Why Your Partisanship is as Bad as Theirs

Everyday, you hear on the news about some new gridlock in Washington between Democrats and Republicans in Congress. You hear people complaining about how we can't get anything done, and how our Congress is failing at their jobs. Well, it's more then just Congress. The source of the problem is you, The People. Without The People, our government can't function, and when the People are just as politically polarized as the politicians in Washington, there is a real problem. People throwing insults across the ideology spectrum is just as harmful to the political stability of our nation, as Congress not passing bills. This is because the same people that are arguing about gun rights, abortion, the NSA, calling Obama a communist, and saying conservatives want to destroy the middle class, are the people who decide who goes into Congress. So when people in Texas are voting in Ultra-Conservatives, while people in California are voting in neo-Liberals to the same House of Congress, this causes gridlock. This is the reason I started this blog. I want to break down the ideological barrier, and bring Liberals, and Conservatives together on a middle ground, and to look past the empty rhetoric, and campaign bashing on television. When you, The People are just as bad as the people in Congress when it comes to ideological polarization, that's what really causes the gridlock. The people we vote in to represent our views do exactly that, represent our views. They can only do so as their constituents dictate. If the nation as a whole is fighting from extreme sides of the spectrum then the Congressmen that represent these viewpoints will be just as horribly polarized. So, think about that the next time you claim that Obama is an authoritarian communist, or say that liberals want to take your guns, or anything dictating an extreme ideological polarization, and perhaps, as a whole we should look further into the views, and reasonings behind politicians we vote in, and see beyond the sound bytes and insults seen within the mass media. It's your choice, not theirs.
-Jake

Personal Essay

This is going to be a personal essay on religion. I will try to refrain from being overly passionate, or offensive.

Religion

To begin, I want to start off by saying that although I personally do not agree with religion, and in fact cannot tolerate the thought of it, I do respect others, and their religious choices. I don't usually get involved with religious debates, or even express my thoughts on it openly. I don't mean to offend anyone, nor do I wish to push my religious views on anyone. 

Now, in a nutshell, to me religion is simply an escape used by humans to avoid scary unknowns. We don't understand death and usually fear it, to escape this fear we create a land where everything is perfect, and all of our loved ones are there, and we live for eternity in peaceful happiness. See how that works? There are many other aspects of religion that do this for many other aspects of life that have long been unknown and feared. We use religion as a source of hope, a reason for being a good person (though in actuality it causes more hypocrisy than anything), and even lays out a very definite list of morals. At times religion can be helpful, it can help people work through bereavement, it can act as a source of inspiration, and help motivate naturally greedy humans to be kind and give as needed. Christianity, specifically, touches on a moral code for people to follow, a source of good hope, as well as strikes fear in the hearts of sinners. 

Though these may be useful for people, I still personally view religion as an escape for the ignorant. Once you accept religion as a truth, you end the search for knowledge, and the ever shifting basis as to which moral develop is constructed and changed. I feel as though religion hides the  truth of the universe from it's followers, though this may not be true. From my point of view, religion is about as useful as astrology (which most people also believe in for whatever reason), and scriptures should be seen as more of a long collective of tall tales, and myths with simple morals and themes rather than an exact representation of life, since this is often the way many other scriptures of past religions are viewed. This also raises the point that throughout history there are repeating themes within religions, that are usually copied from one theology to another. Yet, followers of each individual religion see that their beliefs are the one and only truths, when just about every aspect has been copied from some religion in the past.
To end this, I believe that if you follow a religion that perhaps you should look at it, for at least a little bit, as a teaching of a better life, rather than a guiding light for every second of every waking hour of your day. Also, think about why you actually believe in what you do, because if it isn't because you as an individual have studied up on the religion and all aspects of it, then maybe you should rethink your following, and read further into it, beyond the cherry picking, and strict interpretations heard in the media, and from priests, rabbis, or whatever it be that you have been swayed by. I can respect a personal choice to believe by knowledge, but being ignorant to your religion, and ranting on and on about your beliefs that, in reality, you know nothing about, is nothing to be proud of, nor does it shine well on your beliefs.

