Politics, Religion and Sex

What are the three things that shouldn't be discussed around the dinner table? Politics, religion, and what was the other one, was it sex? I had never understood the statement until as of recent when the first two of the the trio were brought to discussion.

Sitting around the dinner table with my two brothers, mom, and dad, we discuss everything on the list with not problems. We have vibrant arguments and joke about opinions and everyone is better off in the end from it, I believe. No one was ever really offended, as much challenged by the arguments brought up to certain points. At a recent dinner beyond the nuclear family, things were slightly different.

Religion was brought up in a small group which soon turned into talk of politics and our current political policies (or lack of for some of the people in talk). Once the discussion was in heat, it was then that I realized why the topic is off limits for dinnertime talk. People that I didn't know completely all too well were standing firm in arguments that I believed to be full of something other than truthful backing, but I didn't want to argue my views to a applicable level with fear that I might offend someone in my somewhere extended family.

I love hanging with this side of my family. They are so different and unique in respect to my other side of the family that it is refreshing at times, seeing minds tick in a different manner. I am a people pleaser, and although as of late, I have begun taking strong opinions in many matters, I don't want to plain offend any person, especially family. I remain quiet and listen, taking in sides. Some people are stubborn and start mislabeling people... 'you know the problem with Muslims...?' I almost fell out of my chair. The problem with Muslims? Every single one of them? Excuse me, but do you know the problem with Americans, they waste and eat too much, sorry, I'm an American, I definitely don't eat enough and I make a definite conscious effort to not waste. Labeling is not a good thing... just don't do it.

I became frustrated and had to leave the discussion. I am guessing no one even knew that I was paying attention to the words being thrown back and forth, but I was, and I had to leave before I blew steam. When I get upset over something, I don't make good arguments. I don't speak well to public. I am a person who has to calmly collect my thoughts before going into an argument, so whenever I get all heated up and start arguing, I make terrible arguments and let the opposition win... not a good thing.

Honestly I am not sure where this post is taking me. Mostly I am just venting about the realization why people beyond a strongly knit group should not discuss politics, religion, or sex when you are in a forced friendly environment. Tensions rise. I hope I am not giving the wrong impression. I love discussing differences of opinions with others, even extended family sure, but not at a gathering. I'm not sure the proper scenario... but I'll let you know if I ever figure that out. It is more of one of those things that you must be comfortable and respect the person you are discussing with and you know at the time.

That's all for now... blarged: Jason

My Political Compass

After taking a grueling quiz with questions asking some (eh) relevant questions... I found out the same answers I've been told by most political standpoint quizzes... let me show.

This is a two-dimensional representation of political views (economical and social)


This is a representation of well known political leader past and present and where they stand on the two-dimensional plot




Here is where I stand... there were no surprises. I'm thinking being like Gandhi is a good thing.... :-)


Happy Fourth of July!

A little bit about the status quo...

Here me out on this one... let's look at our President, as the 'Dad' of the country...

Today I was reading through my blogs and ran across this article from whitehouse.gov about "Congress's Failure to Act on Comprehensive Immigration Reform". There is a definite somber tone in this article as President Bush puts on his fatherly voice of disappointment to talk about his wayward child, congress.

Ok... so congress doesn't really equate to the President's kid, but we do, don't we?

Think about it, what he (maybe soon to be she?) says goes... he's the commander of the armed forces and can declare war... he has power to veto any bill that comes his way... he is the head guy, big cheese, wearing the pants in our country...

My Dad did (and still does) use the guilt trip ‘punishment’ on me… its worse than anything.

If you think about him as the 'father' of the United States at the moment, many are missing out on the key parental demand of respect. Now I for one don't agree with everything that President Bush says or does, but I do respect the man. If you notice in most (if not all) of my posts regarding the President, I refer to him as President Bush, or some near, respectable title. Yes, you go back and look; it has been a conscious (and sometimes very difficult) effort. You don't hear me calling him names or referring to him as Georgie, or the 'Big W', or anything. He has a lot on his plate, and even though he hasn't made all the right choices in my eyes, he hasn't done a ‘two thumbs down’ job.... maybe only a ‘one-and-a-half’ thumbs down. Of course most negative opinions are from the war on Iraq, but I think positive accolades need to be given for his work on immigration. I really like the plan on the plate... although, apparently congress doesn't.

This post is kind of jumping all over the place... I'm just spouting random thoughts, so if you've made it this far congrats, it probably isn't going to get much better.

I've harped on the immigration reform many times already, but again I feel like I need to get my opinion across.

THE STATUS QUO SUCKS!

Let's hear one person give an argument against that.... seriously.

So the conservatives think that the reform is granting amnesty to those illegal aliens already here? I don't think it is... they have it tough to become a legal citizen... and we can't make it impossible or else no illegal aliens will want to let themselves be found

So the liberals think that the fine is too high for the illegal aliens? They've already broken the law... are you the ones trying to give them amnesty?

