Explaining the Truth About Conservatism One Post at a Time

Latest

Mass. Bill: Chemo patients would have to collect own waste

This is an Article, in which I gave an interview for, about a Massachusetts Senate Bill that clearly “Shocks the Conscience.” It appeared in the “Waste and Recycling News” on November 29. Read the Article below:

By Jeremy Carroll | WRN reporter

Nov. 29 — Cancer patients in Massachusetts would have to collect their urine and feces for days after chemotherapy treatments to be disposed as hazardous waste, under a proposal by a state senator.

Senate Bill 1089 would order health care professionals to give chemotherapy patients the means to collect and dispose of bodily wastes following treatment. The bill was introduced by Sen. James Eldridge, D-Worcester.

“It would hopefully eliminate a lot of toxic chemicals from entering the public water system,” Eldridge said.

The senator said he is concerned that some chemotherapy treatments enter the patient and do not fully process by the time it leaves the body. It ends up being flushed into a community´s wastewater treatment facility or local septic systems.

“It´s a real concern that the people receiving these treatments are having a lot of toxic chemicals enter their bodies,” he said. “And these patients get discharged from hospitals or other health care facilities, [and] there´s no way for them to prevent those chemicals, through their bodily waste, from entering the water system.”

While any amount of chemotherapy drugs left unprocessed would be extremely diluted, Eldridge said the reason for the bill is because experts are unsure if newer drugs are surviving traditional wastewater treatment facilities.

“The answer is, we don´t exactly know,” he said. “So let´s try to prevent those chemicals from entering the water system to begin with.”

Jim Mullowney, CEO of Pharma-Cycle Inc., a startup company looking to provide treatment systems for in-home waste, is pushing for the bill´s passage.

He said the way materials surrounding chemotherapy drugs are handled tells you all you need to know about the dangers of them.

“The empty vials, the empty IV bags, the gloves nurses wear, everything that comes into contact with these materials, even in trace amounts, is being treated like it was a chemical weapon,” Mullowney said. “Yet, we inject it into a patient where it passes through the body in three or four days.”

He said not all chemotherapy drugs pass through the body unprocessed, but a handful do.

“If they took the same chemicals and put them down the drain at the hospital, they would arrest the CEO of the hospital and throw them in jail,” he said. “We wouldn´t stand for it. But for some reason, because we treat them as medicines, we ignore the chemistry.”

Mullowney said even trace amounts of these drugs can be extremely dangerous, as they are often given to patients in nanograms per liter, or one billionth of a gram.

“It´s really common sense,” he said. “How we let this happen is beyond me.”

Not everyone is supportive of the measure. Political analyst Mitch Baroody said it is unfair to pick out just chemotherapy patients, as other pharmaceuticals are often found in studies that search for those items in public water systems. Such a move to single out one type of patient may be unconstitutional, he said.

“The point here is, if you are going to put excessive regulations on cancer patients, then you should put those same excessive regulations on anyone that uses medicine [where the medicine] excretes through the body´s waste disposal systems,” he said.

The bill had a public hearing last month and remains in committee.

“It´s the first time I´ve brought the bill forward,” Eldridge said. “It´s something that is a concern for a lot of legislators, but I think there needs to be an education about these chemicals [to other lawmakers].”

He said he is working hard to get the bill out of committee. The Massachusetts legislative session ends in July 2012.

Marc Hymovitz, director of government relations and advocacy for the American Cancer Society in the New England area, said the organization does not have a position on the proposal.

“It´s not an issue we´ve looked at,” he said by email.

Posted by  |  12/04/2011 | Categories: Political Thought, Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Could We Soon See the End of ITAR’s Chokehold on Space Exploration?: My Interview Below

Article Written by Daniel Sims, Columbia University, for Universe Today (NASA Endorsed Publication)

Jeff Foust of The Space Review may have said it best when he claimed that ITAR, a set of trade regulations regarding defense-related trade, was “an acronym that has become figuratively and literally a four-letter word in the industry given the costs, delays, and general uncertainty involved in dealing with those regulations.” No matter where you are on the political spectrum or no matter where you stand on the debate about what’s next in space, you will find people who hate the ITAR’s (International Trade Arms Regulations International Traffic in Arms Regulations) influence on space commerce. Even in this time of great partisanship, Rep. Howard Berman [D-CA28] along with six Democrats and four Republicans have joined forces to craft a sword that, once given to the president will eliminate ITAR’s influence on space commercial enterprise.

The Safeguarding United States Satellite Leadership and Security Act of 2011 is the name of the bill. Also named HR 3288, the act removes spacecraft and related components from the United States Munitions List which is a list of items which are controlled by ITAR. China, Cuba, Iran, Sudan, Syria, and North Korea have restricted access to US spacecraft merchants, easing fears that US technology would fall into the wrong hands.

HR 3288 has created much excitement in the space industry.

“Congress has the opportunity to dramatically improve the competitiveness of the U.S. satellite and space industries and ensure an innovative and thriving U.S. space industrial base,” said Patricia Cooper, the president of the Satellite Industry Association, in a press release. She added that they would be jumping for joy if it weren’t for the “outmoded and overly-restrictive regulation” they say they are under.