I hope that for those of you who managed to keep an open mind about your beliefs, and read through all of this, that you will at least, on your own read into your belief, and build a more solid ground for why you believe what you do. I am an atheist, but because I have studied multiple religions and have made a personal choice. I also hope that I haven't overly offended anyone.

Discussion

With the Crimean Referendum voting to be Annexed into Russia, should they be allowed to? The U.S. says No, but what do you think?
Note: Not a discussion on a possible conflict between NATO and Russia, simply a discussion on the political legitimacy of the Referendum, and the possible Diplomatic repercussions of the Annexation or Blocking of the Crimea. Feel free to comment what you think, and remember to have an open mind towards the opinions of others, this means no flaming because someone doesn't agree with you.

Too many Rights?

Everyday there's another person preaching about how, "The government is taking away our right to do this." The real worry, to me, is why is it that everything is automatically a right? Better yet what is a right?
The basic definition of a right is an undeniable principle, concept, or freedom, that cannot be legitimately be taken, unless by an act of power. Now, how to figure what rights are... well, actually rights.
For the most part, the "rights" that many people swear by, often are not rights. Example, the "right" to smoke. Nowhere, anywhere, is there a protection of the ability to smoke tobacco. Yet, people would fight that they have the right to smoke, while on the other side of the aisle people will claim it's their right to not be bothered by the horrible smell, and health consequences of second hand smoke. Although many people say that America is a land of freedom, and believe in turn, that this freedom means they can do whatever, is very contradictory to the actual practice of freedom within the U.S.
John Locke's Social Contract outlines the basis of America's relationship with freedom and civil liberties, as anyone who took History in High School can tell you. Even in The Federalist Papers Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison talk about how Americans can enjoy a free society, only by agreeing to keep freedoms inside of limitations, being that infringing on other's rights means that it's a free society for you, but not for them. For example, I feel compelled to have some unpaid workers work in my greenhouse. They work for me as I demand, do what I tell them, and follow my every command. This means that there is a free society for me, but for my workers they are oppressed by me and therefore not free. This obviously is a more modern version of slavery which has long been illegal for the very reason that it creates a split society.
Now, the question is to what extent can this go? Can I fight against stores because they infringe on my freedom to eat food I can easily find in nature? Can I fight against teachers for making me read boring books, and infringe on my right to not be bored to death? There has to be a fine line drawn as to what rights can, and cannot be slightly stepped on for the sake of Freedom and Liberty. This means people can publicly preach passages from The Bible without me being able to stop them simply because I don't agree with them, and this offends me. Of course, there are grey areas, Smoking, Guns, and many other fought on subjects.

To finish off this post, I would like to address the common fight against Gay marriage, and Abortion. Many people claim that these should not be allowed because it is against their morality. As I explained in the post, and shall expand upon, just because someone thinks/acts/believes differently than you, doesn't mean that you can simply say that they are wrong, and restrict their rights to practice what they believe. I'm not justifying Abortion on the grounds that someone is "naughty", but just because one (two in this case) religion says that something is wrong, and the people use their morality as a reason to constrict the rights, doesn't mean that they actually can. In fact, this is wrong on so many levels. Morality is not a justification for oppression, or the suppression of a people's rights, and liberties to be free, and live as they see fit. So long as there is not physical harm, obstruction of the public, or breaking of the law, a right can be freely and openly practiced. This means that, although you cannot yell FIRE in a theater, or smoke marijuana in protest of prohibition, you can express your religious viewpoints, or be gay as you wish. This often gets mixed up and confused throughout the public. So hopefully I taught you how to better interpret rights, and freedoms, though all laws, and rights are fully open to interpretation from all.
-Jake

Minimum Wage: To be or not to be... Raised.

Ahh... The ever present battle of classes, proletariat vs. Bourgeoisie. Rich vs. Poor. Well, the flame may have been ignited once again. The wage workers of America are working to raise minimum wage. Since this argument has many angles I will try to be as objective as possible towards the entire topic.

The first major point that can be made is that when the average amount of money workers make increases, the more things tend to cost. This is whether the companies are forced to because of the increase in wage, or just to match inflation. This is a rather basic economic concept. I have heard a lot of Democrats responding "Why does that have to happen?" when presented this argument, acting as if this concept is purely the work of Republicans trying to make Democrats look bad. This is not the way it works though, the right cannot control the flow of the economy, as much and many Bush haters wish the did. The way it works is businesses pay more money for workers, so to make up for the added revenue, the prices on their goods and/or services rise, maybe not in proportion to the wage increase, but enough to relatively match the profit margin they were pulling in before, because to them, why mess with a good thing? 

