I give a Dam 

by 1 day ago

This is a letter I just wrote to my representative. Both a cool and interesting issue to read more look at americanrivers.org. The theme here is that I have already received a response to my first email on the issue and my congresswoman didn't even know about it. This is how you get your voice heard and issues heard about. There are certain glitzy environmental that appear repeatedly on the headlines and in campaigns. Whether clean energy, strip mining, or industrial pollution, these issues all receive press and face time. I am not about to say that they do not deserve the attention they garner. In our own state of Illinois we hear endless speeches about the virtues of clean coal, a contradiction that allows candidates to masquerade as environmental activists. The issue of obsolete dams lacks the flair of larger issues but it is the type of environmental issue that can be fixed quickly and inexpensively. The benefits to ecosystems are innumerable, not to mention in the long run it is fiscally responsible thing to do considering the one time cost of dam removal is significantly less than dam maintenance will be over the long term. This may not be the issue to get you reelected but it is an easy fix that the government can implement that will have long reaching environmental impact. Thank you for your time.

A New Kind of Crisis of Confidence 

by 1 week ago

"The selection of a Republican candidate for the presidency of this globalized and expansive empire is -- and I mean this seriously -- the greatest competition of idiocy and ignorance that has ever been." -Fidel Castro Ladies and gentlemen we have now sunk to a new low. Fidel Castro has now called our presidential candidates ignorant and idiotic. That aside there is a larger and more interesting societal change that has manifested in our presidential election. A couple of years ago Old Spice Deodorant released a line that they dubbed “Red Zone” marketed at an active man. The kind of man who lived an intense and active life style, he climbed mountains, cut down trees, and all around embodied the rugged masculine man. Several years that same line was rebranded as “Swagger” which marketed the confident man as the ideal. That is not to say he should be effeminate. He should still have the perfectly toned body and a determined masculinity while he should have perfect style with incredibly coiffed hair. Perhaps Old Spice was just reacting to the success that Tag and Axe had with similar campaigns. However this shift is now even more visible in our political candidates. Rick Perry, the traditional rugged man, received initially positive results; however, his manliness was instead seen for what it was: a pitiful veneer that could only pass for leadership in a Texas gubernatorial race. Thus Romney, the coiffed and confident man remained strong though his confidence paled in comparison to that of Newt Gingrich, a man whose ego is trumped only by, well, Trump. Santorum and Paul have fallen by the way side because they choose alternate calling cards to sheer confidence, earnestness and intelligence respectively. With Gingrich sticking around in the polls, parts of the Republican establishment are trying to show the public that Gingrich has confidence but in misplaced policies and half-baked ideas. I am all for a colony on the moon but former speaker Gingrich considers it a pressing issue in the current global climate. With incredible economic and political volatility in all corners of the world I think we have some more important problems to take care of at least for now. So it’s about time to stop being blinded by the veneers of confidence and instead look at the issues themselves.

