Notre Dame

Growing up I wanted nothing more than to walk the hallowed halls of The University of Notre Dame. I would love to walk those halls today, but my perception of the halls has changed because of the reactions of Catholics more than students and University Professors. The change in my view has come about due to this "Controversy" over The President speaking at the University. For one the word "Controversy" is extremely overused if it is being used in place of "Disagreement" or "differences in a point of view". For another, I believe in Christ and his teachings, as should all good Catholics, Christians, Methodists, Protestants, Mormons, ect, and one of the greatest things Jesus teaches is to ward against intolerence.

We all have heard "God before Country", but these protester's are not even following their own Gods values as set forth in the Bible. "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned, forgive, and ye shall be forgiven." ~Luke 6:37~
Have people become so obsessed by one factor of life that they forget the teachings that make them Christians, Catholics, Methodists, Protestants, and just good humans beings trying to find the love of life and humanity that Jesus showed us was possible?

I believe people have become obsessed with this "Abortion Issue" to fault. I hear these people scream with such conviction and intolerance against what they see as the murder of a child, and I have to wonder why they do not scream with the same passion to end war, which is the exact same in its murderous intent to end a child of God's life. Both are done in cold blood but at least those unborn, thanks to the mercy of God, are never born of sin, have never sinned themselves and are free from any taint of sin and are birthed back into heaven- as the bible tells us that those free of sin go to heaven.

I believe this type of attitude and intolerance is the reason why most nations where religion rules seem to always be at war. The rulers of these supposed "Godly" nations believe they speak with the authority of God himself based on the teachings in books at least one thousand years old, if not older. Look at Israel, Palestine, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran and how they seem to constantly be at war with one another while dragging the rest of the world into their "Disagreements". To me it all boils down to Intolerance towards other people who have a different point of view. At one point in time humanity thought the world was flat and the Universe revolved around the earth. If Intolerance were allowed, we (humanity) would be blind to so many truths that can only be discovered by questioning and thinking; This is why I believe Jesus felt the religion of his people to be incomplete and began teaching the Truth about Love and God to the people and part of that teaching was to ward against Intolerance, turn the other check, and love your fellow human, even if you perceive faults in them because who of us is without faults of our own. If someone feels they are without fault and as perfect as Jesus, then please by all means, throw a stone at me.

Commenting on Minimum Wage

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/05/14/thousands-lose-jobs-due-to-higher-federal-minimum-wage/

If you wish to read the Reuters.com article

I hear from republicans that people need to be “Responsible” for their actions and people need to be more civic minded towards their friends and neighbors in this tough economic time. I absolutely agree, but why do I not hear the same GOP demanding Business(who are only made up of American Citizens) be more civic minded towards the country in which they are able to make the most amount of money in and at the same time, the owners of these businesses enjoy more personal freedoms in America than any other country in the world. Where is the loyalty to country? Where is the loyalty to fellow Americans?

A minimum wage was introduced because Capital(businesses) have always, always tried to pay the least amount possible for all wages and services while trying to charge the most for products and services to maximize profits. Simply put they (ALL BUSINESSES) wish to lower overhead(Cost of doing business) and raise prices as high as the market will bare. Sound business strategy and to this end, Capital(business) will always, always try and use Labor(Poor and Middle Class) and squeeze as much productivity as they can while giving as little as possible back. Why do you think so many jobs were sent overseas? It’s good business for Capital, who don’t care who makes their products as long as they are made as cheaply as possible- notice the prices never fell, even though these companies were saving money on labor, the saving never came to the consumer because Capital pocketed the profits.

The cannery could have been built in Somoa and still be run for less overhead with the higher minimum wage. 2000 x 3.5 = 7000$ an hour; the new factory would employ 200 so 200 x 7.55 = 1450$ an hour. SAVING almost $5500 dollars an hour!! Where is the sense of Civic responsibility! Somoas have been working for this “Business” for decades and depend on it. The “Business” could have saved money by building the new factory next to the old, but they could save even more on shipping costs by moving the Cannery “Business” to Georgia. The move has absolutely nothing to do with “Minimum Wage” and every thing to do with making as much money as possible while paying as little as possible back to the people who do all the work.