So other than purposefully increasing inflation, hereby naturally increasing national debt, and disrupting the flow of business, what else could make the wage increase look bad? Well, maybe it won't be as catastrophic as some predict, but it will cause some fiscal problems. If wages increase, then there is more money in circulation, which is good for the economy, temporarily. After this money flows through regularly for a set amount of time, the market will balance itself out, with inflation equaling out the wage increase, putting a $10/hr wage at the equivalent of $7.85 (or $7.95 depending on your state) This means it only feels like you're making more. Now, there is no sure fire way of telling how long the market stimulation will last, and it could actually be a substantial boost to the economy over the course of the next year. 

Now, to look at the ups of minimum wage increase. Well... people get more money. Regardless of inflation or not, if someone has $100,000 in their bank, they're gonna be happy, but $1,000 water bills aren't on the top 10 list of things consumers love. So, people feel like they make more money, but spend more too, what could be good about this? Well, motivation. If you're a teenager looking for a job and hear "Now hiring, $10 an hour!" You're jumping up looking for this job. People who just aren't looking for jobs, because even if they work they still are in poverty, will (should) get up and look for jobs because now, they will be able to support themselves without the governments help, and isn't that the American Dream? Of course the novelty of increased wages will wear off, and the nation will return the the status quo. Putting the question on this topic at, is the possibility of short term economic stimulation worth the possible long term economic ramifications? I guess that all depends on how you see this playing out. So respond with what you think, E-mail me ideas for new topics, and have fun discussing.

-Jake

Energy Solution?

Recently, there has been a rapid growth of support for fracking, and the U.S. Natural Gas Industry. The demand for an increase of natural gas production within the U.S. has mostly increased recently because of the raised tensions with Russia. The Russians are a huge source of oil, and gas across Europe, making the establishment of trade sanctions very difficult. The logic is that if we can start mass producing natural gas that European Countries will be less likely to have to rely on Russia as the main source of fuel, at least for a short amount of time. From what I can see, the overall economic concept is very simple, but the practicality of it is rather questionable. The thought is that we will produce Nat. gas for the E.U., thats 28 countries. Now, I believe in the American Spirit and hard work as much as the next guy, but that's a bit excessive. I see, now again I'm no expert, but I see American Natural Gas production as a definite good for America, but a bit more... Domestic. It's a good solution for an alternative fuel sources at home. As far as Europe's concerned it's no bees nest for the U.S. to be messing with, and their arguing could be compared to the Palestinians and Israelis in the Middle East, just less bomb dropping.. now.

For a while though, Natural Gas will not be in full demand, and the switch might be a bit of a hassle, but the good thing is that Nat. Gas is extremely abundant all over North America, being extracted from shale stone that is found widely along the St. Lawrence River, Gulf Coast, and Appalachians. Though there are risks involved in the hydraulic fracturing, and some of the chemicals used could be toxic to aquifer water, which is especially dangerous for people living in the country, and seeing as how a majority of fracking occurs in rural Pennsylvania, this could be quite the problem. However, even with the advent of cars, airplanes, and even pumping oil, there were always problems present that eventually would be worked out, with innovative technology and some good old hard thinking. Though this will be a short post, I wanted to talk about it since Natural Gas seems like a very viable source of energy, that may have a rather large impact on our generations, and our childrens generations, and within my opinion, something I'm not very open to expressing in this blog, I think that all the bad spins of fracking are ridiculous and even though there are dangers involved, isn't that the point of business? Though its not always lives possibly at stake with most businesses, this is still a risk that may be worth it in the long run, so the real question isn't if it's dangerous or not, but rather if Americans can put aside this cushy, overly nerfed world where no one gets hurt, and it rains candy, to allow for technological, and industrial innovation and advancement to work for the better of our society, over individual pleasure, and leisure.

