The hot topic right now as far as domestic policy in our country is the legality of marijuana. As with most topics on the political spectrum, I've given the topic a lot of thought, and I have formed a stance on whether or not it should be an illegal substance.
Before I go into my stance, though, I did a little light research as to why it is illegal in the first place. I had to look some things over because I haven't been a long term advocate to either side of the argument at any point of my life prior to the last few months. Skimming over a couple of websites, and my memories of books like "The Autobiography of Malcolm X", among other sources, there were a few legislative reasons I came up with that will support the views of political advocates on both sides of the aisle. Now, the majority of things I saw circled around poison control and controlling medicinal substances, similar to laws surrounding other hard prescription narcotics. I even found literature claiming criminalization for medicinal uses being a phenomenal legislative typo. Essentially, though, it boiled down to possession without a prescription, which is still the law in most places. Looking over some state and federal laws surrounding use of marijuana, most things I saw used the word possession. That tells me that in most places, you can be walking around, eyes glowing red, with Cheech Marin on your left singing up in smoke, and Tommy Chong on your right playing guitar for him, and as long as you have no marijuana or paraphernelia on your person, there is nothing the authorities can do to you. But if you have a little grain of hemp on your clothing, you're going to jail. What I draw from this is that Brian Griffin may be right. This could possibly be nothing more than a lobby by lumber companies to keep hemp from being used for paper. Admittedly, though, most everything I'm finding surrounding this is propaganda and speculation. I didn't really find anything concrete surrounding the reasons for it's outlaw.
Now, after some careful thought and consideration to both sides of the argument, I drew one solution that would benefit all. I say let's de-criminalize, BUT, let's do it the right way.
Now, if we make weed legal, the first thing we need to do is find an effective test to fairly find out if people driving or operating machinery are under the influence. Some research on this will need to be performed since habitual marijuana users can keep residual traces in their bloodstreams for up to 3 months. If you are at work or driving under the influence, just like alcohol, you get fines and jail time. The advocates will try to tell you that marijuana doesn't alter your perception, but as a former user, I can tell you firsthand, that if you get stoned enough, your perception of time becomes completely altered, and therefore, your reaction times are also altered.
The other thing we need to do is to let the FDA and ATF take over the production and distribution, and tax it, just like we do with alcohol and cigarettes. The private sector can grow weed, just like private distillers can distill and brew alcoholic beverages. But the distribution of marijuana needs to be regulated and taxed exactly the same as well. If you get caught growing weed in your basement and selling it without the taxes, you go to jail, just like the moonshiners.
Marijuana decriminalization will raise a big fad for about 10 years. Everyone who has been bragging about weed to be an outlaw or a gangster will want to run out and smoke as much as they can because it's legal, and we will generate a very large amount of tax revenue over it. And not everyone is going to smoke it. People like me will continue to prefer booze. Once the thrill has worn off, I think marijuana use will fade into the background.
So, in closing, I think the idea has potential. I don't think we, as Americans, are quite ready for it yet. But after we cross the last couple hurdles, the benefits will help everyone, stoner and non stoner alike.
Saturday, May 10, 2014
Saturday, March 1, 2014
The Enterprise Versus The Millenium Falcon
Most of the people who know me, and probably everyone who has read my blog beginning to end already knows...I have been a big fan of King of the Nerds since it started. However, a couple weeks ago, it came to debate week. While I appreciate the nerd culture, this episode really struck me in the face over the selection of people that they featured. Overall, this season featured a stunning lack of scholastic nerds, and as a former speech team geek, I was less than impressed by the debates surrounding the Star Wars and Star Trek franchises. Only the women on each team really offered up intelligent arguments, while the remaining four people seemed to be reduced to petty convention squabbles. While I was more impressed with their arguments, I was more surprised to see what they left out.
Now, I do understand that the shame may not fall on either young lady. Television producers most likely had to cut out big parts of the arguments to keep the show running in it's designated 60 minute time slot. The debate topic was that Star Trek's Enterprise would win in a dogfight against Star Wars's Millenium Falcon. This is clearly an apples to oranges argument on one speaking point that I missed hearing in the debates: size.