My Bad 

by 2 months ago

I apologize. I am sorry to anyone who read my article in the magazine. I said that Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Jon Huntsman were sticking around for the sole purpose of garnering enough attention to get a show on Fox News. Frankly I think any of the three would be willing to take a show on Fox News, but I was wrong to say that they are not going to win. Ever since I submitted that article the previous front running candidates have taken the kind of nose dive that would not shame an Olympian, and just as graceless as the divers are graceful. Rick Perry bumbled enormously, epically, and uh uh I can’t remember the third one. Oops. We found out Herman Cain never learned to keep his hands to himself. Michelle Bachmann has tried hard to remain relevant however earlier gaffes and her poisonous social policy keep her in the background. Watching a foreign policy debate, it almost seems like she actually did her research before a debate to the surprise of just about everyone. Mitt Romney enjoyed watching everyone implode and frankly it couldn’t get any better every time one of his fellow candidates seemed to gain momentum, we actually got to know them. Each time it turned out these revelations were to their detriment. Then Romney started talking, and something that had always stuck around the periphery of his campaign reared its ugly head, or more accurately two heads. There were several instances of Romney changing his views from those of his gubernatorial campaign. Then suddenly it wasn’t just one view. These days it seems like he has at some point supported both sides of every issue. Basically the previous field has imploded. Maybe Tim Pawlenty should have stuck around. So now that the dust has started to settle again, at least for now. Where does the field stand? Well the current leader appears to be Newt Gingrich, who, while brilliant, just seems to be too contemptuous to be likable. It’s hard to deny his resume, a PhD, former multiple term senator, de facto leader of the Republican Party before becoming speaker for the house. The problem with Gingrich is that he just seems too mean and cocky to really engender support outside of his camp. He epitomizes the term “Washington Insider” and a vote for Newt is essentially gambling that there are more Republicans than Democrats in the United States because he will be hard pressed to get votes from across the aisle with his reputation as a hard line Republican who essentially writes the party doctrine. So what about Jon Huntsman and Rick Santorum? Recently both have been quietly performing more than passably during the debates. Huntsman has propounded a free trade economic policy and as former ambassador to China, he boasts significant foreign policy experience. He seems like the type of moderate that could move out of Romney’s shadow as a Mormon former governor to pose problems later in the campaign. Santorum on the other hand seemed to start out as a shock value candidate that relied on talking points has branched out to proclaim some interesting views on foreign and domestic policy shunning the isolationist views that some of the more hard line candidates. I didn’t forget the little libertarian that could, might, and maybe even should win. He is still consistently hitting his points but frankly the Republican electorate is just not ready for him.

The Geek in the Room 

by 3 months ago

“The Geek in the Room” During the last state of the union Barack Obama repeatedly expounded upon the value of American innovation to propel our future. He elaborated on the spirit of ingenuity of the American people to innovate. One would probably gather that he believes that the American people can develop some sort of technology to further our economy. That would imply that we need some sort of scientific breakthrough to develop for our future, thus we need to increase funding to our schools to be sure that we continue to be world leaders in science. It’s fairly safe to say that educating the youth of America in science so that they may be better equipped for the problems of the future. This doesn’t seem like an incredible intuitive leap or rocket science. So for the rest of you engineers out there kudos for following the state of the union. For everyone else feel free to berate those students or at least that’s what the Republican Party seems to want to do. Why should we believe scientists? I mean who can ever really know what they are talking about? As the Daily Show recently observed, that whole peer review system is like having a rapist tried by a group of rapists. Doubting the world of science is nothing new among politicians. Almost every current republican candidate has denied the existence of global warming despite scientific consensus. I can understand that as a politician it would be advantageous to vilify purveyors of such bad news but if you could hold off for a little bit we would all appreciate it. Frankly looking around there are plenty of problems that we need help with still. A study funded by oil companies even just came out and said global warming is an issue. Deforestation, endangered species, decreasing biodiversity, food scarcity, clean water, waste management, epidemics, dwindling resources, these are all intimidating and pressing issues that I want the greatest minds of our generation to be working on. I don’t want them spending their time defending their work against an ignorant media and even more ignorant group of politicians. Even more than that, I would like to see our country capable of awing the world again. When Neil Armstrong took those steps on the moon, the American flag meant the triumph of man. That day every man, woman, and child who could watch that on television saw an America that did something incredible for the entire race. So sure NASA is a billion dollar boondoggle, scientific reviews are nebulous at best, they speak in jargon that many find unintelligible, they wear funny coats and glasses, but please stop and take a second and thank the scientific community for working toward fixing our problems and awing us again. Side Note: Why do we help Hamid Karzai? He comes out and said that he would side with Pakistan if the United States entered in a conflict with Pakistan then Afghanistan would side with Pakistan against the United States. Why are we helping his government keep peace? Who needs enemies when we have friends like Hamid Karzai?

