that might have ammunition to help their enemies because they would be blown up. We did not listen to those warnings and got upset when they killed our people who got in the way during a time of war.

Our people were back and forth trying to stay neutral, but at the same time pitting one nation against another causing enemies for our nation. By the time we stepped into the war, Germany was already mad enough at the US they were about to attack us on our soil until the plot was uncovered and we went in to fight.

When the war was over, our country was among the victors who took lands as spoils of the war. Many of these lands were also of Africa and the Middle East which would later come back to haunt us because of how this was handled. Losing nations were split up and impoverished. Germany was forced to pay for damages and could not afford it. Hitler came along with an idea to get his nation out of the bottom of the heap.

By this time, the US was meddling in affairs on the Pacific end trying to expand more land with the islands and had its eyes on the Asian coast. Even before we were "prompted" into war, we made enemies with both China and Japan as well as Russia which was going through massive changes when we applauded the takeover of the Czar and welcomed the new government only to denounce Russia when that government we approved was taken over by the popular government of the people.

When Pearl Harbor was bombed, it was not just an attack out of nowhere. The way the teachers made it sound was they just out of the blue decided to be mean and attack innocent people. On the contrary, the Japanese had an axe to grind. They did not set out to attack innocent people, but a military base. But did we ever repay them - we launched two nuclear bombs on innocent people.. The second bomb we dropped, we did not even wait to see if they were going to surrender after the first one.

The Manifest Destiny was a great way to create a great nation and was fair to all involved

In order to expand the United States, more land was needed. We needed to prove we could be a super force just like the Europeans who colonized lands all over the world. We did the same thing by starting where we lived.

All those areas of land to the West were going to waste. At least from the point of view of businessmen and land developers. The Spanish and French and British who owned parts of these areas really were unable to do much with them. There were all sorts of agreements with the Natives to assure them the land which was leftover would be theirs to keep. The islands to the South were in various struggles and Haiti caused fear because the slave population rose up and took over winning independence which was all the more reason to take control of more land.

We instigated the war to take over part of Mexico. We were beaten the first time around, but fought hard and won the second time. By the time we had our eyes on what would be California, the Mexicans did not want to fight anymore and simply handed it over. The British gave up parts of the Northwest in order to keep Canada free from the land grab. Negotiations were made with France to give up their lands. The only hold outs were the Natives. They were not citizens and were not a real nation in which one could negotiate, so they saw fit to just take what was left since no one really owned it.

This left disgruntled Natives fighting for what little they had which was taken away without consent and breaking all agreements made. For trying to fight back, most of the numbers have been eliminated and the remaining were sent to the worst of the lands the developers could do nothing with so they could have their new homes there. Of course, if oil or gold or silver were to be discovered on these "worthless" lands we gave the Natives, we would simply relocate them to another dump.

The Pledge of Alligience originally said, "One nation under God"

The Pledge of Alligience was created as a way to unify a nation. The creator was a Socialist and also an atheist. He did not include the words "one nation under god" in the original pledge. It was only added later to the protest of many people.

Anyone could be President

Nope. The only people who could ever conceive of being President must have the following going for them:

Very rich - campaigns don't run on free speeches. Exposure costs money.
Connections - you must have enough powerful friends who are willing to nominate you.
Major party - if your values and beliefs are not reflected in the two main parties, you don't have a chance of winning and mostly will be ignored.

Forget the fairytale notion that anyone with a bit of ambition could be President. If you think Tamika Jones who is a single mother living in the projects earning $12,000 a year will ever be President, you are dreaming. Farmer Cleatus Smith, who barely graduated from high school and a farm being foreclosed upon earning $35,000 a year will never be President. Crazy millionaire, Buck Finch, does not agree with the major parties and wants to start his own and will run as president -- he is just wasting his money, but at least he is rich enough to find a tax write off.

If anyone could be President, there would be more than two major parties with a chance of making it to the White House.

And it is your patriotic duty to always vote

No. As the system is set up were the person you think represents you may never be up for office, you are basically given one of two choices. There are smaller parties to choose from if you agree with them, even if they don't stand a chance to win.

What if no one represents you? What if you cannot afford to run for office yourself? Why is it your duty to vote or give your approval to someone who does not have your best interests at heart?

For me, I was put into such a situation during the last election. I was pressured to vote because it was my duty and I caved in and voted for the "lesser of two evils" which to me was vulgar because the lesser of two evils was an idiot who in no way represented me or my points of view. The other candidates did not represent me either. I was not in a position to run for President. What were my options?

Now that the mess is over and we have the nut in office, I don't think it would have been much better with the other nut in office either. I don't think any of the parties had someone running who could do something better.

Why give your approval to someone you do not believe in? If you cannot run and there is no one who represents you, you no longer have a country who has your best interests at heart. Why cast your vote of approval of a system that has betrayed you?

Armed revolution or peaceful protest? How will you be remembered as a patriot? If no one represents me, I will no longer give them my stamp of approval.

Informing You News

Police Shot Man Over Panic

2005-07-25T14:17:00.000Z

Jean Charles de Menezes was in the prime of his life at age 27. Originally from Brazil, he came to London to study and work part time. He had family and friends who loved him very much. He has never been in trouble with the law, until one fateful day. Police called out to him and ordered him to stop. Instead of sticking around to see what they wanted, he ran away and the police shot him five times.