The Great "Cheerio" Debate and the Role Government is Supposed to Play

The President of the United States of America is also known as the "Steward of the People". People is used in the broadest sense to eliminate any favoritism for one group over another, the basis of America. When John McCain spoke about one of his Republican Hero's, Theodore Roosevelt, he spoke of him and his policy of talking softly and carrying a big stick. Senator McCain failed to mention President Roosevelt was a "Trust Buster" dissolving 40 monopolies and distrusted wealthy businessmen, who he saw as nothing more than a corrupting influence in Capitalism and Politics since businessmen were in business for money, and nothing else, and most will do anything to earn more money, as can be seen today in decisions made by a small number of people who are "Bankers and Big Businessmen" that effect the entire population.

The perfect example of what Businessmen are willing to do for money can be seen in the examples of Rockefeller, Carnage, Mellon, and Morgan among other "Barons of Business" willing to break any and all laws to make a buck that Roosevelt had to deal with back then, and who we have to face yet again in this day. The pattern through time is obvious to this blogger that Bankers and Businessmen thirst for money like a crack addict in any day and age. Roosevelt viewed Government as the arbitrary force between Capital(business) and Labor(used to be workers, today it is consumers, subtle shift) favoring neither while promising justice and fairness to both. Today I have to ask the question: How far have Republicans fallen from the ideals of one of Americas greatest Presidents, who's face graces Mount Rushmore, when they so obviously blanket their favoritism on Big Business?

The Cheerio debate is the perfect example. The parent company is breaking the law in its false advertising campaign. The law is in the books to protect the consumer from any company misrepresenting its product. This law was designed to thwart unscrupulous persons and corporations from selling snake oil and the like. Basically it just means a person or company can not lie about its product in order to sell it. This is to protect the average American who is not an expert in the field of whatever is being sold. In the case of Cheerios, one would have to be a Cardiovascular Specialist as well as a Nutritionist to realize the claims made by the cereal are unfounded. I'm guessing a very small percentage of America fits this category.

"This is the kind of irritating, intrusive nonsense that makes people weary of their government and every smarmy bureaucratic microbe in it," writes David Crocker of the Behind Blue Lines blog. Guess who this guy is behind? Obviously Big Business pays him. Who else in America can step in and keep business from ripping off and/or misleading Americans but the Government? Obviously Business can not do it themselves. When has any field of Business ever successfully regulated themselves? Big Oil? The last time oil was under $60 dollars a barrel the price was under 2 dollars, but today it is being raised simply because it is summer, and people drive more. I thought that practice was called Price Gouging? Air Lines? When they deregulated prices did nothing but go up and up, when they argued the "Free Market" would cause prices to drop because of competition. Cable companies used the same "Free Market" idea arguing the same price drop caused by competition. When did Cable prices ever drop? What about Telecoms? AT&T has been broken up a couple of times to break their monopoly, and what did they use as an argument to persuade congress to deregulate them? "Free Market" of course, but again, I have yet to see the "Free Market" cause much competition. Energy conglomerates used the same "Free Market" formulated argument for competition, and the greed in that area of business led to Enron busting and price increases across the board for the American Consumer. I need not go into what deregulating the Financial market has lead to, all in the name of "Free Market" and competition that never comes.

"So I guess now the Communist-in-Chief will declare a War on Cereal," rants Ed Anger of the Weekly World News.
Another Karl Rove style of attack. Generalize what is under attack while ranting loudly and attacking the political "enemy". I would like to see old Ed Anger as a Chinese citizen in China and use the same tone to attack a real communist government and see what happens to him. The fact he can say such a thing about ANY American President is a testament to the greatness of this country and the freedom and liberty its Citizens hold. In other Conservative Republican media outlets the marketing Cheerios as medicine is being defended as a matter of liberty.