Why so much joy? Mitchell Baroody, law student, political analyst, advocate, speaker and told Universe Today that “while ITAR may have some positive effects on National Security, the detrimental effects of these ‘red tape-laced’ regulations cannot be ignored.”

For instance, according to The Space Review in 2006, U.S. Satellite Manufacturers have estimated losses from ‘$2.5 and $6.0 billion since 1999 due primarily to ITAR regulations.’

“When industries become over-regulated, this is what happens,” Baroody said. “As a result of ITAR, even…‘friendly’ foreign countries are weary of dealing with the U.S.”

This makes it difficult for our allies because spacecraft are listed after deadly toxicological agents and before destructive nuclear weapons with all three under the same trade rules. Despite this hilarious position, spacecraft’s removal is still, according to Space Politics, “an uphill battle, as Congress awaits the administration’s export control reform proposals as well as delivery of a final version of a report looking at the national security implications of moving satellite export control reform.”

This uphill struggle against protectionism might not be so bad because over the overwhelming need to create jobs. Baroody acknowledged that there are “many who are advocating protectionist ideals, like Donald Trump advocating increased trade tariffs of 25% with China in April of 2011.”

However, Baroody said, there are many more who know that in the present American economy, people are looking for any feasible solution to export control that has economic benefits. “Unfortunately, becoming more protectionist could have some very negative economic implications for the American consumer,” he said.

Baroody does not foresee this bill being stopped by the protectionist movement. “HR 3288 does not, in any way, benefit the one country who has been treating us unfairly, China,” he said. “This bill should not face an obstacle, in reference to protectionism.”

To Baroody, the thought “that idealists tendencies, which are not accurate, can dominate and win over more jobs, more freedom for American business, and more money in the pockets of Americans is…sickening.”

Some could counter-claim saying national security is at risk, but Baroody thinks the US government has gone too far.

“Before the satellite industry was given such a devastating blow in 1999, it is fair to say there was not enough oversight. However, putting satellites on the munitions list went way too far,” he said. “Now, American Manufacturers are winning with HR 3288 and American security is being preserved because the malevolent nations are excluded from being sold these satellites and components.”

Drilling down to the mechanics of the law, this is the only route Congress can take to export reform as Baroody explains: “Title 22 USC § 2778 (The ITAR) gives Congress oversight in munitions list removal. The President has to present any removals to Congress and cannot remove anything until 30 days have passed upon notification of the Speaker and specific committees. They specifically authorized the President to have discretion in removal. In HR 3288, Congress authorizes the President to remove the satellites and related components only if this does not cause a threat to National security.” In other words, congress can’t remove the spacecraft from the munitions list themselves.”

The Safeguarding United States Satellite Leadership and Security Act of 2011 is not perfect. “The bill includes risk-mitigating licensing controls, procedures, and safeguards,” Baroody said. “Red-tape and regulations are always going to get in the way of commerce, regardless of whether it involves space or some other category of commerce. If you put aside the risk mitigating licensing controls, procedures, and safeguards and look at America’s tax system, the answer is obvious.”

“The red-tape a company has to go through to get a product to market, like a satellite, can also be just as bad as paying more for it,” Baroody continued. “Having to paddle through the exorbitant amount of regulations to ensure you are legally allowed to sell your product and your buyer is allowed to keep it, is detrimental to every business. We should have regulations, but they should be within reason and should make sense. Government should not babysit our industries but they should keep an eye on them to make sure no one is getting hurt and the American people are being reasonably protected”.

This bill even has international implications. In an interview for The Space Review Dennis Burnett, vice president of trade and export controls for EADS North America expressed that “You cannot build a big sophisticated satellite without US parts and components, you just cannot do it…Those components might comprise no more than five percent of the satellite, but still, it’s a very important five percent.”

Because of this international impact, the bill was referred to the Foreign Affairs Committee on November 1st. This so called ‘Congress of specialists’ will, if they give the bill their time, study the bill then report on it. If the committee doesn’t give the bill their time, it will die there. Only after the committee’s review will there be a vote on the elimination of the ITAR.

Posted by  |  11/28/2011 | Categories: Political Thought | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave A Comment »

CONSERVATIVES DISH ON CAIN, RACE: My Interview Below

This is article appeared Sunday, June 13, 2011, in the Philadelphia Tribune and is written by Zack Burgess

For more than two weeks now, and especially since Herman Cain was hit with allegations of sexual harassment, several talk show hosts have rallied around him, using race and his conservatism as a way to ex:plain why he has encountered some of his recent troubles.

First there was Rush Limbaugh, who recently said on his show: that the article in Politico is part of a process to tear down a Black Republican. Then there was Ann Coulter.

“Liberals detest, detest, detest conservative Blacks,” Coulter said. “…This is now the second time a conservative Black has had outrageous, and what appear to be false, allegations leveled against him.”

The first, in her view, was Clarence Thomas.

She didn’t stop there, inferring that a cadre of women, who were quick to forgive Bill Clinton for his sexual transgressions, was now attacking Herman Cain. “If you are a conservative Black, they will believe the most horrible sexualized fantasies of these uptight white feminists,” she said.