Why did an innocent person run from the police? It is speculated he may have run from police because of his visa situation, but this does not merit a death penalty. Even if that speculation were not true, suppose he had some illegal substance on him, that still would not put him to death in a court of law. Suppose he had just stolen someone's purse or robbed a bank, they don't just murder the criminal for those crimes. Suppose he had a lot of parking tickets and outstanding fines, did he need to be killed over that issue? Suppose he was just in a state of panic not so long after the last bombings and he misunderstood what they were saying to him and thought it was a dangerous situation and he needed to run? You certainly do not kill someone over a misunderstanding.

Why did the police want him to stop anyway? They were in the middle of investigating the recent bombings. They are in a high pressured job and sometimes their minds get stuck on one track. They are only human and make mistakes. It is not easy to be a police officer. Sometimes a person must make snap decisions for the safety of the general population. Was this the case? Could they have done something different?

It is a general assumption with the police if they ask you to stop and you do not stop, you are probably hiding something illegal from them. If you are doing something illegal, it is their duty to investigate. If a police officer tells you to stop and you run, it sets off a signal in their minds that something is not right.

These particular officers were on a one-track mind of investigating the bombings. That was their current focus. The poor, innocent man who got caught up in their focus made the unfortunate decision to run instead of stopping to see what they wanted. In a highly charged atmosphere filled with fear and wanting to prevent more deaths, the officers panicked. They were in that state of mind an officer never should have to be in when enforcing the law. This kind of panic does not allow for rational decisions and this was a situation when rational thinking was critical.

A rational move to prevent possible injury to others would dictate at the most to shoot him in the leg to stop him from running, or calling for back up, or yelling out to the people to clear the area. An irrational move would be to shoot him several times in key areas to make sure he would end up dead in order to prevent a bomb from going off - if he had one. He didn't. Even if he did have a bomb and was a suicide bomber, logic would dictate that the moment the police called him over he would have set it off before the chase. Logic would dictate this man may have been guilty of something, but that did not necessarily mean he was going to set off a bomb.

A police officer is not supposed to be the judge, jury and executioner. On that day, these officers took on all those roles without having all the facts in hand. They abused Mr. Menezes' human rights on an assumption they were protecting the people at large. You cannot kill a person on a hunch.

The people of the UK are not used to this kind of thing happening. This situation happens a lot in the US. It is so old news in the US that when it happens, it barely gets a headline. The police in Brazil can be equally brutal and have done this on a frequent scale. Many third world countries will shoot first and ask questions later. This is not a unique phenomenon, it just is not the kind of thing they expect to happen in England where such impulsive acts are considered vulgar.

These officers were trying to do their job and made a really bad decision in the heat of the moment. They need to have time off from their jobs and to re-train in order to make better decisions. They need time to re-think about the seriousness of how their duty is to protect all citizens, even the ones suspected of wrong-doing. They need to weigh heavy on their minds the fact they killed an innocent man and how that has wronged his family and loved ones. These officers are not the bad guys, but made a really bad choice and should be made to pay for it.

Many people make serious mistakes. Sometimes the result of serious mistakes is the death of another. Average citizens who make these kinds of mistakes are usually given jail time or pay fines or do community service to compensate for their serious mistake. Shouldn't these officers be held up to the same standards?

Ultimate List Of Songs

Terrorists Are Idiots

2005-07-08T15:14:00.000Z

The news has been heard around the world and if you don't know it yet, you must live under a rock inside a cave. Yet another terrorist bombing. The location this time, London in the UK that targeted innocent civilians who take mass transport -- specifically the Underground and a bus.

Was it to disrupt the G8 conference? Was this a protest, yet again, from radical Muslim terrorist cells that are anti-West? Was this a stray group from the earlier IRA era? Was it a lone nut case? The guilty will eventually be found. Whatever group or whomever the people involved, I think we can all agree this was a cowardly act.

Face it, if these terrorists REALLY believed in their cause, they should show their faces. Suicidal bombers? Don't even get me started on what a chicken s--t act that one is -- they don't believe enough in their cause, but are too scared to face the consequences of their actions and the s--thead leaders that send their gullible lackeys to do the dirty work they are too afraid to do themselves and hide because they know deep down they are cowardly terrorists who are tarring the name of the god they claim to follow.

I have no good words to say about the people who do these things. I can understand the frustration one might have about their lot in life or the conditions of the world, but what exactly does this method solve? The US, France, Spain, Germany, and the UK have all been attacked by terrorists from time to time with differing agendas. None of these people with their agendas have EVER gotten their way due to their tactics. Anyone who has ever participated in these activities have gotten more hatred than sympathy for their cause. It has been a proven way to guarantee you NEVER get what you want.

What really makes me angry is the terrorists who have gripes against the government who strike at innocent citizens. If they are angry at the governments, why not attack the government? Is it because they are too chickens--t to do it directly? Is it because they are not smart enough to bypass all the security against their real target? How exactly is killing an innocent grandmother visiting her children helping your cause when you created a family of enemies against your cause? How is killing a single mother trying to get to work to feed her children and put a roof over their heads helping the cause? What good will it do your cause by murdering a tourist who is in the country for a visit that had nothing to do with your complaint? Well, those stupid terrorists have done that and more. What have they accomplished?

They have just assured there will be a manhunt out after them. They will not have rest for their lifetime. They have just assured whatever point they tried to make will be resisted by the world at large who will do whatever it takes to make sure they never get what they want. They have most likely signed their own death warrant. The people who put them up to do the deed really do not care one iota about them as people and would not hesitate killing them if they had the chance. Who really wins in this tactic? No one.