The Millenium Falcon is a modified YT-13 freight ship. It's speed capabilities were enhanced to make it a more effective smuggling vessel, but that doesn't change the fact that it is essentially a space semi with a small crew of four and most of it's space utilized for freight. The Enterprise-D (the incarnation that Kayla used for her debate) is more like a spaceborne aircraft carrier. With it's crew of 1012, it's size is comparable to the Empire's Star Destroyer Class ships, which were so large that the Falcon was able to hide from sensors by "landing" (magnetic interlock) on the back of the bridge of the Star Destroyer. On that major note, the Enterprise wins the battle on sheer surface area alone. There is simply a large amount more sheet metal that the Falcon has to destroy just to DISABLE the Enterprise, not to mention total ship destruction. Kayla did bring up the crew size for fatigue, but not for surface area to house this many people, and I feel that it is the biggest advantage.
The smaller advantage that the Enterprise holds is smaller ships. Now, I've never been a big Next Generation fan, but I do know Vogager. The USS Voyager carried three shuttlecraft, plus another ship they built to be a small fighter in the unfamiliar section of space that it was stranded in; and the Voyager Crew was 16% of the crew of the Enterprise-D. That leads me to believe that the Voyager was smaller, and I assume that the larger Enterprise carried many many more shuttles. Now, even though the ships bear the name "shuttle", do not be fooled. Starfleet shuttlecraft carry warp capability, forward and rear phaser arrays, and a small compliment of Photon Torpedoes, and would probably be a similar size to the Falcon (large enough to carry a handy landing party). Between the size difference, and the shuttlecraft to surround the Falcon, Han and his hairy sidekick would be easily overwhelmed and brought in to negotiate an unconditional surrender very quickly.
I'm sure Han and Chewie had some other tricks up their sleeves, and would be able to duck and weave better, but these are the big advantages that are out there.
Now, I do understand that the shame may not fall on either young lady. Television producers most likely had to cut out big parts of the arguments to keep the show running in it's designated 60 minute time slot. The debate topic was that Star Trek's Enterprise would win in a dogfight against Star Wars's Millenium Falcon. This is clearly an apples to oranges argument on one speaking point that I missed hearing in the debates: size.
The Millenium Falcon is a modified YT-13 freight ship. It's speed capabilities were enhanced to make it a more effective smuggling vessel, but that doesn't change the fact that it is essentially a space semi with a small crew of four and most of it's space utilized for freight. The Enterprise-D (the incarnation that Kayla used for her debate) is more like a spaceborne aircraft carrier. With it's crew of 1012, it's size is comparable to the Empire's Star Destroyer Class ships, which were so large that the Falcon was able to hide from sensors by "landing" (magnetic interlock) on the back of the bridge of the Star Destroyer. On that major note, the Enterprise wins the battle on sheer surface area alone. There is simply a large amount more sheet metal that the Falcon has to destroy just to DISABLE the Enterprise, not to mention total ship destruction. Kayla did bring up the crew size for fatigue, but not for surface area to house this many people, and I feel that it is the biggest advantage.
The smaller advantage that the Enterprise holds is smaller ships. Now, I've never been a big Next Generation fan, but I do know Vogager. The USS Voyager carried three shuttlecraft, plus another ship they built to be a small fighter in the unfamiliar section of space that it was stranded in; and the Voyager Crew was 16% of the crew of the Enterprise-D. That leads me to believe that the Voyager was smaller, and I assume that the larger Enterprise carried many many more shuttles. Now, even though the ships bear the name "shuttle", do not be fooled. Starfleet shuttlecraft carry warp capability, forward and rear phaser arrays, and a small compliment of Photon Torpedoes, and would probably be a similar size to the Falcon (large enough to carry a handy landing party). Between the size difference, and the shuttlecraft to surround the Falcon, Han and his hairy sidekick would be easily overwhelmed and brought in to negotiate an unconditional surrender very quickly.