We need something right now that is better than the status quo, and that is what President Bush has offered.

Hello Congress, my name is Jason Pawlak… I have a request… Why won't you get off your high horses and learn to compromise...

…or else nothing will ever change.

I personally have a hard time imagining much change in the illegal aliens that are already in our country. Even with the so-called 'amnesty' I doubt many will let themselves be found. Our real plan should be centered on protecting the border. I've already given my plan there for securing the border... check it out here if you haven't seen it. It's a winner :-)

Talking about politicians always gets me frustrated... grr

I can solve the border control issue

I have a solution to our Mexico-United States border control issue.

President Bush has seemingly made our southern border control his number one priority lately. After congress denied his immigration reform bill the first time, our President showed signs of frustration and continued on proclaiming that the bill isn't perfect, but it is better than the status quo. I agree... sometimes change is needed... however, I think our government doesn't look at bills like this in the best manner. Bush himself made notes to the point of some items in the bill will need to be adjusted but we need other points of the bill. So why don't we make these separate pieces of legislation?

So you want to hear my stop-all-illegal-immigration-best-ever-plan (SAIIBEP)?

Some say let's build a fence... I say dogs get around fences... how's this going to stop people...
Some say let's beef up the border patrol... I say there's no chance one man is going to be able to watch miles of darkness and see a thing...
Some say who cares about border control... I say wake up and smell the coffee...

But anyway... here is the end all plan of action.
Let's build on the border...

That's it... seriously. I've been through the Mexican border, there is nothing around in sight. Most cities are built in circular fashions somewhat out from the downtown area. Why don't we start Border City, which spans the nearly 1,951 miles along the Rio Grande (or more than once city). This won't be any old city though. This will be a city for cowboys who like to wrangle. Housing in this city is free... got that? The folks who live here won't have to buy a house, they are assigned one. These border livers would then be able to do as they please, shop at the local markets, go for picnics under the shade of cacti in the local sand park, but they do have a job. Every person that lives in this city has the responsibility of watching the border. Each citizen for an allotted amount of time per day... maybe an hour or two, must sit in a lawn chair under a nice shady umbrella with lemonade in hand, and watch the border.

If these cities populate the entire way down the border, there will be more than enough eyes to watch. You might be thinking that these border watchers would then be paid off in attempt for smugglers to get their 'goods' across. Well that's completely possible, however, there are rewards for illegal immigrants caught. Maybe its cash, maybe its a better house, maybe its a spot on the town council... but you are awarded for you services... and you get a free house. So even if the man watching the border at the time gets paid off, the smuggler still has to watch out for the rest of the town.

These cities would not be for middle to upper class children though. I imagine the crime rate would be high and the types of people that live there would be rough. The demand for folks to fill these houses would be high, and lucrative for the folks that oblige.

Another possibility is a type of draft. Instead of getting drafted to go off into the military and die, you get drafted to move down to a border city and sit around drinking lemonade all day.

Seriously folks... this is the end all plan... it would work. It would take a lot of front-end costs with the government needing to build homes for nearly 2,000 miles of border, and also the funds to keep their word of rewards for illegal immigrants found... but no more than what we spend right now.

Watch the news for SAIIBEP... it'll be huge ;-)

Later days!

Something is Seriously Wrong

Guess the percentage of military units coming back from the war in Iraq have some form of post traumatic stress disorder...

40%

FOURTY PERCENT

THAT IS 2 OUT OF EVERY 5 PEOPLE SENT TO IRAQ

Something is seriously wrong. I found this news from NPR very disturbing indeed. Yes, I know NPR tends to be on the way Left, but statistics don't lie.

People may ask, well are all 40% walking around clucking like chickens or what defines post traumatic stress disorder? Research was done by and for the Pentagon, which realized that 20% to 25% of soldiers going to Iraq are coming back with "serious mental health symptoms". The issue that is trying to be solved by the Pentagon now is getting help for these troops that have these mental issues.

When research was being conducted for this study, it was found that it was dangerous to be labeled as mentally unstable. Officers who found out their subordinate was with mental issues would sometimes punish them by making them clean the latrines or other foul tasks. Our nations finest? Apparently the Pentagon has decided they need better training, better instruction and more information telling the soldiers what possibilities there are. And then after the battle we need more specialists.

I disagree.

If a major corporation releases information that 40% of their employees are now labeled with post traumatic stress disorder and 25% of their employees are labeled with "serious mental health symptoms" there would be uproar. What makes our government so different?

War is a nasty, ugly, but a sometimes-necessary evil. We need a new game plan for Iraq (period).

Come on Mr. President, I like your immigration policy, now let's see what you've got for your foreign policy.