Plain and simple, terrorists are idiots!

Get A Miracle Ministries

The War Of The Cyber-Pirates Vs The Corporate Industries

2005-07-02T16:18:00.000Z

Piracy is illegal. Just wanted to make that clear. You are part of the pirate problem if you are downloading or uploading music, movies, books, computer applications, and images that you did not pay for nor did not have permission from the owner to circulate.

Piracy is against all international copyright laws. If you "share" files [it's not really sharing, you are stealing] for which you did not pay for and did not have permission from the owner to obtain, you have broken international copyright laws and can be brought up on charges which could land you in jail and be forced to pay massive fines.

Is it fair to follow an unjust law? Is this law unjust? Who is being hurt anyway? How does this affect the artist? How does this affect you?

Let's look at the history of the corporate industry first, before we point fingers at the consumers.

Hollywood and the Music Industry... Rich and powerful corporations which make their money by promoting the movies, music and artists they sponsor have both had a history of not paying their talent in a fair manner. They have become big time billionaires by stiffing their artists or paying them a fraction of their worth because they could get away with it. There are many horror stories from both industries where artists were paid a nominal fee for their work and they were not entitled to royalties from their efforts. Basically, the artist or actor did their work and got paid while Hollywood and the Music Industry got paid over and over and over as the one time work has been sold and re-sold countless times. In other words, these corporations have profited multiple times on the physical work of the artists.

The Little Rascals are a classic example of how Hollywood has made their millions. Yes, they put up the investment in order to produce these films and they paid these child actors a lump sum to show up and make the movie. On the surface it looks pretty fair. What the child actors did not bargain for was the potential that all the work they did would keep on going. When they signed those contracts, it was only understood it was just to be shown in the movies for a limited period of time. Yes, they knew the corporation owned the right to the film, but they never envisioned the future of television and how the corporation that owned their work would profit for the next 60+ years. The corporation took advantage of the new technology in order to make more money. They never bargained or negotiated with these actors for the work they had done because they already had a signed contract. Neither party knew about the potential of the new technology and how one could profit from it. As it turned out, Hollywood made millions and the child actors were screwed because they were not in a position to profit from the technology that came into vogue after they did their work.

And of course, they have the right to do it. They have pockets of lawyers who tell their talent to sign contracts. If these artists and actors want to get anywhere in the field, they must play by the rules of the big boys. What other choices do the talent have? These big industries have muscled out most competition. It is next to impossible for "the little guy" to have their music or movies out in the public because the corporations have dominated and controlled the industries. It leaves them with an unfair field advantage. Their talent must concede to their rules and take only a fraction of their worth in order to make it in the business while the big corporation is making far more than the artist in the long run off of their work. Any "little guy" who wants to put out a movie or music does not stand much of a chance of making ANY money in the business because these corporate giants have squeezed out almost all competition.

And what of the music industry? They aren't any better in the game of exploiting their talent. The story of Frankie Lymon and the Teenagers is a classic example of exploitation. The streets were filled with talented people who wanted a chance to make it in the music industry. The system was already set up that the average Joe could not just walk into a music station and request their song was played on the air. It simply did not work that way. Payola and corruption is what got a song played and the music industry were the ones that greased the palms to make sure they had no competition...an advantage which created the base of the billion dollar industry they have today.

Those talented kids just wanted to be recognized for what they could do. They were discovered and given gifts and money upfront to do what the industry wanted them to do. When they were no longer the hot item, the industry discarded them like trash and no longer owed them anything. However, they did have the rights to sell and re-sell the works of these young people for a long time to come and were not obliged to give the artists anything further.

The music and movie industry has a history which has cheated their own talent in order to make their billions. They took advantage of technology when it suited them. Now the shoe is on the other foot. Technology has made it so the average person has an advantage over the industry and they are crying foul. They are invoking their copyrights are being stolen and it hurts the artists and the industry in general.

I am not going to say anything against artists such as Metallica, Paul Simon, and others who do not wish for their work to be exploited by new technology. They did the work and should have the right to profit from what they have done. If the artists feel so strongly that Hollywood and the music industry have their best interests at heart [which I personally do not believe is the case, but as long as they believe it] then they should have the right to pursue legal recourse over those who steal their work. That being said, Hollywood and the music industry is now hiding behind the artists and actors as being the ones robbed which is why they must make a big stink about the piracy issue. These same people they would not have a problem exploiting themselves will not let "their bitches" be exploited by someone else because it cuts into the industry profit.

I will explain my coarse analogy. On the streets you have a pimp with a stable full of hookers. A "john" must approach the pimp in order to get service. The hooker does all the work and gets a small cut of the overall profit while the rest goes to the pimp who justifies his reasons for such a big cut from someone elses' work. Now if a "john" were to directly approach the hooker and set up a deal on the side, it cuts into the pimp's profits and the pimp gets angry and will do awful things to those who cut into their profits. The hooker could very well decide to go out on her own and solicit her own business where she has her clients who pay her 100% for the work she has done without the middleman, but the pimp has made it impossible for the hooker because the pimp has greased the palms of police officers in order to stay in business and to shoo away competition. The hooker cannot make it on her own and must only do business with the pimp. Any "john" who tries to steal away business without giving the pimp his profit will get a royal beating. -- This is the music and movie industry!