I'm sure Han and Chewie had some other tricks up their sleeves, and would be able to duck and weave better, but these are the big advantages that are out there.
Saturday, February 15, 2014
The Mega Man X Argument
Some time ago, I had a longing to have a debate with someone over this topic. However, I am the only human I know geeky enough to know the topic at hand, and the only person I know with enough memory of the topic to accurately discuss it without extensive research. So I am posting it here in the hopes that my explanation reaches out to my friends and they can compose an intelligent argument surrounding the philosophy behind the fictitious situation, as well as getting fellow gamers involved who would like to jump in after finding the title in a web search, intimately knowing the topic at hand. I'd really like to get some good discussions going off of this, because as technology hurtles forward, some of the younger of my readers may have to encounter this in their lifetimes. To start with, I am going to present the situation. Rather than copy and paste directly from Capcom's official sources, I am going to paraphrase and present a certain way, to show how the particular situation differs from other strains of AI in popular culture. Let's begin
In the year 200X (Capcom never used a specific year in any of their official canon), Engineer Thomas Light created the first form of Artificial Intelligence; implanting the operating system in an anthromorphic robot dubbed "Proto Man". Proto Man had the ability to make decisions on his own, within a very strict set of parameters. His purpose was to serve as a sort of foreman over other, simpler, robots; able to go into work areas that were much too dangerous for humans and operate somewhat autonomously without being completely dependent on human interaction. Proto Man was stolen by Light's rival, Albert Wily, and reprogrammed for combat. Light then created a second artificially intelligent robot to defend against Proto Man and other robots that were reverse engineered from his design, and 10 wildly popular side scrolling video games were the result, the Mega Man Series.
As these events wore on, within the fictitious universe surrounding Mega Man, Dr Light continued his research on Artificial Intelligence. In the year 20XX (online literature unlicensed by Capcom suggests between 2020 and 2030), he succeeded in creating an operating system that could make decisions, learn, and adapt completely free from any parameters. True artificial intelligence. This creation, named "X", was free to choose his own path in life, and was not bound by the traditional three rules of robotics (1. A robot must never harm a human being, or through inaction, cause a human being to come to harm. 2. A robot must obey orders given to it by any human being, except where this conflicts with the first law. 3. A robot must protect it's own existence, so long as the protection does not conflict with the first or second laws. Credit - science fiction author Isaac Asimov). Dr. Light theorized that should X decide that he wished to break the first law, no force on earth could stop him, and decided that he needed to be tested for a minimum of 30 years. Nearing the end of his life, Light knew he wouldn't make it that long, and sealed X in a capsule that tested his systems for the allotted time. While it's never been confirmed what the tests were, many forums, discussions, and online literature sources suggest it was both testing of the integrity of X's hardware, firmware, and software against long term degradation (mimicking a lifespan), as well as presenting the software with a series of simulations regarding right and wrong, in essence, teaching him the difference and "raising" him as if a child.
In the year 21XX (over 100 years after the sealing of the capsule according to the Mega Man X instruction manual), archeologist Dr. Cain stumbles across the remains of Light's lab and the still running capsule. With all indicators showing green, Cain decides to open the capsule and let X walk the world. Immediately seeing the potential to humanity, Cain decides to try and reverse engineer Light's design and create more copies of X, dubbed "reploids" (replicated androids). Following wild success, Reploids begin rolling off of the assembly line at an alarming rate, and joining society. They could work completely independently of human contact in areas that were much too dangerous for human bodies to go, and be fitted with equipment to customize themselves for the life path they chose. All was well, until reploids began going "maverick" and rising up against humanity.
Now, This is where the philisophical aspect of the story begins and the arguments should be made. In official game canon directly submitted from Capcom to the fans, maverick tendencies were considered to be an irregularity, a flaw in programming, and sometimes as far as being called a computer virus. It's blame comes from a variety of sources from someone writing a malware program to imperfect design and coding stemming from Dr. Cain being an archeologist instead of an engineer. This personally bothered me. To me, it seems that if you create a race, and give it the ability to think and make decisions apart from you, you do need to accept that the members will not always make decisions you agree with. This "Maverick" label, such as it is, can't really be seen as a programming error in my eyes. Consider it from a religious angle for a second. From a creationist standpoint, are we as humans any different?? We were created by a deity, in his own image, able to choose a life for ourselves in an attempt to live happily. We were given 10 commands from our maker to live by, but we have our own choosing as to whether or not to follow them, and how we follow them. Are we mentally ill when we break a commandment, or are we simply exercising the free will that we were offered by our creator??