-Jake

The Real Side of Obamacare

Now, recently there has been an ever increasing volley of fire from the right, towards The Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare). Now, however you may take this rhetoric, the act is not an imaginary reform in a fictional world, its a real living piece of documentation with real world implications. So, I want to hear your story. Obama is known to bring "real" people onto the scene during his speeches supporting his health care reform, but these people are a small population of rather poor people. The real struggle is not from these families, who are also usually on welfare, food stamps, free school lunches, etc. The real struggle is the lower middle class family, making just enough to be slightly above the poverty line. Most of these families have both parents working, at least one child in school, and more likely than not, a substantial mortgage on a decent sized home, often in the suburbs. This is a specific picture I have painted, it might not always be true, but that's why I ask for your story. Anyways, these families often barely have enough money for food, heat, and other necessities, and although families in poverty have the same problem, they get help. The families I have brought up as my "Average Joe's" get none. Sometimes the difference is as slight as the amount it takes to put food on the table for one night. These families get no help on anything, and with the mandate in Obamacare forcing people to get health insurance, with no public option (A deal struck between Obama and the Insurance industry in exchange for Insurance companies to not run campaigns against the Act would force this mandate, removing the Public Option, a mandate similar to that of our northern neighbors Canada) a lot of these average families feel better off just paying the fine, since most insurance plans, even on the Health Market, would cause these families to pretty much go bankrupt. My family is a good example. With both parents working, we make $50 more than enough to get welfare, and free lunches. This is a huge problem, and in fact, my parents have insurance through their jobs, but even the family plans through these companies are too much to be able to keep my family afloat.

My goal here is not to talk down on The Affordable Care Act, as many of its mandates were made through backroom deals in exchange for support. This was controversial, and often was the point of ridicule from Republicans. The fact is, during the Clinton Administration, there was a major attempt at health care reform. Hillary, with a little help from her husband, drafted a 1,200 page piece of legislation, that was tossed in the trash the very second it was handed to the Congressional Finance Committee. After this, series of highly funded ads from 527 groups were run with the financial backing of Health Insurance Companies, and Congressmen alike. The Reform was quickly shot down, and Clinton had basically committed political suicide. Obama, wanting reform, learned from this. He worked to quickly get the same groups that bashed on Clinton's Reform, to help push a reform through during his Administration. This lead to the Affordable Care Act being severely altered from its original form, and added in most of the mandates that Republicans love to bash. Basically, what I'm trying to say is that the final product that the public sees today is not the direct work of Obama, but basically a medley of big business interfering with policy, and the work of political lobbying. So, before anyone bashes on Obamacare, think about the fact that Democrats, and well as Republicans, and special interest groups had a major roll in the passing of this.... attempt at reform.

Overall, the ability of Obamacare to work will be seen developing over the next few years. Regardless of how effective it is, it opens up a precedent for health care reform, and gives future presidents more elbow room when dealing with a once untouch topic. In conclusion, it doesn't work for everyone, but it's a start, and my final message to Republicans who are open to bashing this Act, how about finding an actual solution to the problem, rather than simply complaining about it, and claiming its a bad thing.

-Jake

Introduction

Hello, and welcome. 

  This, obviously, is my first post. I am here, to Inform, Answer, and Discuss. I hope to not only help answer most questions anyone has about politics, scientific innovation, or just anything in general. My goal is to be objective, and sincere. I know most news stations (ehem, FOX) say this while also remaining entirely biased, I am a part of the public, just like anyone else. My intentions with starting this blog is to help answer questions on day to day events in the news, as well as provide a forum of discussion free to all, I want to hear YOUR voice. At least once a week I plan on posting a story that may, or may not be seen on major news networks, but what I hope to see with this, is to hear what you want to say. Everyone has an opinion, and a voice, and that's what I want to hear. Unlike the major news networks who reduce all stories to sound bytes, and ideological bashing, I want to expand beyond that. I want to hear anyone who has an opinion, or information to speak up. This blog is for everyone who is tired of Left vs. Right, half-truths, and agendas. 

   I hope to hear questions from any readers, and to discuss many topics. and I hope to teach you, as my readers, as well as you teach me. So e-mail me questions, or even just opinions, or discussions. Today, the journey begins.

-Jacob.

NOTE: I do not condone; Racism, Conspiracy Theories, Ideological bashing, Propaganda, or any type of hate speech, and/or libel,