People complain that both Hollywood and the music industry has lately created nothing but lackluster entertainment. The Summer of 2005 proves my point with remakes of everything that has already been done "Bad News Bears" "The Honeymooners" "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" to name a few. People are turning against the stuff played on radio stations that are pretty lame and searching for things from the past that had more soul to it. People are not going to movies as much because they do not want to see the current batch and opt for things they loved from the past.

If all things were fair, these people would only buy these classics from a retail store. Hollywood makes their money and the people who did the work would get a small portion for each one that sold. That is not happening as much as Hollywood and the music industry thinks it should. They are complaining that instead of people buying, they are sharing their files and will never go into the store and buy the real copy...They have a point, to a certain degree.

Face it, if you have just downloaded a copy of a movie or music file from the Internet for free, would you honestly buy it at full price? Unless you really loved the movie or song, chances are you will not pony up the money to get the real CD or DVD for the complete selection of the included books and extra bits you do not get with a download. Then again, some people do go out and buy it simply because they love it so much they want a REAL copy.

Back in the dinosaur days of the VCR and the cassette tape, the industries made the same complaint that this new technology would force them out of business. They feared people everywhere would make copies and never buy the real source and the industry would be destroyed. Yes, people did make copies and even shared them with friends. The music and movie industries did not make money from the copies, but they did not go out of business either.

The problem today, however, is worse. While people who stole copyrighted works in the past had a limited means of "sharing" files, today people can download and upload these things in a matter of a few minutes to a few hours. There are estimates that over 10 million people are sharing illegal files daily - a number too large to police. For every person downloading an illegal copy, these industries are not making money and estimate their losses in the hundreds of thousands per person.

That figure may be exaggerated. Look at it from a logical viewpoint. All of these people who are downloading files for free probably would never have bought the full copy in the first place. If copyright laws were fully enforced and made it impossible to do this act or at least extremely hard, the millions of people doing it now probably would only buy 10% of what they are stealing now. Yes, this represents a true loss to the industries because those who would buy are not buying. It also points out that most of what is being downloaded are things the consumer probably would not buy anyway. They download a lot out of curiosity and would never have considered spending money on something like that anyway.

I believe if the laws were strictly enforced, the industries would still be in a bad situation unless they come up with quality that people really want and are fair to the artists and allow healthy comptetion from the smaller industries trying to make it. There are no clean hands in this business on either end. While I feel sorry for the artists and actors being exploited at both ends, there is not much that can be done unless the big industries make amends first.

http://www.callendamornen.co.uk

The F1 Indy Disaster

2005-06-23T16:26:00.000Z

Wow! What a most dreadful display we have seen on that Sunday morning in Indianapolis. The drivers practiced and worked their hearts out all weekend. The crew and staff made maddening preparations to make sure the event would go off well. The fans lined up in anticipation that Sunday morning expecting a great event which should have been reflective of a two day earlier free event full of the excitement preview of what should have come...but did not.

All of those angry people in the audience, and rightfully so, were wanting a full refund. Drivers wanting to pursue their craft, but not allowed. Stadium owners and event planners stabbed in the back. Why? Blame it on the teams, the tyre maker, and the 1 trye rule.

Michelin supplies the tryes for most of the teams. On the big picture, we can all point the failure of this race on Michelin for showing up at the race with the wrong tyres which proved to be hazardous when Ralf Schumacher made his practice run and the tyre basically tore apart. Luckily for him and other drivers there were safety rails to keep them from slamming into a wall.

Why couldn't Michelin just replace all the faulty tyres? F1 introduced the 1 tyre rule at the beginning of the season. Common sense should have dictated that Michelin should have come prepared with the right tyre in the first place, but common sense should also be used when there is a pressing need to change tyres without having to face penalties. The two most important features of what makes the car work are prohibitted from being replaced the entire weekend unless the team is willing to take the chance and have a judge determine after the fact the change was needed. Both the tyre and the engine change should be solely at the discretion of the team. If it were not for the one tyre rule Michelin could have had replacement tyres for all of their cars and the race could have gone off as normal.

Why not just race on the faulty tyres or put in a safety chicane? This is the argument which will go before the committee. Are the rules unreasonable or were the teams being unreasonable?

Yes, there is a safety wall and if the willing drivers wanted to race the chances are there would have been blowouts on the tyres creating havoc during the race with hopefully minimal injuries and no fatalities - but that was not a guarantee. The teams wanted to be assured the drivers would be safe before racing and no one would assure them it was safe.

Putting up the extra chicane was not a guarantee of safety either. Yes, the teams with the failing tyres could have an edge to compensate the weakness, but it was not fair to the other teams who tested out correctly with the right equipment who were not prepared to race with the extra chicane.

The owner of the track was willing to put it up, that was not the issue. The issue was only a handful came to the race prepared and the teams not prepared needed to face the consequences. The committee would not budge on anything to assure the race would go on. They were more stubborn about being in the right that they were willing to sacrifice the entire reputation of the game on the line. It was more important to be right than it was to consider the safety issue and allow the tyre change. It was more important to be right than to put up a chicane that would have allowed the game to take place. Pride was just as much as fault for the failure of that race.

When this issue comes up before committee and they decide the penalties, I hope they do not penalize the drivers who did in fact want to race. I hope they address the issue of who gets to pay the bill to reimburse the fans and think this should be paid for by both Michelin and the F1 committee who were both at fault for not coming to a timely agreement to get the race off the ground. I hope they do not put too heavy a penalty on the teams who were concerned for the safety of the people who are the bigger assests than their cars.