Jelly Doughnuts 

by 3 months ago

  “Where’s the Center” Imagine going to the local doughnut store and seeing a beautifully powdered doughnut and you bite and keep waiting to feel the jelly on your tongue. You want to taste that lovely sugared strawberry jelly, but that never comes. There is just a hole of air where the best part of that doughnut should be.  Sure there are plenty of people who don’t like jelly inside of their doughnuts. The texture isn’t for them; they may not like strawberries; they may not have a soul. By and large though, that jelly at the center of the doughnut sure tastes good to a lot of people. It seems to me that our political system is starting to taste a lot more like that jelly doughnut.  There used to be a battle for the center. The moderates were the battleground that candidates fought for. The candidates would assume they had their own base that could be relied on for votes and campaign contributions. This worked pretty well for a while. The candidates were moderate enough that they could garner enough votes from the center to get elected while still maintaining either a conservative or liberal base to support their ideas. Unfortunately for those sitting in the center that model has been scrapped for something that has been found to be much more feasible for electorate success. That is the empty jelly doughnut. Now both sides of the aisle have realized that the groups most likely to actually vote are those whose fervor is the greatest which tends to be those on the outer edges of the political spectrum. As a result the key to winning an election now is not to court the moderate but to instead court the extremes. So what can we do? As I have said before VOTE. VOTE in an election and make your voice heard. I am from Chicago so VOTE early and often. But the only way for the moderate voice to be heard again is for us to vote and show the politicians that the center still exists. There are people who still like the center of a jelly doughnut.  

The Blame Game 

by 3 months ago

I am all for action. I believe in standing up and attempting to do all I can to enact change when I see something wrong. In fact the writers of the Declaration of Independence entreated us to throw off the mantle of an overbearing government or leaders. It is the responsibility of all those able to change a government that no longer serves the people it governs. So why are we occupying Wall Street? Wall Street, really just a symbol for the financial industry, did exactly what it was supposed to. At its base the financial industry is a group of men investing for a profit. Banks are for profit ventures designed to make as much money as possible just like any other company or industry. In fact with the religious devotion to capitalism and the demonization of socialism in this country, shouldn’t we be praising the financial industry’s ability to make outrageous amounts of money? They did what capitalists are supposed to and that is to make money assuming that through competition their success would lead to success for all. Does this increase the gini coefficient of the United States? Are the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer? Yes, but correcting that is not the responsibility of the financial industry. Their job is to make money. The body usually charged with creating a semblance of equality and preventing one group from exploiting the other is the government. They are handicapped though in that anyone who proposes more regulation is labeled a socialist and against economic expansion and therefore unelectable. So the government is handicapped by the voters. So Wall Street is doing what it’s supposed to because they are not regulated by the government; the government can’t regulate to allow for equality because of the backlash from the voters. So who is really to blame for the problems with Wall Street? Writers Note: This represents somewhat of an oversimplification but I believe its fundamentally sound. More about this later.