On another thinking note, consider the spread of the condition. They call it a virus, labelling it as such based on how it spread from one reploid to the next. It's said that it spread like wildfire, which is probably where it got it's nomenclature as a virus. Maybe it was a piece of malicious software, set to extinguish humanity. But, in reality, think about any other political or social uprising. If there are millions, if not billions of reploids in the world, and they all have the capability of free will, it's likely that few will be natural born leaders, and the majority will be followers, exactly like humanity. Finding a common ground among reploids would not be very difficult. All are artificial life forms. And exactly as has happened in the past among our race, an intelligent reploid with an agenda can speak, nay RALLY, towards a group of the "oppressed" and lead a rebellion against the humans, or anyone else who believes differently than the mob. And at that point, what you conflate with mental illness turns into an upheaval the same as any other.
So, now that I have presented the arguments and talking points, what are your thoughts on the matter?? Once you've read, share this and discuss it with your friends. Leave comments on my blog and on my Facebook page. Consider post apocalyptic stories like the Matrix, that have backstories similar to this. This shares so much common ground with so many of the biggest and bloodiest wars in our history, and I feel the more it is discussed, the more both sides can understand each other in any major conflict. I'd love to hear as much feedback as I can get. Is being a maverick a disease, or is it a race practicing free will, as we have done for millenia??
In the year 200X (Capcom never used a specific year in any of their official canon), Engineer Thomas Light created the first form of Artificial Intelligence; implanting the operating system in an anthromorphic robot dubbed "Proto Man". Proto Man had the ability to make decisions on his own, within a very strict set of parameters. His purpose was to serve as a sort of foreman over other, simpler, robots; able to go into work areas that were much too dangerous for humans and operate somewhat autonomously without being completely dependent on human interaction. Proto Man was stolen by Light's rival, Albert Wily, and reprogrammed for combat. Light then created a second artificially intelligent robot to defend against Proto Man and other robots that were reverse engineered from his design, and 10 wildly popular side scrolling video games were the result, the Mega Man Series.
As these events wore on, within the fictitious universe surrounding Mega Man, Dr Light continued his research on Artificial Intelligence. In the year 20XX (online literature unlicensed by Capcom suggests between 2020 and 2030), he succeeded in creating an operating system that could make decisions, learn, and adapt completely free from any parameters. True artificial intelligence. This creation, named "X", was free to choose his own path in life, and was not bound by the traditional three rules of robotics (1. A robot must never harm a human being, or through inaction, cause a human being to come to harm. 2. A robot must obey orders given to it by any human being, except where this conflicts with the first law. 3. A robot must protect it's own existence, so long as the protection does not conflict with the first or second laws. Credit - science fiction author Isaac Asimov). Dr. Light theorized that should X decide that he wished to break the first law, no force on earth could stop him, and decided that he needed to be tested for a minimum of 30 years. Nearing the end of his life, Light knew he wouldn't make it that long, and sealed X in a capsule that tested his systems for the allotted time. While it's never been confirmed what the tests were, many forums, discussions, and online literature sources suggest it was both testing of the integrity of X's hardware, firmware, and software against long term degradation (mimicking a lifespan), as well as presenting the software with a series of simulations regarding right and wrong, in essence, teaching him the difference and "raising" him as if a child.