I really feel sorry for those who did get to race. It was more like a parade. No one had their hearts in the game. Fans were throwing debris on the track and booing and jeering at them as well as the situation in general. It wasn't their fault. They were just doing what they were supposed to be doing. The win was not exactly a great one because there really was not a competition. Michael Schumacher took his award from a substitute and hung his head in shame. Not even the award presenters wanted to be a part of this fiasco.

As I have said before and many others agree - the one tyre rule needs to go!

http://www.callendamornen.co.uk

Capitalism Vs Socialized Care

2005-05-31T16:03:00.000Z

Why are some countries so poor while others are so rich? Capitalism. Yes, on the surface it sounds so heartless and in ways it can be.

Capitalism allows those with a little imagination, a lot of ambition, hard work and a good plan could make a lot of money and be a financial success. In turn, these successful people spend money which stimulate the economy by hiring people who otherwise would not have jobs and purchase goods from others who have a business that would create yet more job and more income opportunities for the many.

The idea of Capitalism is great...if money is all you live for. Money is great. It buys the basic needs of life. It gets you fed, clothed, and keeps a roof over your head. It gets you medical treatment when you need it. It allows you to pursue experiences that only money can buy. It gives you access to higher education. It lets you travel beyond your familiar home territory so perhaps you can learn in person about what others around the world are really like. It allows a person to retire while they are still young and active enough to enjoy life and spend more time with family and friends before dying...Money is great!

However, money is not the only thing. This is where those who get blinded by the power of Capitalism forget to look at the bigger picture. The ones who get caught up in their own wealth tend to forget that not everyone has the same access to the breaks they caught. Without such breaks, they will remain barely scraping by in life and sometimes having to go without the basic needs of life.

Big business has had a field day with the corporate-friendly Administration of the Bush team. When else could the Enron-type scandals be discovered, swept under the rug for a few years then to basically give the bad guys a slap on the wrist while those who played by the rules were completely screwed by these big business tycoons? At least Martha Stewart, who was merely a minor player in comparison to the big boys, pushed forward and served her time to get it out of the way. The Enron jerks tried everything in their power to put off punishment as long as possible.

And what of the siding of court rulings favouring big business versus the pensioners? They paid into the system on the trust that money would be waiting for them at the end. They did their part. Is it their fault the business went into bankruptcy? Now the company does not have to pay their former employees their obligations and the former employees are screwed. What happens when these "little people" can no longer pay their bills? Thanks to the same judicial system it has made it harder for the little people to file bankruptcy unlike the big business counterparts. So if these people who no longer are allowed to get a pension cannot pay their bills, what happens with their lives when they cannot file bankruptcy?

Then there is the minimum wage joke. A person must be paid at the very least $5.15 per hour [or under 3 pounds for you UK readers]. Also keep in mind, many employers like to get around the full time status to avoid paying benefits so the average minimum wage worker is working 39 hours a week without benefits. That would be $200.85 per week or $803.40 per month before taking 15% out in taxes and Social Security benefits the worker will never see for a total take home pay of about $630 per month - if they keep the one job. [330 pounds per month.]

Imagine this John Doe barely graduated high school and is living in an economically challenged area. He is lucky to have this job and does not have the skills nor the opportunity nor the money to further his educational options to get ahead. He made the mistake of getting married right out of high school and had two children. John has to raise a family of four on $630 per month.

Government assisted housing allows his family to stay in a roach and rat infested tenament for $350 per month, but at least his family has a roof over their head. Government food subsidy programmes allow his family $500 in food stamps to purchase the basics at the store each month so they can get rude treatment for being poor.

Local charities, if they have the funds, might be able to pay something for their electric bill. If not then John must pay an extra $95 a month if they are careful with turning lights on and off, keep off the heat or air, and not run a television. At least they have Medicare which will let the kids go to the free clinic and wait in a long line for help when they need it. And there are local charities who may be able to give them clothes.

In order to get to and from work, John needs a car and by law it must be insured. In order to keep the car gassed up and insured and mechanically sound, it will cost more money than they have in their budget after all the other expenses.

John faces a crisis. Even with all the help from the government and charities, he can still barely get by on one minimum wage job. He does not have the funds to seek further education. If he is lucky enough to get another barely full time minimum wage job, he will lose many of the government benefits his family receives which cannot be replaced by working another full time job at minimum wage. If he works another job, at least it would be seen by society he is a go-getter who is trying to get ahead without sponging off the system. At least he can keep his pride at the expense of never seeing his family.

If his family really wants to get ahead, perhaps John could work the two minimum wage jobs and his wife could also find two minimum wage jobs. Of course they would have daycare being a new issue. It could cost them an extra $600 per month to put them in a proper daycare facility, but this is not an option because they have limited hours and need someone who can keep the kids for longer hours and for less money. If they are lucky, they may have neighbors who will do it for $400 per month if they don't mind the kids will probably be neglected in a crowd of other kids who will hardly ever see their own parents. At least the family income will be $2520 per month after taxes and they are considered above the poverty level, although technically the working poor because they still have no benefits or a chance to get out of this situation because they must continue working at this pace if they want their kids to have a better chance at life. At this income level, they no longer qualify for government assistance and no longer have rental assistance, food stamps or health care. Thus all the money they are making would go for a higher cost of living.

