Continual Rise and Fall of the 3rd-Party

Recent trends indicate that independent parties stand a chance to win-out in upcoming elections. Imagine this, people begin to vote for politicians based on principle and not the "what will win" mentality. Just think of the scenarios. The Republican party may be strong proponents for limited government and fiscal responsibility, but they would be the first to abandon the separation of church and state by inter-mixing religion and politics. Whereas, the liberals may be fine spoken on free speech, but would be the first to advocate government interference in all aspects of society. A 3rd-party system offers the chance for people to abide by a consistent philosophy or at least cause the dominant parties to again switch their values on these apparently 'popular' trend. Sadly, the dominant party will win out and will quickly abandon these principles once they have taken a little sip of power. 

The Worthless Prize

When Alfred Nobel established the Nobel Prize in the 1901, he had one intention in mind: to reward excellence. It appears excellence has been replaced by mediocrity and even worse, popularity. If the most coveted prize the world has to offer is to be handed out like Halloween candy, it no longer deserves a noble name. It seems the "Ignoble" prize is more appropriate.

Racism Is Not Dissent

'Racist!' The recent outcry from the left in response to public dissent. Perhaps they are a bit confused, so we should clarify.

Main Entry: rac·ism

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

Main Entry: dis·sent
–verb (used without object)

1.to differ in sentiment or opinion, esp. from the majority; withhold assent; disagree (often fol. by from): Two of the justices dissented from the majority decision.
2.to disagree with the methods, goals, etc., of a political party or government; take an opposing view.
3.to disagree with or reject the doctrines or authority of an established church.
–noun

4.difference of sentiment or opinion.
5. dissenting opinion.
6. disagreement with the philosophy, methods, goals, etc., of a political party or government.
7. separation from an established church, esp. the Church of England; nonconformity.

One considers given individuals to be subjects of an opinion. The other sets an opinion against the subjection of one individual to that of another, whether it be one, few, or many.

Colonists were considered subjects to the royal authority among the British loyalists. The loyalists were not quite racist, but the general opinion certainly reflects racist ideology.

A lack of dissent may lead to unrestrained power; the minority at the mercy of "well-intentioned" leaders. However, as history has taught us, good intentions differ from person-to-person.

Legal Protection: A National Crisis

The following is my commentary regarding an excellent point brought about in an Opinion article from the Wall Street Journal:



The legal industry is in complete disarray. Individual citizens charged for a crime are not provided the 'best possible' legal protection, so 'change' must ensue within the entire field of law. The current problem is not merely one of bad lawyers, but includes all of the administrative factors and practices that are currently undertaken as common practice. The solution? A complete legal industry reform led exclusively by a doctor panel. Doctors fix problems associated with the human mind and body, and since it was the human mind that created jurisprudence and body that built the US court system, than doctors are the ideal choice to lead the overhaul of the legal system. The physician panel will convene once a month to discuss issues pertaining to the courtroom, litigation process, legal advertisement, legal records, and contingency fees. Next, they decide on those that will work quickest to better the current system and take action on their plan. Lawyers may know how to win an argument but their inability to understand the human mind, makes them secondary to doctors for a systematic legal change. Besides, lawyers have been provided sufficient time to fix the serious issue of 'poor protection' so it is time for them adhere to the direction of the physician panel, which will set the terms of legal practice and turn it around once and for all.

We have finally reached a turning point in this crisis, for New York City radiologist Dr. Rafal offers a viable solution. He is listed as a top candidate who will successfully lead the Doctor's Panel of Legal Overview(DPLO) to 'cure' the disorder that has enveloped the US legal system.

-MFE

Milton Friedman on Healthcare

Are healthcare costs a problem? Depends on who you ask. Arguments from both sides of the spectrum argue a government "do more" approach countered by a "do-nothing" approach. Both are somewhat correct, but not to the degree that they would initially presume. Presently, there are two ways to limit the costs of healthcare: complete government control or no government control. The former does so at the cost of innovation and medical technology, with personal responsibility placed in the hands of our representatives. While the latter reduces costs while exponentially expanding innovation/technology yet places the ball in our court to be more responsible with our decisions.

Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman decribes...which do you prefer?

-MFE

Is that Cash, Check, or...Ask Your Parents?

The ever increasing age of maturity will become extended with Uncle Sam's loyal soldiers implementing the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 this week. One clause will seemingly affect all young adults under the age of 21 who must have a co-signer or provide detailed info indicating they can make the payments. So if your planning extravagent spending sprees on credit (perhaps on raging party gear?) that mom and dad may not know about, think again.

...boy is it becoming difficult to grow up these days!


-MFE

Who Says There is No Opposition to Global Warming?

Back in 2003 Dr. Michael Mann, climatologist, used geological factors (i.e. tree rings) to make the argument to Congress that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millenium and that 1998 as the hottest year in a millenium. Public opinion and support grew rampant from his findings. From 2003-2005 Dr. McIntyre and McKitrick published articles that countered the validity of Mann's original hypothesis. To resolve this issue Joe Barton, chairman of the US House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee and Ed Whitfield, the chairman of the subcommitte on Oversight and Investigation, requested that Dr. Wegman(Ph.D in mathematical statistics and fellow of the American Statistical Association and Senior Member of the IEEE) issue a report on the statistical validity of the journal(s) published by Michael Mann and the counter-argument(s) posed in the articles of McIntyre and McKitrick.

The Wegman comittee, which included David W. Scott (Rice University) and Yasmin H. Said (The Johns Hopkins University), concluded that Mann's argument was both "obscure and incomplete," while the counter-argument of McIntyre and McKitrick to be both "valid and compelling." The congressional paper concluded: "Our comittee believes that the assessment that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in the millenium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millenium cannot be supported by Mann's paper." Wegman noted that the Mann report made statistical mistakes that would be common to those that were not fine-tuned in statistical methodology. They found that the cryptic nature used within the Mann report leaves outsiders only guessing at the procedures in use. Furthermore, the Wegman committee held questions as to the validity of using tree rings as a way to interpret temperature signals due to the variability that may arise.

This argument does not dismiss man-made global warming as a whole. However, the ability of lawmakers to direct public policy off unsound evidence should be enough to send shivers down your spine.

-MFE

Michael Phelps vs. Synthetic Polymers

It is hard to believe the swimming records set by Michael Phelps in the latest Beijing Olympics. What is even more amazing is the ability of man's mind to develop a new wetsuit that enables a seemingly no-name swimmer (Paul Biederman) to crush Michael Phelp's and his 200m freestyle record in the World Championships this summer. Outrage from Phelp's manager Bob Bowman and much of the swimming community led, unfortunately, to the banishment of the high-tech suits by FINA (the governing body of swimming) . However, is it justified to ostracize the "NASA" suits? I mean Michael Phelp's record setting olympics was an acculmination of his fitness, skill, and...yes... the latest synthetic fiber, polyurethane, light-weight, ultra-expensive, high-tech swimsuit pant legs developed by Speedo. Does this mean all of his records are considered null and void since he had a competitive advantage to those swimmer's in prior olympics? It appears the only way to satisfy this beleaguered public is for FINA to impose an injunction that reverts to the time of ancient Greece in which athletes had to compete in the nude. This would be absolutely ridiculous. Alternatively, FINA should embrace these new tech suits in full support in the fusion of technology and sport, man's mind together with athletic talent. This makes it not only the accomplishment of the individual athlete but also the prowess and innovation of the thinkers behind the scenes. Perhaps one day two men, innovator and athlete, will stand atop of the podium, leaning forward to receive their well-deserved gold medal.

-MFE

Sample Post - Global Warming Attack on Minnesota

Minnesota is getting ridiculously hot. Somebody better alert Al Gore!