In the year 21XX (over 100 years after the sealing of the capsule according to the Mega Man X instruction manual), archeologist Dr. Cain stumbles across the remains of Light's lab and the still running capsule. With all indicators showing green, Cain decides to open the capsule and let X walk the world. Immediately seeing the potential to humanity, Cain decides to try and reverse engineer Light's design and create more copies of X, dubbed "reploids" (replicated androids). Following wild success, Reploids begin rolling off of the assembly line at an alarming rate, and joining society. They could work completely independently of human contact in areas that were much too dangerous for human bodies to go, and be fitted with equipment to customize themselves for the life path they chose. All was well, until reploids began going "maverick" and rising up against humanity.
Now, This is where the philisophical aspect of the story begins and the arguments should be made. In official game canon directly submitted from Capcom to the fans, maverick tendencies were considered to be an irregularity, a flaw in programming, and sometimes as far as being called a computer virus. It's blame comes from a variety of sources from someone writing a malware program to imperfect design and coding stemming from Dr. Cain being an archeologist instead of an engineer. This personally bothered me. To me, it seems that if you create a race, and give it the ability to think and make decisions apart from you, you do need to accept that the members will not always make decisions you agree with. This "Maverick" label, such as it is, can't really be seen as a programming error in my eyes. Consider it from a religious angle for a second. From a creationist standpoint, are we as humans any different?? We were created by a deity, in his own image, able to choose a life for ourselves in an attempt to live happily. We were given 10 commands from our maker to live by, but we have our own choosing as to whether or not to follow them, and how we follow them. Are we mentally ill when we break a commandment, or are we simply exercising the free will that we were offered by our creator??
On another thinking note, consider the spread of the condition. They call it a virus, labelling it as such based on how it spread from one reploid to the next. It's said that it spread like wildfire, which is probably where it got it's nomenclature as a virus. Maybe it was a piece of malicious software, set to extinguish humanity. But, in reality, think about any other political or social uprising. If there are millions, if not billions of reploids in the world, and they all have the capability of free will, it's likely that few will be natural born leaders, and the majority will be followers, exactly like humanity. Finding a common ground among reploids would not be very difficult. All are artificial life forms. And exactly as has happened in the past among our race, an intelligent reploid with an agenda can speak, nay RALLY, towards a group of the "oppressed" and lead a rebellion against the humans, or anyone else who believes differently than the mob. And at that point, what you conflate with mental illness turns into an upheaval the same as any other.
So, now that I have presented the arguments and talking points, what are your thoughts on the matter?? Once you've read, share this and discuss it with your friends. Leave comments on my blog and on my Facebook page. Consider post apocalyptic stories like the Matrix, that have backstories similar to this. This shares so much common ground with so many of the biggest and bloodiest wars in our history, and I feel the more it is discussed, the more both sides can understand each other in any major conflict. I'd love to hear as much feedback as I can get. Is being a maverick a disease, or is it a race practicing free will, as we have done for millenia??
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
Republican Economics
When I was a child being raised by a union-factory worker and a union factory worker's daughter, I was told repeatedly by both that the Republicans were out to put more money in the business owner's pockets. Looking back on that, I think that may have been the biggest inspiration for me to turn my back on my parent's political interests once I reached the age of reason and join the Republican party. After reading a repetitive assault on Wisconsin's current governor based on job creation this afternoon, I realized that a lot of people don't understand the numbers, and I'd like to get it off my chest. I'm not going to bash, mud-sling, or name call, even though I guarantee that this simple explanation of economics will render me the victim of all three.
To start this article, I'm gonna cover a couple topics that are completely unrelated to the topic at hand. The reason I am saying these things now is because even though my article is about economics, these are the topics people are going to lash out with. It's also my experience with the harder core Liberals that this will be the point where they stop reading and start lashing out, since I am expressing conservative beliefs to their parties ideals, so here goes.
1. The non-existant war on women - No politician for any office in any party is stupid enough to attempt to enact a law that will alienate 50.3% of voting adults in America. There is no war on women, that was an election ploy thought up by the Democratic National Convention to discredit anyone who is a Christian. I assure anyone reading, that George W. Bush was strongly against abortion and no law was ever even attempted for a federal ban on it. He knew, as well as I do, that Congress can pass no law forcing religion on anyone by the Constitution, same way every other politician in the country. As I posted in my article "The Separation of Church and State", this is also a state and local government issue.