This prompted radio host Sean Hannity to wonder why liberals were, in his words, so “threatened” by Cain. Needless to say, Coulter was blunt in her response.

“Our Blacks are so much better than their Blacks,” she said, speaking of Democrats. “To become a Black Republican, you don’t just roll into it. You’re not going with the flow… and that’s why we have very impressive Blacks in the Republican Party.”

There has been a collective response to the Politico.com report that GOP front-runner Cain had settled two sexual harassment lawsuits when he headed the National Restaurant Association, a lobbying group for the food industry, in the 1990s.

And given that Cain gave inconsistent answers to questions raised by the article and has refused to acknowledge his latest accuser, Sharon Bialek — he has only been his own worst enemy.

“People refer to Herman Cain as a “Black conservative” as if he is some alien species,” said political analyst Mitch Baroody. “While the NAACP means well in protecting civil rights, I find them to be very quick on the trigger in pulling the race card and setting up divides. By talking about whites and Blacks like they are so different, it effectively makes them different. It allows people to use race as an excuse not to perform or an excuse as a defense to criticism.”

Coulter evoked the Thomas parallel when she dredged up the famous phrase from his nomination hearings 20 years ago.

At that time it was Thomas who made the statement that effectively neutralized questions about inappropriate sexual conduct raised by attorney Anita Hill.

Keep in mind, Coulter has called the Rev. Al Sharpton a “fat, race-baiting Black man” and has defended the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens as being unfairly accused of racism.

“The rendering of Black people as the ornaments of diversity, rather than incarnations of it, is one of the essential reasons why Blacks clash with conservatism,” said Political analyst Yvette Carnell.

Cain’s rise to the top of the GOP presidential pool has set off a furor among conservatives who saw Cain and other conservative minorities as victims of the so-called-liberal media. Limbaugh compared Cain’s problems to those of Marco Rubio, the U.S. senator from Florida who frequently told the story of his family fleeing Castro, which turned out to be untrue. Apparently the Rubios left Cuba several years before Castro came to power.

In a 12-minute exposition on the subject, Limbaugh called the reporting on Cain a “hit job.” “Anything good that happens to any Black or Hispanic in American politics can only happen via the Democrat Party. If it happens elsewhere, we’re going to destroy those people a la Clarence Thomas,” he said.

Speaking of Blacks’ place in America, MSNBC contributor, author and former Republican presidential candidate Pat Buchanan said in his just-released book, “Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?”: “The European and Christian core of our country is shrinking.”

He says that “Old heroes like Columbus and Robert E. Lee may be replaced on calendars by Martin Luther King and Cesar Chavez.” He goes on to write: “The End of White America. Those who believe the rise to power of an Obama rainbow coalition of peoples of color means the whites who helped to engineer it will steer it are deluding themselves. The whites may discover what it is like to ride in the back of the bus.”

For 21 consecutive months now, MSNBC has been No. 1 among African-American viewers in prime time. So it’s no surprise that Buchanan, hasn’t appeared on the network since his comments.

The Huffington Post’s reported that Buchanan hasn’t shown up on MSNBC since Oct. 22, while doing the rounds on other stations to promote his new book.

“A Conservative does not change because he is a different color,” Baroody said. “A Liberal does not change his philosophy because of his color either. Color should not be a part of this debate. People should lean on the side of conviction and not outward appearance. But because people have put such an emphasis on color, it allows politicos to make excuses like, ‘the media doesn’t like me because I’m a Black Conservative.’ It’s disgusting that we have let our society come to this after the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968.”

ColorofChange.org, a civil rights group, asked its members to sign a petition urging MSNBC to fire Buchanan, rattling off a series of questionable comments he has made over the years.

The Anti-Defamation League also chimed in, labeling Buchanan a racist and anti-Semite. Calderone even spoke with a station executive, who told him that, “the network is taking the concerns seriously.”

He also stressed that the decision to freeze out Buchanan was made long before the groups started rallying against him.

“To me, it’s disgusting,” Baroody said. “Blacks and whites are equals, only different in appearance. In the progressive age we live in today, Blacks and whites should be sticking up for each other more and calling out those that abuse the ‘race card’ as an excuse. Every time someone refers to a candidate as a ‘Black Conservative’ there should be whites and Blacks protesting this type of language because it sets up divides.”

Zack Burgess is the enterprise writer for The Tribune. He is a freelance writer and editor who covers culture, politics and sports. He can be contacted at zackburgess.com.

Posted by  |  11/17/2011 | Categories: Political Thought | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave A Comment »

CNBC Presidential Debate: Surprised Perry Remembered to Attend

The debate on CNBC was…revealing at best. Rick Perry, effectively, ended his candidacy for good tonight. Cain showed more signs of being human while the 999 plan became more annoying as the debate went on. Gingrich sounded more and more Presidential. Finally, Romney continued to seal his front-runner status without any major blunders. Here is an analysis and the grades I think they deserve.

The worst performance of the night goes to Rick Perry. Simply put, he’s through. Truthfully, he was through a long time ago but tonight sealed the deal for him. He would benefit by going home to Texas and allowing his staff to continue running  the state for the rest of his term. Perry said he would eliminate three departments and stated “I will tell you, it is three agencies of government when I get there that are gone. Commerce, Education, and the — What’s the third one there? Let’s see.” He had to ask Ron Paul for assistance, Rep. Paul suggested the EPA, Perry obliged. Then he changed his mind and still could not remember.