Bob Barker gone Political

Have you heard? California is trying to make it illegal to own a cat or dog that isn't spayed or neutered without a permit.

The actual name of the proposed bill is the 'Healthy Pets Act' and it is discrimination to non-pure bred cats and dogs. The bill states that permits could be permitted to pretty much only purebreds... that so called 'muts' are not worthy of kittens and puppies. The supporters of this bill say this will help the stray pet population. I say that it won't.

Somehow, I don't think lots of people who find their dog having puppies are just going to throw them out into the street... the stray population is being supported by the stray population, and they are already spayed or neutered when they are picked up. What this bill seems to be doing is saying that purebred dogs are 'better' than mixed dogs. Now I'm a proponent of spaying and neutering your pets in the first place... I don't see it as a bad thing, but at this point in time I don't think that it is even slightly a bit of the government's business to be telling you whether or not you have to. Apparently Bob Barker after taping his last 'Price is Right' went straight to the phone to start lobbying for this bill to pass.

I don't know if any of my readers are from California. But if you are, please voice a negative opinion on this matter.

Yes, help control the pet population... but don't let the government force you into something that currently is none of their business.

Cheers.

Spending my Tax Dollars

Here's a thought, what if we could spend a set percentage of our tax dollars in ways we see fit?

Let's say, hypothetically, the feds take $100 from a paycheck on week. What if 50% of that $100 was set up to be spent as the person who earned the money saw fit. I just now listened to a speech given by President Bush on American giving to the fight against AIDS. In this speech President Bush noted that the American people just completed a 5-year 15 Billion dollar giving plan successfully, and now he is proposing to congress that we as American's double our giving for the next 5-years and give 30 Billion dollars. That is a lot of money, seriously. I am no expert on the fight against AIDS, I personally have little knowledge about AIDS in itself, but I do know that it is a serious epidemic, especially on third-world nations in Africa. The money goes to funding medicine/doctors/research and I am sure it is being put to good use.

But what if I want my tax dollars, the money I earn while sitting in my little cube, saving the grocery world... to go something different?

At first I was thinking why can't we decide how all our taxes are spent? But then I realized the problem, people wouldn't ever think about/want to set aside money for such things as street maintenance or paying city workers (Yes I'm aware federal taxes don't go to city workers and I have no clue who funds street maintenance, but you catch my drift). So why don't we figure out how much of each person's taxes are going to outside funds, like fighting AIDS. Let's just say for sake of argument 50%.

So your initial argument against my spending plan is probably going to be, well can't we already do that? We donate money to charity and write it off our taxes. But the difference there is the government will still spend the same amount of money regardless of people writing charity donations off their taxes. Bush wants to fight AIDS with 30 Billion dollars. Let's say over the next 5-years, all Americans write off 1-Billion dollars in taxes with donations to fight AIDS. Well that just increases the American giving to 31 Billion dollars, which means 1-Billion dollars in the red for our government. See the issue?

Another problem you might say is that lots of people will donate to a 'stupid' charity giving them an overwhelming income. Let's just take for example The Cable Center Charity. All the folks of the cable industry will want to donate to something that is relative to their field, so they all donate to The Cable Center. This currently far in the red charity would have an overwhelming increase in finances taking away from what some people would consider more important, fighting AIDS. My response is, well we live in a democracy don't we? The people's choice? If we as American's see fit to spend our tax dollars in funding The Cable Center, then shouldn't we be allowed to?

Next issue everyone will have is the lazy folks who don't want to spend the time to decide what charity is worth their money. What happens to their 50%? Simple, the government will use your $100 to give $200 to charity.... what they do already, no?

The final issue I'm going to post for now that you might have is, well aren't there like millions of federally funded charities? (the real count I have no idea) Won't some get left out? I propose that someone on capital hill create categories. Maybe you can't donate directly to The Cable Center, but you can donate your share to Professional Advancements... or something of the sort. Or you could donate your money to Low-Income Scholarships.... or even, Fighting Wars that aren't going anywhere (this would help the American folk's feel like they have a choice with the War in Iraq)

My plan would make everyone much happier with a feeling that they are actually making a difference in the world, that they are deciding how their money is spent, that they are able to support something they have a passion for.

One last issue you'll have (maybe the first one on your list) is that you think we're already doing this by living in a democracy and electing officials to spend our money for us.... and my answer to you is... you're right. What I'm proposing in its simplicity would be so full of loopholes that people could jump through. I'm just venting on my views that my tax dollars are not being spent in a way that I think best.

Come November of 2008, whether the man (or woman for that matter) in office is better or worse, it won't matter, they will be different, and that is all the American People want right now.

