Ron Paul on MSNBC

Ron Paul Bears Empty Pot For Americans

This is a profoundly true assessment of what is going on with the Ron Paul 2008 campaign. If you want the inside scoop on why people are flocking to Ron Paul and why his message is getting so deeply in some of our souls this story is it. It is simple. It is elegant. It is truth.

read more | digg story

Barack Obama Unveils Education Plan

Manchester, N.H. — Barack Obama proposed an $18-billion increase in federal education programs today. Compare this to my candidate Ron Paul who would prefer to cut the department of education and leave it to local governments.

read more | digg story

Brainwashing begins when your young…

From this page you can read about the creation of the dungeons and dragon’s cartoon. The character we all hated as kids for being a whiny cry-baby was actually in the show for a reason. It seems that the parent groups wanted to teach children to always go around with the mob mentality and avoid being free thinkers. I’ll let the writer involved tell his part of the story:

The kids were all heroic — all but a semi-heroic member of their troupe named Eric. Eric was a whiner, a complainer, a guy who didn’t like to go along with whatever the others wanted to do. Usually, he would grudgingly agree to participate, and it would always turn out well, and Eric would be glad he joined in. He was the one thing I really didn’t like about the show.

So why, you may wonder, did I leave him in there? Answer: I had to.

As you may know, there are those out there who attempt to influence the content of childrens’ television. We call them “parents groups,” although many are not comprised of parents, or at least not of folks whose primary interest is as parents. Study them and you’ll find a wide array of agendum at work…and I suspect that, in some cases, their stated goals are far from their real goals.

Nevertheless, they all seek to make kidvid more enriching and redeeming, at least by their definitions, and at the time, they had enough clout to cause the networks to yield. Consultants were brought in and we, the folks who were writing cartoons, were ordered to include certain “pro-social” morals in our shows. At the time, the dominant “pro-social” moral was as follows: The group is always right…the complainer is always wrong.

This was the message of way too many eighties’ cartoon shows. If all your friends want to go get pizza and you want a burger, you should bow to the will of the majority and go get pizza with them. There was even a show for one season on CBS called The Get-Along Gang, which was dedicated unabashedly to this principle. Each week, whichever member of the gang didn’t get along with the gang learned the error of his or her ways.

We were forced to insert this “lesson” in D & D, which is why Eric was always saying, “I don’t want to do that” and paying for his social recalcitrance. I thought it was forced and repetitive, but I especially objected to the lesson. I don’t believe you should always go along with the group. What about thinking for yourself? What about developing your own personality and viewpoint? What about doing things because you decide they’re the right thing to do, not because the majority ruled and you got outvoted?

We weren’t allowed to teach any of that. We had to teach kids to join gangs. And then to do whatever the rest of the gang wanted to do.

What a stupid thing to teach children.

Now, I won’t make the leap to charge that gang activity, of the Crips and Bloods variety, increased on account of these programs. That influential, I don’t believe a cartoon show could ever be. I just think that “pro-social” message was bogus and ill-conceived. End of confession.

Brainwashing begins when your young…

From this page you can read about the creation of the dungeons and dragon’s cartoon. The character we all hated as kids for being a whiny cry-baby was actually in the show for a reason. It seems that the parent groups wanted to teach children to always go around with the mob mentality and avoid being free thinkers. I’ll let the writer involved tell his part of the story:

The kids were all heroic — all but a semi-heroic member of their troupe named Eric. Eric was a whiner, a complainer, a guy who didn’t like to go along with whatever the others wanted to do. Usually, he would grudgingly agree to participate, and it would always turn out well, and Eric would be glad he joined in. He was the one thing I really didn’t like about the show.

So why, you may wonder, did I leave him in there? Answer: I had to.

As you may know, there are those out there who attempt to influence the content of childrens’ television. We call them “parents groups,” although many are not comprised of parents, or at least not of folks whose primary interest is as parents. Study them and you’ll find a wide array of agendum at work…and I suspect that, in some cases, their stated goals are far from their real goals.