2. Gay Marriage - Also a religiously protected issue, also not something that can be decided on a federal level. Covered in the same article.
3. Drug testing for welfare - Great idea. I challenge any politician or, for that matter, any democratic supporter who claims that everyone, or even most people on welfare are drug free and actively seeking employment instead of using the system to rent a house between 50th Street 68th Street and 24th Avenue and Sheridan Road. And for the politicians who have the money, also buy one of these houses in addition to the one you are renting and ONLY rent it to someone who is receiving Section 8. Don't tell anyone who you are...and just live there for a year. Then go back to Madison, or DC, and tell me that everyone living on state aid is drug free and actively seeking employment.
Now that the extreme left wingers have stopped reading, and are preparing to blow up my comment feed, lets get down to the meat of the article for the moderates of both sides, and the idiots on the far right that make the rest of us look bad.
Now, where I began was saying the adage says that Republican politicians are only out to line the pockets of businessmen. After doing a lot of thinking about this over the years.....I determined that this isn't entirely wrong, and unlike my parents, I'm not really opposed to this practice. Money becomes capital that can be further invested into a business. Now, let's look at business in America for a second before we go any further than this. It's no secret that when most people think about business leaders in the United States, they think of massive corporations with a few very rich people at the top. Businesses like GM, McDonalds, Denny's, Bank of America, eTrade, and Disney top the list. All of these are massive corporations where the heads were voted in or inherited the business from a parent. Most of the people at the top of these businesses never had to work for anything and had everything handed to them for their entire lives. What you may not realize is that this actually represents a very SMALL percentage of businesses in the US. The vast majority of people operating a business in the country are people who worked hard to scrape out a little bit of capital because they had an idea to make their communities better, and risked everything they had to try and bring it to light. My cousin's are business leaders like this. My uncle is a business leader like this. My brother in law to be is a business leader like this. When I dig myself out of the hole that the Obama Administration has left me in, I fully intend to become a business leader like this. People like us look to tax breaks for operating our businesses in a legal manner and putting people to work so that we can come in and make our businesses better.
Now that I've touched on the definition of the most common business leader, I look at what our Republican Politicians do for us. A tax break on a business or a business leader is an opportunity for extra capital. That is capital that is free to us to do with what we wish. At the point that the break has been made to a business or a business leader, the money is no longer in the possession of the governing authority. So, when a CEO from a bigger corporation uses that break to go on a golf outing, you maybe need to stop pointing the finger at the politician that made it happen. I know that there is corruption in politics, and sometimes it is planned between business buddies, but for the most of us who want to lead a business, those dollars are what we use to improve working conditions and create jobs to support our communities.
One final touch on Bush's "sending all jobs overseas". I have another article planned on unions and worker ethics that will go into greater detail about this, but I know this will come up in comment feeds because it is a part of Republican Economics. I've never spoken to Bush, so I can't speak for him personally. But what I do know is this. Local manufacturing means US jobs. US workers are taxpayers. And, most importantly, taxpayers pay the wages of politicians. Republicans also generally have a common goal of putting people back to work and shrinking government run benefits in favor of people supplying their own benefits. There isn't a Republican Politician alive who would benefit from sending a single job to China or Mexico, therefore it would be in their best interest to keep the jobs here. This is a pretty simple idea, actually. Jobs going overseas keeps production costs down, especially with free trade, and that makes them more accessible to the majority of people. I have more to say on this when I speak about the structuring of unions past and present, but for tonight I leave you with just that little piece of wisdom. For now, keep in mind that not every business owner is the CEO of BMO Harris, and vote to keep jobs here and create more.
To start this article, I'm gonna cover a couple topics that are completely unrelated to the topic at hand. The reason I am saying these things now is because even though my article is about economics, these are the topics people are going to lash out with. It's also my experience with the harder core Liberals that this will be the point where they stop reading and start lashing out, since I am expressing conservative beliefs to their parties ideals, so here goes.