Who's Liberty?! Are Republicans so far gone towards business they view businesses liberty to scam and rip off the consumer as more important than the liberty of their Fellow American to be free from such blatantly unethical practices!! The last time I looked the Constitution started with "WE THE PEOPLE", not "We Big Business", or "We the Banking Lobby", or "We the Oil Lobby". Republicanism, the style of governing (not being a political party Republican) is based the the liberty and freedoms of the individual. How can the American have liberty or be free when business(Capital) has a free hand to ignore the law of the land and exploit the individual? I have to question the motives of many "Republicans" when they seem to be rank and file against defending the individual citizens right to be free from corrupt business practices.

As a Republican, I voted for Obama simply to pressure the GOP to shake loose its ties, which becomes clearer and clearer everyday, to Big Business in general and re-read the definition of American Republicanism, on Wikipedia for example since its free to the world. I am for the Republican values of Liberty and Freedom, Free from any form of Tyrannical rule whether it be Military, Dictatorship, Religious, or Business like in manner. Words have no meaning to those who lie, actions speak better of what is intended. It is easy for any person to say they are "Good People" with the "Best Intentions", but I don't believe them since they keep ripping me off.

Supreme Court Justice Picks

Supreme Court picks are always a big deal in the political arena. Conservatives and Liberals alike forever try to "pack" the court with like minded individuals who follow the same lines of political thought. I personally think this practice is counter productive to the Constitution and the United States in General; here's why.

The Constitution is a "Living Document", the constructs of the document are unchanging in trying to define
a Republican form of Government defined by "Liberty" and "Rights" of its citizens while making the people as a
whole sovereign. The Supreme Court of the United States of America is the only organ of government given the ability to rule on what the Constitution means. When either political party, or theory, tries to pack the High Court with Justices who subscribe to one party or one theory; I see this as trying to pull the meaning of the Constitution towards one ideology when the document stands for America and its Citizens as a whole.

In my opinion, to ease the politicizing of the greatest Document on Human Liberty, Rights, and Freedoms, the court should have a mandatory three count each of Conservative, Moderate, and Liberal Justices. Law and Order are based on Fairness, the ultimate example being King Solomon, so as a nation, to be fair to all, we can not skew the view of such an important document towards any mode of political thought. To be fair to the demographics of the nation, women and minorities must be represented on the court, just as they are represented throughout the land we all love.

I will delve into Republicans and Democrats, as well as Liberal and Conservative thought on another post. Right now I will go over the list of nominees to the court and make my pick. Six of them, first reported by The Associated Press, are: California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and U.S. Appeals Court judges Sonia Sotomayor and Diane Pamela Wood.

Justice Carlos Moreno - while very able to fill the position, for balance I favor a woman over a man right now.

Solicitor General Elena Kagan - By far one of the best on paper. Her academia credentials are spectacular, she is a women and well known in the D.C. Law scene. However, she lacks much needed experience on the bench and seems to be in a better position for her skill set.

Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm - Her background education is top notch while her early days trying to break into Hollywood spoils her for me, as well as being just a little too young.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano - I understand why her name emerged, well connected, well liked, great people person, and a great background. To me, her political career is slanted more for public office, not the High Court. The skill set she brings to the Nation is being utilized the most where she is at right now.

U.S. Appeals Court judge Diane Pamela Wood - Almost Perfect for the position, my only apprehension comes from some of her case rulings and writings on point of law. To me she seems to yo-yo a little on law theory.

U.S. Appeals Court judge Sonia Sotomayor - This woman is my pick for the High Bar. Mrs. Sotomayor has the bench experience sought after, won the Pyne Prize, the highest general award given to Princeton undergraduates, edited the "Yale Law Journal", considered a centrist, and nominated to Judicial positions by both presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Being a woman of Latino descent from a hard working class family, who lost her father at an early age to be raised by her mother on a modest salary in the Bronx New York, with her brother who happens to be a doctor, speaks VOLUMES about her strong family ties, Herculean work ethic, and overcoming hardships to achieve the American Dream.