Nevertheless, they all seek to make kidvid more enriching and redeeming, at least by their definitions, and at the time, they had enough clout to cause the networks to yield. Consultants were brought in and we, the folks who were writing cartoons, were ordered to include certain “pro-social” morals in our shows. At the time, the dominant “pro-social” moral was as follows: The group is always right…the complainer is always wrong.

This was the message of way too many eighties’ cartoon shows. If all your friends want to go get pizza and you want a burger, you should bow to the will of the majority and go get pizza with them. There was even a show for one season on CBS called The Get-Along Gang, which was dedicated unabashedly to this principle. Each week, whichever member of the gang didn’t get along with the gang learned the error of his or her ways.

We were forced to insert this “lesson” in D & D, which is why Eric was always saying, “I don’t want to do that” and paying for his social recalcitrance. I thought it was forced and repetitive, but I especially objected to the lesson. I don’t believe you should always go along with the group. What about thinking for yourself? What about developing your own personality and viewpoint? What about doing things because you decide they’re the right thing to do, not because the majority ruled and you got outvoted?

We weren’t allowed to teach any of that. We had to teach kids to join gangs. And then to do whatever the rest of the gang wanted to do.

What a stupid thing to teach children.

Now, I won’t make the leap to charge that gang activity, of the Crips and Bloods variety, increased on account of these programs. That influential, I don’t believe a cartoon show could ever be. I just think that “pro-social” message was bogus and ill-conceived. End of confession.

CNN: A Talk With Ron Paul – Aired 11/7

KUCINICH: Takes House Floor, Moves for Cheney Impeachment

Rudy Giuliani Constitutionally Ineligible To Be President – CriticalReactor

Rudy Giuliani Constitutionally Ineligible To Be President – CriticalReactor

The Constitution states:

“No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.” – Article 1, Section 9

Rudy Giuliani is running for the highest office in the land and he has been knighted by the Queen of England. This knighthood, called “Knight Commander of the British Empire”, was bestowed on Rudy Giuliani on February 13, 2002.

I had read about this clause before but was unaware that Giuliani actually had such a title. Like the author of the linked article writes – Giuliani must drop out of the race or repudiate his title from England.

Election ‘08: Seeking a ‘Tech President’

Election ‘08: Seeking a ‘Tech President’

This article discusses the tech strategy of some of our presidential hopefuls:

Highlights

Senator Clinton has proposed creating a $50 billion national alternative-energy investment fund and increasing basic research budgets at key federal agencies by 50% over the next decade.

With the effects we are seeing in private industry research and the prevalence of people’s awareness and willingness to use alternative energy – why does this need to be a government investment. This should be done to allow the free market decide and innovate. Currently in the tech sector there is no stagnation that government needs to spend money on trying to get perceived innovation – the innovation is already happening.

Senator Obama has posited wider broadband penetration as a way to create job opportunities for the urban poor and says he’ll overhaul fees the government charges phone companies to pay for it.

Reducing fees and allowing the market to establish the way to do this – I also find no fault on holding the companies to actually do this if they want a fee reduction. There should be a term limit on this fee reduction with oversight of how compliant is the companies receiving this are.

McCain favors peeling back layers of Federal Communications Commission regulations to promote competition in Internet services.

The correct method is always less spending by the government or more freedom for companies (as long as they are not breaking hte law).

Edwards has proposed an alternative-energy fund to promote wind and solar power, and biofuel to make cars and trucks more efficient.

We are back to spending for innovation that is evolutionary and going to take place anyways – there is no reason to have the government invest in this when it is going to happen anyways.

Romney has said the country needs to invest heavily in new technology for power generation, nanotechnology, and creating new industrial materials.

We are back to the investing – tax credits and fee reduction are the ways to do this – reducing the amount of money into the government and staying with the companies reduces costs to the tax payers for the bureaucrats payroll that would administer this fund. Let’s please take the initiative so the government needs to have the least involvement and smallest pay roll possible as it saves us all money in the long run.

Obama, Edwards, and McCain have been most explicit on patent reform. Obama’s campaign says such a law would promote more scientific research and discourage excessive litigation.