This was, perhaps, the biggest blunder of the entire campaign season if not in the past 3 decades.  This was painful for anyone watching, regardless of whether you support him or not. He’s like a mini-Bush but not as polished. I can’t believe I am actually saying that. I am expecting the headlines Thursday morning to read: “Perry withdraws from race, endorses someone but forgets who.”

Even with all of his money, he will not recover. There is no hope. If you support Perry, I suggest finding someone else because he will not be running much longer. If he does stay in, he is in for a terrible defeat in January. For the guy I thought could be President a few months ago, I have to confidently say he is through. He gets a D- tonight, only because his tax plan does make pretty good sense.

Bachman is largely an idealist and if I fact checked everything she said tonight, I am certain I would catch her in a few stories that are not based on fact. Her constituents think she is out of her mind, at least the constituents I have talked too, and tonight, she seemed slightly out-of-touch as usual. She likes to tell stories and uses fear mongering to win people over. It’s an old political trick that is somewhat effective..especially at tea parties. But on a national stage, saying we will be paying for China’s army..well, that is too much. She did make a few good points, especially on Tax Issues..she knows that topic well. Thank God she didn’t mention she was a “federal tax lawyer” for once..for that, I give her a C.

Santorum was so forgettable that I remember nothing that he said. He comes across as an irritated and disgusted Baptist preacher…except for that fact he is Catholic. I think it’s very clear that Santorum knows he isn’t going to be President, he wants something else. I’m not sure what, because Santorum as the VP would not necessarily bring in Pennsylvania and would not necessarily bring in any more Christian Conservatives than let’s say, Bachman.

He likes to remind people that he is the only candidate to beat democrats in Pennsylvania…but perhaps we should remind him he is also the only Republican to lose a big re-election to a democrat. At least Santorum wore a shiny blue tie tonight. That made him stand out. Unfortunately, he just shouts and does not connect. I’ve met him and talked with him…he does not come across in the way a President should. Nice guy, just not right to be President. I am not even giving him a grade…he’s Below a B, that’s about all I will say about him.

Gingrich is, by far, the smartest guy on stage. He handled the female moderator like she was a student in his college lecture. Nothing seemed to ruffle Newt’s feathers. He was articulate, spoke with conviction, and spoke with intelligence. These are three qualities that I feel Romney needs to learn in a hurry. Gingrich hit the nail on the head when he said we need to audit the Federal Reserve and investigate the people Bernanke has been bailing out. That was a huge plus. I don’t believe Gingrich is a nationally viable candidate at the moment though. His personality is dull and I really feel that he would be better at the bottom of a Presidential ticket, especially for someone lacking Conservative credentials.

Newt may surprise us and may very well rise in the polls. However, polls are not significant, the ground game in New Hampshire and Iowa is. Gingrich doesn’t have the organized ground game to win right now. We will see if these strong debates pay off for him. I will say, putting Gingrich on stage with Obama would be epic. This would be the first time in recent memory that a sitting President was completely humiliated on live television. It would be ratings gold. But imagine something even better…Gingrich v. Biden in the VP debate…that would be quality entertainment. Newt gets an A-.

Mitt Romney was great tonight and for the first time seemed to speak with real conviction rather than out of defense. But I do not like his flip flopping. I like a candidate who doesn’t change their mind to appease people. However, tonight, Romney had it together.  His plans for jobs are sound and I feel like he has the tough rhetoric needed to fight China in the trade war that is brewing.  I also liked his alternative bailout plan of bringing in private investors.

Given, I don’t enjoy listening to him talk because he acts like he is doing everyone a favor by speaking, and when he laughs, it seems too forced.  But if I had to pick the guy who could put the economy on the right track, Mitt Romney would be my choice.  I also liked hearing him say “I will never apologize as President of the United States of America.” Pretty good talk, let’s hope he doesn’t change his mind. He has the experience and has the plan.  His wife is also a pretty amazing person, met her my sophomore year of college. Tonight, he did nothing to lose his frontrunner status, so he gets an A- as well.

Finally, Herman Cain. First of all, people booed when he was asked about the American people hiring a President with character issues.  However, this was not a boo at Herman but a boo at the left-leaning moderator for bringing up this subject at an economic debate. Herman handled it well and Romney showed class by not responding, even though he had a chance to. Unfortunately, Cain is beginning to sound like a broken record. Hearing about 999, in almost every response, is too repetitive. I do commend him for getting back on message by talking about the economy. However, every time he talks about the economy, he has to mention the dreadful 999.

I should explain why 999 makes me so angry. This plan would cause  sales tax to be 15-18%, not 9%. Mr. Cain fails to mention there is still a state sales tax. Without giving low-income and middle-class Americans pre-bates, I believe this plan is a disaster. He grew up in a poor family, he should know how hard it is to get by. He should have stuck with the Fair Tax. I felt like Cain did not give specifics but told generalizations on what he wanted to do. This is troublesome for a President. He needs to hire a competent staff and to surround himself with policymakers. I would also suggest he find himself a good Middle Eastern policy adviser because avoiding these questions is not Presidential.  Truthfully, Cain is a feel good story but not someone that is ready to be President. Cain still gets a B+ tonight because things could have gone really poorly but he did a nice job.