This is a very real example of what happens when big businesses use the minimum wage crutch. If there is any loophole to save money to the company, they have no problem with doing it at the expense of the employees. If they could get away with paying less, they would. They can treat workers like cattle because they can get away with it. Big businesses strongly discourage any form of unionization of the workers because it means they would have to address their real problems.

A happy worker who is well paid and respected makes a better and more productive worker which serves the company bottom line better. Fewer good employees treated and paid well does more for a company than a lot of workers for the least wages to make outrageouse quotas for the sole purpose of only making the company richer will always backfire.

Doing away with minimum wage will not solve the problem, but only make a new and large pool of poor. It would create an atmosphere of desperation where a worker will eventually give up and work for whatever pitance is offered knowing someone else could come along and agree to work for less. Idealists think if the minimum wage were to be eliminated people would be paid more because the competition for jobs would hike the pay, but the opposite is more likely the truth. Big companies have a track record of getting by paying less to their workers because they can. They will cut corners now. If minimum wage laws were revoked, they would pay less.

Corporate greed has contributed to the callous way they treat the enviornment and other countries as well. They will steamroll over anyone getting in the way of them turning a new dollar in the profit column -- to hell with everyone else!

Of course, not all corporate giants are bullies. Some of the better companies will provide their employees a decent living wage, allow incentives for high acheivers, give proper benefits and let the people who work for them have time for other aspects of life such as family, friends and a sense of community. Unfortunately, this is a rare breed.

The trend is going where the rich will hold on dearly to what they have and strive to have more at the expense of those trying to rise above poverty. Those who are middle class who cannot fight harder for the few dollars the rich have not horded away will find themselves amongst the ranks of the poor. The poor who just cannot get the break because they have no access to higher education, loans, or opportunities to get ahead will stay behind.

If socialized help is encouraged, it could prove a benefit for society at large. A national health care system will help those who otherwise would fall through the cracks. Preventative health care should take higher importance to avoid the costly illnesses that can be prevented such as clinics to help people overcome drug, smoking, and alcohol abuse, immunizations, weight counselling, and exercise programmes.

Free higher education to qualified students would allow many who have done well in school the chance to get a better job if they are allowed a college education they could otherwise not afford. It is a shame that those who have no interest in further education are only there because their rich parents can afford such a benefit while another smart kids from a poor home cannot attend and must work a minimum wage job to support his family instead of learning to become a doctor where he or she could really help a lot of people.

An expansion of volunteer programmes such as Habitat For Humanity could be created on a government level to assure that even the non-religious will get help in having a home.

Without much of a safety net for the poor and with the businesses set out to take away what the poor have left, many will lose hope of ever getting ahead. This could backfire on the big businesses when the essential customer base can no longer afford to do business with them. If they want further wealth they will have to compete with other wealthy people for what's left.

And this is just the plight of what Capitalism will do to the people within one of the richest countries of the world. The poor here have it good compared to the poor of the rest of the world who have no safety net whatsoever. Ironically, Capitalism is the only hope for those poor countries to allow the people the opportunities to grow their own businesses without restraint to accumulate wealth and spread the opportunities to the others in their country.

http://www.callendamornen.co.uk

The UN Needs Reform But Is Bolton The One To Do It?

2005-05-31T15:39:00.000Z

Right-wing Republicans side with Cheney on their pick of John Bolton as an acceptable representative of the United States to show our best side to the United Nations. Why? It is because Mr. Bolton has always been a strong critic about the direction the United Nations is going. He believes, as do many in the US, that the United Nations has become a useless body of all talk, no action and full of corruption. On that note, he and many of Bolton's supporters are correct.

It may be hard for the rest of the world to understand the United States' point of view when it comes to this International Peace Body, but Americans love to be independent. They resent being told by anyone how to run their business. They strongly dislike the fact that outsiders want to dictate the way we think. When it comes to protecting our lands, Americans want the ability to fight a war we deem necessary without having to ask for permission to do so. The US also strongly resents that as one of the strongest, richest and most powerful countries on the panel it seems that the US is being forced to bare the brunt of all expenses, to take all the blame for all the problems of the world, and to have our hands tied in order to move forward because weaker nations simply cannot catch up.

Then look at the misuse of funds that were supposed to be used to help the sick and hungry in Iraq. Due to a few members in countries who were strongly opposed to the Iraq war taking bribe money to end sanctions early, this became one of those hidden secrets that if exposed earlier could have prevented the war altogether. We must also acknowledge allegations that some in the US were also taking similar bribes who were strong within the Republican support system.

While the UN has assisted countries in dire need and prevented some bad wars, it has proven totally ineffective at any long term aid for the countries in need. The easy fix has always seem to be blame the US because third world countries cannot catch up. In some ways, yes, the United States does have some share of blame in the problems around the world, however it has become a crutch and catch-all solution to blame instead of solve the problem. Why not look at the countries with the problems and look from the inside before pointing outside fingers?

Yes, the Bolton supporters do have a point. The United Nations needs a change. It is ineffective and a waste of time and money. The question is whether John Bolton is the man to do it.

No. The job he is after is one of diplomacy. The United Nations is delicate territory and one must use diplomatic demeanor in getting their point across. John Bolton has a long history of behaviour that is anything but diplomatic. The last thing we need is to have a loose cannon representing the United States. We do not need someone who takes a perverse pleasure in demeaning people, shouting insults, and having tantrums trying to negotiate terms on our behalf.