I Weep For the Future 

by 4 months ago

Ideally in any given situation the brightest possible person should be making decisions and guiding the group. When picking a leader generally I want to find the most intelligent and fair minded person to lead the group. Sure if they have opinions that are in line with those that I identify with; however, I am more concerned about that the decisions made for the future are made by the person most capable of making the best decision. Do we deserve anything less from our government or our politicians? We should have the best and the brightest in office to lead our country. I think that and then I watch a political debate or an interview or frankly any of the actions of the various candidates for public office and I just don’t see it. I watch Rick Perry bumble through a debate looking more like the fifth grader who tries to throw a pithy put down in a social studies debate and then suddenly the talking points leave him. Honestly I see him speaking and I can’t help but think he is on stage and forgot his lines. This is troubling not only that he can’t remember his talking points for a debate, a problem in and of itself, but that it appears he has a set of memorized responses that he spits back without the ability to actually think of responses on the spot. If he is sitting with a foreign dignitary I would like to think that he could actually formulate a response on the spot. I just watch him and don’t see it. I look next to him and I see Herman Cain. This is the same Herman Cain, the current surging candidate, who once spoke against the “Obamacare” bill because it was 2,000 pages. He then said that he would only pass bills that were three pages so we would have time to read them. Naturally the comedians had a field day with this as frankly they should’ve. John Stewart proposed Herman Cain adopt “I am Herman Cain and I do not like to read” as a campaign slogan. I was reminded of when Seth Myers said “The healthcare bill is over 2,000 pages good. A bill that insures every person in America should be longer than The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.” While Herman Cain’s dislike of reading is disheartening his tax plans are downright frightening. His now famous 9-9-9 plan seems like a deal from Taco Bell not a tax plan. The first nine is a nine percent income tax on all taxpayers except for those in “empowerment zones” who would pay no taxes. This coupled with a national nine percent sales tax and a nine percent corporate tax all combine to be flat taxes. So basically regardless of what you earn for income you pay the same in taxes. However there must be something to be said for the greatest earners pay more by proportion of their income. Should the guy serving Warren Buffett a steak being paying the same percentage of his income as Buffett? While sure it’s necessarily fair that someone has to pay more solely because they make more or work harder, I just can’t get my head around a flat rate tax simply puts way more pressure on those making barely enough than those who are way more comfortable. Oh and don't forget that the current estimate for this plan place it about 360 billion dollars short of the current revenue structure. My question is whether we can find a candidate who actually seems like they have a smarter plan. The other candidates are really not much better and this is not limited to republicans and I am sure next time I am looking for an article topic Bachmann, Romney, Paul, or Obama will go on the chopping block. Let’s elect someone who actually has a smarter plan.

Oh Apathy 

by 4 months ago

How many times do you hear people say how broken the United States government is? Republican, Democrat, Green, Libertarian, Anarchist, it simply does not matter what party you are you must agree that on some level the system needs to be improved. We have more debt per capita than even Greece, are fighting two wars, and our unemployment rate is almost as scary as Newt Gingrich thinks the Mexican Revolution will be. Some days it looks like the system should be dismantled brick by brick as soon as possible. Any day my country is building a bridge or ordering sixteen dollars for a muffin I want to walk over there with a sledgehammer and start banging away. While I know I am not the only one who feels this way, I know someone else who really needs the sense knocked into them: the apathetic. Ladies and gentlemen the system is indeed broken, but it is up to us to fix it. There is no system too broken that motivated individuals can fix it through peaceful yet still impactful means. History has told us that through perseverance can affect change. I am not asking for protests, petitions, or pamphlets. All I want is one subtle act of rebellion against the status quo. I want you to remain consistently informed about not just the United States but the world and when the appropriate time comes I want you to vote. Vote for the candidate that you think has the best ideas for America and the world in equal weight regardless of whether that candidate is doomed to second because that vote is a manifestation of your voice in a democracy because once enough of those votes accumulate politicians will get the message.