I am not bothering to discuss Ron Paul because it’s just more of the same rhetoric that should be in a Harvard classroom rather than presented to the American people. The average American is not going to connect or understand most of the things Paul says. However, he is growing on people but will never become President.

Huntsman is brilliant but also a brilliant jerk. He comes across to stiff and too Ivy League. He is like that antagonist you always disliked in an 80’s cult classic. I’m not going to waste my time analyzing either because they are not going to be contenders or VP nominees.

If the Republican Convention were tomorrow, I would make the following predictions: Romney/Rubio, Romney/Gingrich, or possibly Romney/Cain. I do not believe Cain would win the nomination if the election were tomorrow.  There are still too many questions about Cain, to realistically look at him as anything other than a Vice-Presidential contender. For the next week, I predict that Cain loses 1.5-5% in the national polls. Romney will probably stay the same and Gingrich will probably move up 2-8% points.  The undecided will decrease by 1-2% points.

The most interesting development will be when Perry drops out of the race. Will his supporters go for Romney or will they rally around Cain or Gingrich?

Who is the biggest loser? That is Rick Perry and he didn’ t have to run 5 miles a day and go on a diet. Biggest Victor? Romney, Gingrich, and Cain because he did not blow it.

Posted by  |  11/09/2011 | Categories: Political Thought | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave A Comment »

The S.C. GOP Vice-Presidential Debate: Wait, I mean Presidential

This debate came with no surprises. If you missed it, you likely missed seeing one of the future GOP nominees for Vice President. I’ve called it. None of the candidates in this first debate will be the Presidential nominee. I’m sorry, I’m sure I disappointed a few of you, but I speak the truth even if it hurts.

I call this with about 80% certainty because you never know when someone is going to burst out of their shell and surprise you. However, I find it likely none will be taking front runner status from this debate. Here is a quick rundown of the candidates and my opinion of each candidate’s performance.

Ron Paul: He often seemed like a sleepy and agitated old man. His performance is no different than his performances in the past. He spoke as a strong libertarian would. He opposed “secret” military prisons and advocated for gay rights.

I found myself agreeing with him on many issues but I also disagree with him adamantly on defense issues and believe he has a very fatalistic outlook on securing America and our place in the world. He will have no greater chance at the Presidency this time than he did before. I hate to say that because I really like the guy and he has been really nice to me in the past. He’s a fantastic guy to sit down and talk with, as I have. However, based on content, I have to give him a B-

Gary Johnson- He rarely said anything but from what he said, he is 100% never going to be President or Vice-President. He won’t be on the cabinet either. He is wasting his money and time by staying in this race. He lacks the confidence, decisiveness, and charisma to be a world leader..another libertarian but he is no Ron Paul. Gary throws his hands in the air like an angry mother at her toddler eating mushrooms in the yard. It’s time for him to call it quits. I gave him a C- and I am being very generous.

Herman Cain- He responded as a true business man would. He advocated an objective and advocated knowing what the end game should be in any circumstance whether domestic or foreign. He is relatively new to politics and leeway can be given to him for this debate. I found myself saying “Amen” on several of his stances.

I think this guy is the real deal, don’t get me wrong. However, his lack of charisma at times and lack of foreign policy experience could be a negative. Mr. Cain could surprise us all, continue making great progress, and be a dark horse candidate in this race.

But my guess, if anything, is he will be in the running for Vice-President but will likely end up as a frontrunner for Secretary of Commerce in a new administration. I give him a B+ and I’m proud to do so.

Tim Pawlenty- decisive, knowledgeable, sure of himself, and ready to lead…as Vice President. He was spot on tonight with everything he said. However, he often lacks charisma, something needed to beat Obama. I am also unsure at how far his message can reach at the front of a ticket. Overall, he was pretty good tonight and he earned points with his rant against the Government for interfering in the Boeing deal in Charleston. However, his views on cap and trade have certainly hurt him. But I still give him an A- for tonight because in a weak crop of candidates, he is one of the stronger ones.

Rick Santorum- I am extremely undecided about him. His performance tonight was right on the money with the Conservative GOP message. He was the most confident out of all candidates tonight. However, he lacks the “wow” factor that will take him over the top in 2012. He can’t beat Obama..let’s face it.  He may have beaten 3 other democrats in Pennsylvania races, but he can’t beat the biggest democrat in the White House.

However, if a more centrist and suspect -Conservative GOP candidate wins the nomination; he is an ideal candidate to boost conservative credentials on any ticket. I give him an A- for his performance, but I would like to see him relate better with other areas of the party rather than the hardcore, right wing side.

A quick wrap- Pawlenty and Santorum win this debate and who is better is just a matter of personal preference, Cain is the darkhorse, Paul is Paul, and Johnson needs to quit before he continues to embarrass himself.

Tonight needs to be considered a Vice Presidential debate and nothing more. The next President, by election, was very likely, not on the stage in Greenville. The big boys have yet to arrive. However, I search my brain hoping Gingrich, Romney, Trump and Co. can be considered big boys. I have my serious doubts.