There really is no way to reduce litigation without getting more explicit in the patent detailings. While patent reform needs to take place – I feel it involves more how a normal person can receive a patent without the help of big business behind them and allow them to leverage that patent as easily as big business.

Edwards’ campaign says he would create a national plan whereby the government pays for a year of public college for more than 2 million students who take college-prep courses in high school, work part-time during college, and stay out of trouble.

Why are we paying for this – do all of us that have finished college or gone int he past get a credit? There should be methods in dealing with the colleges – especially the State schools for cost reform instead of paying for students to go.

To figure out the cost to tax the payers – 2,000,000 x 30,000 (if they are going to a state school) 60,000,000,000 – which is 60 billion dollars. What taxes are going to increase to pay for this? The nation is already in debt over the Iraq war – we need to decrease spending until we get a balanced budget.

My biggest problem with this piece over all is that they didn’t mention Ron Paul once. You can say they only did the top tier candidates, but McCain looks like he doesn’t have a chance. Ron Paul is considered the most friendly of nominees that the tech industry likes.

Election ‘08: Seeking a ‘Tech President’

Election ‘08: Seeking a ‘Tech President’

This article discusses the tech strategy of some of our presidential hopefuls:

Highlights

Senator Clinton has proposed creating a $50 billion national alternative-energy investment fund and increasing basic research budgets at key federal agencies by 50% over the next decade.

With the effects we are seeing in private industry research and the prevalence of people’s awareness and willingness to use alternative energy – why does this need to be a government investment. This should be done to allow the free market decide and innovate. Currently in the tech sector there is no stagnation that government needs to spend money on trying to get perceived innovation – the innovation is already happening.

Senator Obama has posited wider broadband penetration as a way to create job opportunities for the urban poor and says he’ll overhaul fees the government charges phone companies to pay for it.

Reducing fees and allowing the market to establish the way to do this – I also find no fault on holding the companies to actually do this if they want a fee reduction. There should be a term limit on this fee reduction with oversight of how compliant is the companies receiving this are.

McCain favors peeling back layers of Federal Communications Commission regulations to promote competition in Internet services.

The correct method is always less spending by the government or more freedom for companies (as long as they are not breaking hte law).

Edwards has proposed an alternative-energy fund to promote wind and solar power, and biofuel to make cars and trucks more efficient.

We are back to spending for innovation that is evolutionary and going to take place anyways – there is no reason to have the government invest in this when it is going to happen anyways.

Romney has said the country needs to invest heavily in new technology for power generation, nanotechnology, and creating new industrial materials.

We are back to the investing – tax credits and fee reduction are the ways to do this – reducing the amount of money into the government and staying with the companies reduces costs to the tax payers for the bureaucrats payroll that would administer this fund. Let’s please take the initiative so the government needs to have the least involvement and smallest pay roll possible as it saves us all money in the long run.

Obama, Edwards, and McCain have been most explicit on patent reform. Obama’s campaign says such a law would promote more scientific research and discourage excessive litigation.

There really is no way to reduce litigation without getting more explicit in the patent detailings. While patent reform needs to take place – I feel it involves more how a normal person can receive a patent without the help of big business behind them and allow them to leverage that patent as easily as big business.

Edwards’ campaign says he would create a national plan whereby the government pays for a year of public college for more than 2 million students who take college-prep courses in high school, work part-time during college, and stay out of trouble.

Why are we paying for this – do all of us that have finished college or gone int he past get a credit? There should be methods in dealing with the colleges – especially the State schools for cost reform instead of paying for students to go.

To figure out the cost to tax the payers – 2,000,000 x 30,000 (if they are going to a state school) 60,000,000,000 – which is 60 billion dollars. What taxes are going to increase to pay for this? The nation is already in debt over the Iraq war – we need to decrease spending until we get a balanced budget.

My biggest problem with this piece over all is that they didn’t mention Ron Paul once. You can say they only did the top tier candidates, but McCain looks like he doesn’t have a chance. Ron Paul is considered the most friendly of nominees that the tech industry likes.