Poor American Dream 

by 4 months ago

Whenever time I hear the song “Yes” by LMFAO, I hear the opening line: “Every day I see my dream, every day I see my dream.” I sit there and think wow, what a motivational song about achieving the dream. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had a dream and since he made that speech on the Washington Mall the United States, there have been great strides toward racial equality. However when the first verse of the song begins, I realize that LMFAO is talking about the new American dream: “Every time I dive in my pool it’s hard to be humble. When I do the breast stroke through an underground tunnel I come up on the other side in a Jacuzzi coming up to three naked models with suds on they booties.” The question is no longer one of equality or opportunity but that of decadence. The American dream is no longer a turkey in every pot for every family, but is instead a bottle of Champagne and a pound of Beluga for me. The paradigm has shifted from universal opportunity for prosperity to personal achievement of extravagance. Let’s skip the finger pointing though. Every armchair pundit with a keyboard or microphone has blamed media and pop culture for enticing Americans to live beyond their means singling out MTV cribs or whatever other celebration of extreme luxury you prefer. There is a more alarming issue than the massive detriment to our national culture caused by these programs and that is the result for our economy. It is fairly safe to say the credit crisis occurred as a result of people trying to live above the means. Whether the over spending was enabled by an irresponsible government, profiteering banks, or whoever else your local public servant blames for votes, there is little argument left against the assertion that the American people overspent. It was no longer security and a roof over your head but the image of wealth and I will pay for it later but there was nothing wrong with that because that was the new American dream. If anything happens the government will come to the rescue. We are now several years and several stimulus packages removed from the meltdown and as I have already written we are in election mode so naturally the American dream resurfaces as a buzz word. In the mouths of Democrats, it is we should tax the wealthy so the American dream can be a reality for all. In the mouths of Republicans, it is we should remove as many taxes as possible so government does not stop people from reaching the American dream. My question is this: Whatever happened to the American dream of yester year when the likes of Andrew Carnegie, William Randolph Hearst, or even Warren Buffett. Maybe not the nicest men but these are men who gained prosperity and more than their fair share of luxury through hard work and taking risks. That’s my American dream and I refuse to hold the government responsible for either helping or hindering me.

24 Hours of What? 

by 4 months ago

I love 24 hour news coverage. I do. I do not feel more informed. I do not feel like I now hold a greater understanding of global current events I do not feel like I can make better decisions concerning either my daily life or when I cast my vote. I enjoy 24 hour news coverage for a completely different reason: that nothing else in history has proved so easy to satirize and generate ridiculousness at such a prolific clip. In 1976 Paddy Chayefsky released his landmark and rather prescient movie Network. Chayefsky created a world in which television executives boosted their ratings through bastardizing their news programming with entertainment. While Glenn Beck and Chris Matthews are not quite telling us to yell out our windows, their various shows on “news” networks have degraded from fact based news to little more than scripted entertainment. Again, the Bill O’Reillys and Keith Olbermanns of the world provide a semblance of comic relief in their outrageous conclusions whether proving Warren Buffet is a communist or comparing Barack Obama to Hitler. Sadly 24 hour news has a rather painful side effect for our society, and yes it’s worse than oily discharge, that is an exacerbation of public choice theory beyond anything that even Buchanan would have predicted. Public choice theory dictates that politicians see politics as a business and therefore are inclined to preserve their position by satisfying their constituencies as opposed to doing what is best for the long term well-being of the state. Since the advent of democratic politics this has been a problem only exacerbated by the fact that we now have the 24 hour news machine which would be reasonably helpful if it just provided facts instead of a sensationally spun version of the story only including the information that furthers the agenda of the pundits and correspondingly the network. As a result members of our government can no longer govern or propose any sort of groundbreaking legislation for fear that they will either be crucified by the right or the left. Now that pundits have 24 hours to fill each minor issue becomes a sensation with a logo and theme music. Legislation is no longer a venture for the betterment of society but instead legislation has become little more than survivor where the day after the election marks the start of the next fundraising season. Since there is no way to legislate the media without risking the inalienable first amendment we must accept that which we cannot change and instead change our system of government. All too often we hear the Constitution treated like a perfect document however after writing it Thomas Jefferson proposed that it needed to be rewritten every twenty years in order to maintain relevance. The remedy of the information vomit that now confronts us from 24 hour media is upping term limits so our politicians actually have time to legislate before they need to be worried about reelection. With around 16 months left until the end of Barack Obama’s first term we are already bombarded with debates and election coverage. His first term still has 16 months! By the time his term ends there will be none of the same trends, songs, or events. The 24 hour media has reduced a presidential term to about half of its former size. So the question is no longer who can govern best but who can survive long enough to govern. Let’s give them a little more time.
« Previous Entries