Surely there are more qualified people who can be effective and want to make changes within the UN who will not cause an International incident as John Bolton would have this tendency. His nomination, if passed, could prove a disaster to the reputation of the United States.

As the US has made the committment to honour the body of the United Nations, it is obliged to work within the system. It cannot just have a tantrum and storm off because not everyone in the world agrees with them. However, if the UN wants to have this institution, it needs to work for the good of all involved.

http://www.callendamornen.co.uk

F1 Tyre Rule Needs To End

2005-05-30T20:44:00.000Z

I think those of us who follow Formula One would agree something needed to be done to stop the powerful hold team Ferrari had over the race. Last year's one engine rule did not defeat the mighty Mike, but it seems the one tyre rule has killed his lead.

If you are not familiar with this rule, basically the teams can only race on the same tyres throughout the course of the practice, qualifying and game itself -- unless a change in weather like sudden rain or unless the tyre is deemed by a third party to be too dangerous to drive. Any team that makes the decision to change out the tyres do so at the risk of heavy penalty.

Kimi RÃ¤ikkÃ¶nen has experience first hand what happens when you must second guess better judgement. His tyres were falling apart for a few laps and if left within team judgement he could have been called in to get a quick change. By the last lap it would have been too late, which is where he encountered a big problem. Had his team felt the need to call him in or change during the last fuel up, he could have made first on the podium. They did not have the luxury of this decision and Kimi had to go on through the race with tyres that were starting to deteriorate.

Poor thing, the very last lap and one wrong move completely wrecked his tyre support from underneath. They almost completely shredded tyres could have proven to be his downfall if it were not for the fact that the assembly from underneath split up. Thank goodness for tethered tyres!

In order to race, the drivers need to be assured they can have the basics fixed on an as-needed basis - tyres, engines, and frame. If any of these go out during a race, it could prove to be a fatality to the driver, other racers, or perhaps even the audience.

Perhaps if they changed the rules to allow a change without penalty as long as the pit stops made are for specific purposes - a fuel up or a repair, but not both at the same time.

http://www.callendamornen.co.uk

French Vote No To EU Constituion

2005-05-30T20:25:00.000Z

Why is anyone surprised? If ever there were a group of people who held dear a sense of independence and the need to be who they are -- it is the French.

It is one thing taking on the European Union as a way to boost the economic stabilities of all countries involved, but to adopt a one-size fits all Constitution signals to the minds of many a disaster in the waiting.

The French will thumb their noses at the notion of Political Correctness. They will insist when you speak their language it is done properly. They make no bones that when you are in their country you are to not forget where you are. If they seem rude or abrupt with you, it is probably because they deem you as the one who is being rude by holding them up or taking away their valuable time being French.

Why on earth would the French accept the idea that outsiders can dictate the foundation of all laws that will govern their own people? To consider such an action would be to entertain the idea of becoming like the Americans who have a Constitution over all the states who at one time had the freedom to rule their states independently until the Federal government became too powerful leaving the individual states with a fraction of the authority they once had. By considering a Europe-wide Constitution brings in the potential threat of what happens if those in charge of the EU become too powerful and all French laws come in second to what an outside government demands.

The French are not the only ones who have an issue with it. The British are also strongly independent and the idea that an outsider could come in and disrupt their way of life is not exactly a comforting one. The United Kingdom is one of the minority in the EU that still keeps its own currency and strong sense of national identity. The fear amongst people against the EU is losing their identity and becoming a conglomerate of the European Union.

Backers of the EU Constitution point out that these are fears based on no real facts. There were safeguards put within the Constitution to prevent a hostile takeover of any individual nation. The basics of the Constitution is simply to guarantee all citizens within European Union nations the freedoms enjoyed in most of the civilized countries. Not all the nations joining the EU had such guaranteed freedoms and without a Constitution could go on denying their citizens things most others take for granted.

By allowing basic liberties for all people, it frees the weaker nations into becoming better neighbors. It allows better security throughout the EU areas. It stands as a united front in a worldwide, cutthroat economic situation. It creates the chance for more people to have better jobs, affordable homes, and the best educational opportunities around.

There are good things about the EU Constitution that will help all of Europe, even at the risk of becoming a "one-size-fits-all" community. I think everyone should really read the proposed Constitution before deciding it is the evil they think it is.

http://www.callendamornen.co.uk

Bush Will Honor Fallen Soldiers?

2005-05-30T19:55:00.000Z

President George W Bush held a ceremony in order to honor the fallen soldiers of both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. What a great sentiment for him to get up in front of all those people and speak of their brave sacrifice they made for the freedom of Americans and for the freedom of the people in Iraq and Afghanistan. He can really move his audience.

Actions, however, speak louder than words. This is coming from the same Administration that has basically pressured the media into NOT covering any photos of flag-draped coffins coming home to be laid at rest. It is almost like he wants us to honor their memories, but as long as we don't know specifically who they are and how many of them have fallen. Needless to say - a lot!

Afghanistan was a necessary war to fight. The Taliban who safeguarded and sponsored the people behind the terrible act of 11th September 2001 had to be taken down. Make no mistakes about it, this was out of pure revenge and NOT to free the Afghans. The Taliban was responsible for the torture of men, women and children, but the United States government did not care one iota about their plight until the terrorists messed with us on our soil.