It is going to take more to beat a sitting President. Many, including myself, relate Obama to Jimmy Carter. However, Jimmy Carter did not free the folks in the Iran-Contra affair. Obama has Bin Laden’s death to his name. That is the significant difference that could help pull Obama over the top if the GOP candidate is not strong, charismatic, decisive, and ready to be everything Obama was not.

Right now, the GOP crop is full of what the democrats used to have: Walter Mondales, Michael Dukakisis, and George McGoverns. As we all know, none of them reached much success on the national level. I hope someone steps up soon, or steps out of their shell if they have already stepped up, and lets the country know they are ready to be the image of the Executive branch for the next eight years.

Posted by  |  05/05/2011 | Categories: Political Thought | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

A Taxing Situation

I happened to check out The Hill today and as a result, my focus on unity, peace, and love for the Liberals in Washington quickly decreased. Obama and Co. can take partial credit for shooting a terrorist who needed to be killed, but it still doesn’t fix  the biggest problems in our country: THE ECONOMY and now, SENATOR KENT CONRAD.

Senator Kent Conrad, a democrat from North Dakota. has a plan, and believe me, it’s quite a plan! As the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, he is now pushing a new tax plan that will tax every American based on how many miles they drive. This differs from the current gas tax because the government will basically become more “Big Brotherish” and keep a closer look on motorists.

Why is this a “taxing situation?” Frankly, the way they want to keep track is pretty scary. These guys must be in cahoots with Steve Jobs over at apple. They want to put tracking devices in every American vehicle.  These devices will keep track of the mileage and people will be required to pay the tax at gas stations.

Seriously? I mean, really? And no, this isn’t some tea party or government conspiracy talk, it’s true. It sounds more like something out of a Science Fiction movie but it’s here..electronically tracking us to pay taxes.

What is next, a tax on how many times we flush the toilet every day? I guess nursing homes will go out of business! Better yet, a tax on profanity.  There we go. Every time you say “Damn” that is .25 cents. Worse curse words are taxed more heavily. I guess Joe Biden would be in big trouble if this were the case.

While the price of gas is rising to nearly historical levels, the democrats in D.C. apparently want to move towards another historic move: The extinction of automobiles.  I cannot wait to see how liberal scientist Bill Nye will try to explain this. It’s easy. I’ll help him out. It’s a cataclysm called “Liberalistic Geo-shifting of the Transportation Infrastructure.”

There Bill Nye, hope that helps.  Seriously though, how do they think  Americans will afford yet another tax, to increase the cost of driving, that will supposedly benefit our highways?

For states like South Carolina, Maine, and New Hampshire, the funds collected will go to bigger states like California and New York. Have you driven on a road in South Carolina any time lately? They are horrible. Part of this is the state legislature’s fault in South Carolina and part of it is the Federal Funds South Carolina gets, go to putting Jim Clyburn’s name on various universities instead of paving the roads.  Just saying.

It doesn’t make up for the simple truth that roads in other parts of the country are fantastic. Don’t think for one second that a tax like this would restore the roads in a smaller state like South Carolina. The money would never see the light of day in small states.

In conclusion, this assault on the American pocket book is just another liberal plan to cripple an already decaying economy to the point of no return. If there are benefits, I would certainly like to see them.  Unfortunately, by the time any benefit are seen, no one will be driving on roads to enjoy their restoration!

Thanks Kent Conrad! Way to help out the American people. Better get used to being chauffeured around piggy back style!

By MEB

If you want to read more in depth about the plan, check out: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/159397-obama-floats-plan-to-tax-cars-by-the-mile

Posted by  |  05/05/2011 | Categories: Political Thought | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave A Comment »

Trouble in the Middle East: Lebanon Next?

The Middle East is in an uproar and no one has much of an explanation besides, “Radical Muslims are trying to overturn governments.” Wow, impressive..how many years of American university education did that take you?

The biggest problem with current American Foreign policy towards the Middle East is simple: There are too many university educated advisers and not enough authentic Lebanese, Egyptian, Libyan, etc. people doing the policy making. Before I rant about policy makers, let me explain my view of the situation.

First of all, people in the Muslim Brotherhood and in other radical sects do not understand democracy.  There is no democracy in radical Islam, that has to be understood.  There is not but one law, Sharia law, and there is not but one god, allah.  That is how they think. So, before believing anything else, to understand what is going on, we cannot be naive and believe this is about democracy. It’s about everything but democracy.

A stronger Islamic presence in each of these governments means a weaker tolerance for Jewish and Christian factions in each country. It also means zero tolerance for the Jewish state of Israel.  If you think people are negative and show too much hatred towards Israel now, you haven’t seen anything yet.

Christians will suffer a great deal because of these riots.  However, the real suffering will be done by the country of Israel.  The underlying purpose of fortifying Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, and basically every other Middle Eastern country, with radical Islamic regimes, is to push for the destruction of the Jewish state so that the Palestinians can take over.  Right now, Muslims believe that is quickly approaching.  They are also looking to the skies for the return of their “hidden Imam” which they think is coming in the midst of this.