I Call Him George W

So this past weekend (Sunday to be exact) was the 400th anniversary of the Jamestown Settlement. President Bush was there to commemorate the event. While sifting through my blogs this morning I came across part of his speech at the event and was kind of left silent. In just a few sentences I think our President said some of his smartest words to date. Let me share:

"America is proud to promote the expansion of democracy, and we must continue to stand with all those struggling to claim their freedom. The advance of freedom is the great story of our time, and new chapters are being written every day, from Georgia and Ukraine, to Kyrgyzstan and Lebanon, to Afghanistan and Iraq. From our own history, we know the path to democracy is long, and it's hard. There are many challenges, and there are setbacks along the way. Yet we can have confidence in the outcome, because we've seen freedom's power to transform societies before."

I know, there's nothing really special about how it is said, and there isn't any real unique qualities about the topic being stated, but there is something, a mindset that grabs my attention. Much of the press who emphasize our war in Middle East with negative tone leave a taste in our mouths of big bad America, trying to make the rest of the world just like them... America does it right, and if anyone doesn't do it like America they are just wrong... black and white. This short excerpt from President Bush's speech takes a different mindset. Think of our early days... we fought for our freedom. Our world is rather different now than it was then, but so much the same as well. Countries in the Middle East are fighting a war, a different war nonetheless, but still a war for their freedom. I've utterly confused my emotions on this war completely now, President Bush succeeded.

As for the whole of his speech, which was just over 12 minutes, I found myself chuckling, smiling, and even admiring the voice of our President, something that I haven't done for a long time. I have always respected him; you must respect your elected officials. But let me share a little about his speech. Probably about a dozen times, little interjections about the current day fight for democracy were stated, which got to be annoying, but we know what this administration is all about. Other than the silly 2 minutes of thank you's (Does anyone care about hearing thank you's other than the persons name being said?), the President's speech was informative, funny, and had personality... it was good.

"Six of the leading colonists held the first presidential election in American history, and you might be surprised to hear that the winner wasn't name George. As matter of fact his name was Edward Wingfield... I call him Eddie W."

President Bush concentrated on two rightful points for this event. Where have we been and where are we now. Below I will post a link to the speech for those interested. Kudos President Bush for doing your job.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070513.pod.a.mp3

Later!

Our President, the Warrior!

Think back to the days of Knights, Kings, Castles, and fair maidens that needed prince charming to come and rescue them from the ominous and evil dragon... Ok, well at least think back to the days of Knights and Kings. In those days people fought for their freedom (just as we do today) however there is a difference. In those days the King fought right with the armies, no? Or has modern film battle replication led me astray with my dark ages history? So why doesn't our leader fight any more? When did it change?

I'm not saying sending our boy W' out to the bomb infested roads of Iraq would really be the best plan of action for the population of our country (although I know a good many who thinks that is exactly what we should do) but really, is our leader, the 'commander and chief' of our military just the guy who goes and gives pep talks makes decisions about making today National Military Spouse day??? Come on... sorry to those who fall under today's holiday, but how retarded of a holiday is that. What about National I drink coffee with 2 scoops of sugar day... or National Janitor day? Maybe those days already exist... we would be in a world of hurt if it weren't for janitors... they have my respect.

Maybe I've read too much of Scott Adams 'Dilbert Blog' or something, but my mind is racing with the possibilities of sending our leaders to war... how would their opinions change of our present day scenario then? I've been a fan of W' for quite some time, well... until recently. For a while I kind of stopped paying attention to politics... the last election was over, we're fighting a war that will probably never end, and no big news is coming from DC it seems. In the past few weeks though, I have been catching up, reading articles and blog entries on our current status with the world, and I have a new level of concern. There are two areas that I have a strong desire to see something change.

1.) Iraq. Do something, what we're doing now isn't doing much of anything... we lose people every day, and I hear little to no news of progress, only so and so has died... if we're killing their leaders, doesn't that mean we should be closer to bring them to the supposed 'good side'. I don't have any ideas... my job is to sit in a cube and make sure Kroger has groceries to sell... not command troops, but really, try something new... let's get a report that a change is being made... standing water only brings stinkiness

2.) Gas prices. Those two words should bring enough anger to surface that I don't even have to write a paragraph, but I still will. What is going on??? Really!!! Barrel prices are going down, and gas prices are going up... and oil companies are making RECORD HIGH PROFITS... why? I heard on the radio this morning on the way to work that the government in Kentucky is finally looking into this issue to see if the gas companies are just sticking it to us, or what the deal really is. We as the consumer need to do something. Unfortunately we don't live in a society that can just stop using gas to show the oil companies who are in charge... we would all get fired and then the economy would be fried. I'll have to look into that press conference that was being held across the river today and get back to you about their findings.

For now I sit here... not understanding much of anything that's going on in the world around me. The best I can do is make sure my own situation is as best as it can be, and do the same the best I can for those around me.

Later folks, keep your stick on the ice... we're all in this together!

PS. Look at me finish the 10K!