1. The non-existant war on women - No politician for any office in any party is stupid enough to attempt to enact a law that will alienate 50.3% of voting adults in America. There is no war on women, that was an election ploy thought up by the Democratic National Convention to discredit anyone who is a Christian. I assure anyone reading, that George W. Bush was strongly against abortion and no law was ever even attempted for a federal ban on it. He knew, as well as I do, that Congress can pass no law forcing religion on anyone by the Constitution, same way every other politician in the country. As I posted in my article "The Separation of Church and State", this is also a state and local government issue.
2. Gay Marriage - Also a religiously protected issue, also not something that can be decided on a federal level. Covered in the same article.
3. Drug testing for welfare - Great idea. I challenge any politician or, for that matter, any democratic supporter who claims that everyone, or even most people on welfare are drug free and actively seeking employment instead of using the system to rent a house between 50th Street 68th Street and 24th Avenue and Sheridan Road. And for the politicians who have the money, also buy one of these houses in addition to the one you are renting and ONLY rent it to someone who is receiving Section 8. Don't tell anyone who you are...and just live there for a year. Then go back to Madison, or DC, and tell me that everyone living on state aid is drug free and actively seeking employment.
Now that the extreme left wingers have stopped reading, and are preparing to blow up my comment feed, lets get down to the meat of the article for the moderates of both sides, and the idiots on the far right that make the rest of us look bad.
Now, where I began was saying the adage says that Republican politicians are only out to line the pockets of businessmen. After doing a lot of thinking about this over the years.....I determined that this isn't entirely wrong, and unlike my parents, I'm not really opposed to this practice. Money becomes capital that can be further invested into a business. Now, let's look at business in America for a second before we go any further than this. It's no secret that when most people think about business leaders in the United States, they think of massive corporations with a few very rich people at the top. Businesses like GM, McDonalds, Denny's, Bank of America, eTrade, and Disney top the list. All of these are massive corporations where the heads were voted in or inherited the business from a parent. Most of the people at the top of these businesses never had to work for anything and had everything handed to them for their entire lives. What you may not realize is that this actually represents a very SMALL percentage of businesses in the US. The vast majority of people operating a business in the country are people who worked hard to scrape out a little bit of capital because they had an idea to make their communities better, and risked everything they had to try and bring it to light. My cousin's are business leaders like this. My uncle is a business leader like this. My brother in law to be is a business leader like this. When I dig myself out of the hole that the Obama Administration has left me in, I fully intend to become a business leader like this. People like us look to tax breaks for operating our businesses in a legal manner and putting people to work so that we can come in and make our businesses better.
Now that I've touched on the definition of the most common business leader, I look at what our Republican Politicians do for us. A tax break on a business or a business leader is an opportunity for extra capital. That is capital that is free to us to do with what we wish. At the point that the break has been made to a business or a business leader, the money is no longer in the possession of the governing authority. So, when a CEO from a bigger corporation uses that break to go on a golf outing, you maybe need to stop pointing the finger at the politician that made it happen. I know that there is corruption in politics, and sometimes it is planned between business buddies, but for the most of us who want to lead a business, those dollars are what we use to improve working conditions and create jobs to support our communities.
One final touch on Bush's "sending all jobs overseas". I have another article planned on unions and worker ethics that will go into greater detail about this, but I know this will come up in comment feeds because it is a part of Republican Economics. I've never spoken to Bush, so I can't speak for him personally. But what I do know is this. Local manufacturing means US jobs. US workers are taxpayers. And, most importantly, taxpayers pay the wages of politicians. Republicans also generally have a common goal of putting people back to work and shrinking government run benefits in favor of people supplying their own benefits. There isn't a Republican Politician alive who would benefit from sending a single job to China or Mexico, therefore it would be in their best interest to keep the jobs here. This is a pretty simple idea, actually. Jobs going overseas keeps production costs down, especially with free trade, and that makes them more accessible to the majority of people. I have more to say on this when I speak about the structuring of unions past and present, but for tonight I leave you with just that little piece of wisdom. For now, keep in mind that not every business owner is the CEO of BMO Harris, and vote to keep jobs here and create more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)