As for the country of Lebanon, things will be getting very interesting. Hezbollah’s presence in the country has grown to extraordinary depths. The people of Lebanon don’t have weapons, so they cannot defend themselves against Hezbollah’s weapon caches.  Many members of the Lebanese Parliament are intimidated into supporting and joining Hezbollah.  Yet Hezbollah claims to promote peace in Lebanon? Hezbollah is another radical Islamic sect just like the Muslim Brotherhood. Their goal is to take the country over and eventually attack Israel again and get their land back from the Sheba Farms area of Israel.

According to an unnamed source who may or may not be in Lebanon, on March 13, protests are apparently being held in Lebanon. But this force is anti-Hezbollah and for a truly unified Lebanese government. People are tired of Hezbollah pushing them around and these protests will likely spur even more international attention on the issue. However, given the current turn of the tides in the Middle East, do not be surprised if these protests turn violent, quickly. Hezbollah does not like to be challenged and their leader, Hassan Nasrallah. is a force to be reckoned with.  This could be the next hot spot of activity. I would bet on it.

The problem with a protests and riots, even for a good purpose in Lebanon, is that it makes the Middle East even more unstable.  Another country this close to Israel, with instability, only makes Israel more defensive in its parameter. If the riots happen, the U.S. needs to be quicker in coming out with a response. We must stand behind the Lebanese people in their fight against Hezbollah. This will help quiet Israel as they begin to get defensive to growing unrest in Lebanon.

If Lebanon becomes more unstable and if another country closer to Israel erupts as well, I see Israel being provoked into war with Syria and perhaps Iran at even the slightest test of their patience.  That is if the U.S. doesn’t intervene in some manor.

Let’s not forget, Lebanese Hezbollah is funded by Iran and Syrica. If Israel is to sustain itself, even though God protects it, they must gain a foothold in Syria first.  Second, they must keep Iran off their back. This could cause President Obama to show his hand.  Will he stand with Israel or will he be the first President to sit back and watch the Middle East explode.

This decade will certainly give us the answer to what the future of the Middle East will look like. It may also result into one of the biggest and nastiest wars in the worlds history. As Thomas Paine said, “These are the times that try men’s souls.” I believe now is a very appropriate time to pull that quote out. What we are about to see happen is happening in biblical proportions.

First, as a country, we have to stand with our ally, Israel, and we have to push our other allies in the Middle East to stand with Israel or lose us. Next, we need to start immediate drilling off of our coasts.  We have got to become energy dependent because America’s oil consumption depends on Middle East stability..the stability doesn’t look so good right now. Next, the State Department and President Obama need to stop relying so heavily on American academics and more on people that have actually have ties to the Middle East. People that have been held captive by radical extremists, people that understand the thinking of these people. This is the biggest change that needs to be made immediately.

Unfortunately, in the end, we may be provoked into war. But another Middle Eastern war, can we handle this? The bigger question is, can our economy recover from another war?

Posted by  |  02/28/2011 | Categories: Political Thought | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave A Comment »

Social Media and Technology: Don’t Get Bogged Down, Avoid The Mud

Lately, I find myself analyzing political candidates or the Middle East, making far leftist liberals or Muslims mad with something I say that doesn’t line up with their worldview, or just not writing or speaking at all when it comes to politics.  Recently, I had a few people come to me and ask me to write about my predictions and thoughts on Social Media and the future of political campaigns. This article will probably not interest most of you, just a forewarning. But if you are a consultant, politician, or someone interested in the subject, read on.

I’d like to start with talking about my first computer. I was in 2nd grade and the only computer I had used was one in my 1st grade computer lab. Then one day, my dad told me to “look out for the cow box from Gateway.” When it arrived, I realized…I got this huge tower computer with awesome games like “Myst”  and this awesome program called Encarta Encyclopedia 95. I thought,  “ wow, this is as good as it gets or will ever get. I am in heaven being able to type out my homework and play super awesome games that only take 8 minutes to load.” The hard drive was tiny, under 10 Gigabytes and the memory was absolutely pathetic. But at the time, no one could see anything better.

Those that saw the future and invested in companies like DELL and especially Apple in 1995, would have really seen a tremendous pay off now wouldn’t’ they?

So back to social media. Today, politicos, politicians, the media, Jimmy Fallon, and of course, members of the Jersey Shore just love to talk about social media. Twitter, Facebook, Four Square…must I go on?

Political folks think that social media is the way of the future and if you don’t get on social media now, then you are missing out and way behind. The first problem with that is simple…if you get on now, it’s already too late to make an impact. Those that got on social media early, I’m not going to say any names but *cough* Barack *cough* Obama sure did, really reaped the seeds of their harvest. You win Presidencies and you win elections, period, by staying ahead of the trends, not joining them as they are on the decline. The problem with social media and technology, period, is their unkind expiration date.

Most people will call me crazy and think I’ve lost my mind if I say Twitter and Facebook are on the decline…but I have to admit, they are. But all current technology is, so don’t’ think I’m discriminating solely against social networks.  For any politician and/or consultant reading this, pushing social media is effective to stay up with the status quo and to build your list of contacts, but getting active in a social network now is not going to give you any advantage at all because you have already missed out on the trend. It’s just like the stock market. Get on in the beginning when it isn’t popular, ride it to the peak, sell, and let others fail miserably as they watch it drop.