Did the men who died in freeing this country die in vain? Only time will tell. Are the people really free? They held elections. They are doing their best to make it through a rough time. At the same time they are still infested with terrorists and rebels who want to destroy anything that smacks of Western culture. It's not that they resent freedom as President Bush states, they hate everything that Western culture symbolizes. They hate the values and standards we hold dear or at least tolerate.

They see the West as a sex-crazed godless culture void of any merit in the eyes of their God, although some in the West see the same thing here, too. It is not freedom they hate, but the notion that their beliefs are being threatened as much as they were during the times of the Crusades. That is why they are fighting back. They want to take back the power and control away from Western influence and dole it out to whatever faction that is the most un-Western and who has the most power, guns, and intimidation factor to be in charge. This is the mentality of the ones we call "insurgents"-- the ones who can wield the most force are the ones who are the most fit to protect their people against the invading West. The few trying to take control do not think the people in their land are capable of making the right decisions and need to be controlled or else they will become like the West.

They see it as protecting their lands and their people. We see it as a group of bullies trying to enslave their own people. In turn, they see the US as the bullies trying to force a way of life upon their people. Then we see it as further proof that they have no concept in what we are trying to do to help them so we must force them to see things our way -- for their own good. After all, these people protecting their people are not exactly playing by their holy book either and they have an agenda of their own that has no religious nor moral value.

People are still dying. Soldiers expect that there will be casualties. Civilians are the innocent victims that get caught in this mess. We may be fighting for their freedom, but how many of them will be left to enjoy this freedom if this war is destroying them all?

Iraq was not a necessary war. I do not believe for one minute that George W Bush deliberately lied to instigate the war. I think he thought the information he had at the time was credible and decided something needed to be done or else it could be another disaster. I do fault him for not waiting for all the facts before acting. Even as his wrong information was coming in, other information which disproved his false information was also coming in.

By rushing into a war without support of the world community and without a good plan to execute this effort has caused more deaths than needed to happen. War will kill people, but I think President Bush owes the families of the soldiers more than a mere "honor" ceremony when some of those deaths could have been prevented.

http://www.callendamornen.co.uk

Possible Cures Within Reach

2005-05-30T19:19:00.000Z

Stem cell research has been quite a controversial one. On one hand you have those who are in the Pro-Life camp who believe all life is sacred, even if that life is just a bunch of cells without a specific purpose encoded into it yet. On the other hand, you have the scientific community along with many who are suffering and waiting for a cure to a disease that could be found within these same cells. What one believes could mean the difference between life or death to one man or to forever kill a potential life of another.

A stem cell is a blank slate. When it is formed within the female, it has the possibility to become almost anything. It is not a heart, a brain, a nervous system, or any vital organ, but it has the potential to become any of these units. As it is not formed into being anything other than a blank cell, it does not have the ability to think, reason, feel, and is certainly not a viable life form although ironically it has the form to support a viable life.

The objectional part, for those on the Right To Life side is in order to obtain such cells, an embryo must be sacrificed. They are correct. These cells do not just appear out of thin air. These cells taken for experimental tests are from aborted fetus tissues and in some cases with the parental permission from a miscarried fetus. The cells do not come from the fetus of people who want to keep their babies to full term - these are the so-called "throw away" babies as the Pro-lifers term it.

Should there ever come a time when these cells can be obtained without having to use a fetus, perhaps the Pro-life camp would not object. However, the fear is that if this practice, as is, continues and is the norm then many fetuses would be created in order to sacrifice to the medical industry which could, arguably profit largely from this business. For those who fight for the life of the unborn, this serves as further proof of mankind's devaluation of humanity and life itself.

On the other hand, you have those who do not see the same objections. Not everyone views this embyronic stage as a viable human life, but only as a potential human life. Many would argue as long as even one child in the world does not have a loving home, no one should be forced to bring another one into the world if they cannot be responsible for their fate. A person in this camp may state, "If one values life so much, perhaps they should start putting a value on the life that has already been brought into our world."

Some religious people place a high value on the need for suffering. Things often change when it is they who are suffering or if it were one of their children. If the sacrifice of an otherwise trashed embyro could save a child dying from AIDS, cancer or suffering from life-long diabetes, would this not be more of a value of life than being concerned with the fate of an embryo that was heading for the hazardous waste bin?

Organ transplant programmes are always in need for donors, but that supply is often too short and many die waiting for hope. A stem cell could possibly be that organ which may save a life.

Blood supplies do lack from time to time and in some areas may be unsafe. However a blank cell could produce copious amounts of your own blood to replace your needs when necessary.

A child dying from bone cancer could have a fighting chance for life if a blank cell can replace the cancerous cells making the child whole again without as much dangerous chemo or radiation therapy.

These are all examples of lives that have already come into being that need to have a value placed upon them. The stem cells of embryos are waste products. Should the research be disallowed, these embryos will be medical waste and none of the existing people will have a shot for a better life.

Which is the lesser of two evils?

http://www.callendamornen.co.uk

Welcome To The Blog

2005-05-27T19:26:00.000Z

Why am I putting up this blog? Because I can. Why not? The television news has become a joke and so Comedy Central has correctly hit it on the head. When the so-called real media has started to air blogs as "the news" we may as well start calling Weekly World News hard hitting journalism at its best. What makes this blog any different from any of the others? Absolutely nothing! I am just a smart aleck voicing my opinions on the opinions of other "news" anchors who "report the news." Every jerk has their opinion and anyone who knows me knows I am certainly filled with a point of view that will piss someone off.
So with this, welcome to my blog!

http://www.callendamornen.co.uk