Now you are wondering, what does this idiot think political campaigns or politicians of the future should be focusing on if they don’t focus on social media and current technology? Well, the real issue and the ongoing issue since the beginning of political campaigns is this..Getting the candidate in front of the voters as frequently and positively as possible. If you didn’t get on the social network boom when it first started booming, you missed out, not totally, but you missed out.

Just like the computer that I had in 1995, bigger and better things were being made when I opened that cow box from Gateway. My mind was so focused on how good the present was, I forgot ALL about the future and what it could hold.  Those caught up on social media can’t believe there would ever be better technological advancements that could make their campaign life better. Did anyone ever think Myspace would be fifth to anything?? It was huge for a while, now look at it?  While those of you that I describe above stay stuck in your glaze, others are out there innovating and will beat you in newer, technologically growing future elections. The Obamas of the world tap into new things while the McCains catch on a little too late…yeah, hate to say that, but it’s the truth.

So, using this thought, politicians and political campaigns of the future will have to remember three things in order to succeed in the ever changing technological environment: 1. Look towards the technologies of tomorrow and not the ones of today while maintaining the campaign status quo and staying equal with your opponent’s presence on networks. 2. Spend your resources on new and innovative ways to get face time with voters and/or constituents, not on currently popular but expiring Social Media Networks 3.  Don’t be afraid to take a risk on unproven campaign technologies and out the box advertising methods.

In short, there will always be some value to mailers as long as the post office is still running.  Campaign signs, while I think they are pretty ineffective, still give name recognition. So, as long as people can read, still do signs for your campaigns. Stay on facebook and twitter because people will still use these networks but they will not be used as much in the future. But the focus of future campaigns and constituent service should be on the newer technology. I divide that up in 2 groups: 1. Literally, the new technology. 2. Out the box advertising that is not commonplace.

What is this new technology you wonder? The technology boom of the next decade, which we are lightly experiencing now, is 3D technology. Most new TVs are being produced with 3D technology now. Computers will have this as a common feature by the end of the decade if not the middle.  The ability to watch TV on a cell phone is huge as well. If TVs, portable devices, and computers all have 3D compatibility, a campaign should harness this technology as soon as it is available. This will allow for a more personal experience in the homes of voters. They will see their candidates coming through their tv, portable device, or computer monitor. How personal is this??? Think of the potential.

The other piece of technology that we are not far from having widespread, is holographic technology. This is when the entire structure of political campaigns changes completely. You think I sound  crazy like Walt Disney? Catch this: the air force already has it on a light scale and so does CNN. Only the democrats know about that though! Once it gets here for personal use, future campaigns better grab onto it no matter how much it costs. The first presidential candidate that is likeable and presentable enough, that harnesses holographic imagery to reach out to voters, will have a tremendous advantage, no doubt. It’s here, we are just waiting for it to be in the homes of the voters.

Why? Because people want to touch their candidate, understand their candidate, and connect with their candidate. And no, their candidate should not be on e-harmony nor is this an advertisement for THAT social network. Holographic technology eliminates the need for door to door campaigning and the need for mailers. If the voter can put their candidate in their living room any time, why would that candidate need to knock on their door?

Widespread 3D technology and Holographic Technology will eliminate the need for many outreach methods…perhaps even social networks. These are just two ideas.

As for innovative advertising. Well, in the past elections, I witnessed the same, boring, old campaign ads. “Hi I’m blah blah, vote for me because of blah. Thank you and God Bless America” I told a candidate for Governor, when they asked my advice, to think out the box and quit putting up boring policy ads.

See, no one wants to hear that crap. I’m sorry, I know it’s tempting but stop it, please. If you want to succeed in the future and win an election with an ad, make your ads like the non-political ads on television. THEY WORK! Be creative, be innovative, even add some humor to take attention from the carpel tunnel you have received from putting so much emphasis on the expiring twitter. It’s okay to be funny, it’s okay to be out the box, it’s okay to be different. I wonder what would have happened for this candidate had they listened to me and been different.

The point of my entire article is to say one thing bluntly, STOP GETTING GIDDY OVER EXPIRING SOCIAL MEDIA AND TECHNOLOGY AND START LOOKING TO WHAT THE NEXT BIG THING IS.

Posted by  |  02/24/2011 | Categories: Political Thought | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave A Comment »

Unchain My Heart, Trouble, Ain’t No Sunshine

These are three of my favorite songs…watch it and see what you all think! Have a great valentines!

 

 

Also, go to www.myspace.com/mitchbaroodymusic and listen to RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW

Posted by  |  02/05/2011 | Categories: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , | Leave A Comment »

My Newest Song- A Mother’s Prayer

This is one of the songs I wrote and recorded. Check out my youtube chan at www.youtube.com/jamwithmitch

Here is a video that I have for my song, “A Mother’s Prayer.”  This is a song I wrote about four years ago when a member of my church went off to fight in Iraq.  I try to make every song as true as possible.  Remember our troops and remember why we have the freedom we do…it’s all because of them.

Posted by  |  10/06/2010 | Categories: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave A Comment »

« Older Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.