$3.5 billion dollars

I know that a lot of money circulates through odd places in this country. But I never would have guessed that so much money is spent for people to talk (supposedly) to lawmakers to make certain laws. $3.5 billion was spent on lobbying efforts last year. That's a lot of money.



See? That went to $1 Trillion, but even then billion visual was pretty astounding. Now imagine 3.5 times that. It's a lot of money, and all spent just to talk. I don't even know what they would be doing with that money, unless they just have a lot of lobbyists who all make a lot of money. Maybe it's evidence of inefficiency in business and government.

Personally, I think it's a shame that so much money is spent by businesses to get laws passed in their behalf, but for almost all Americans, there is no way to do such a thing for our own interests. Even if I did have the money, I hope I wouldn't use it in such a selfish way. Instead of wasting money on selfish law slanting, I would donate it to public works projects that actually benefit the American public.

It's tough to know that we, the masses, have only our votes and voices to sway our government, while businesses spend billions of dollars to sway the people we elect.

Is terrorism the biggest problem?

For a few dreadful moments, I thought I didn't have an opinion on anything tonight. But then I realized that I have a reputation to uphold; I had to find something. So I looked harder and found this little gem of an article. It's really short, so you should read it, but if you are lazy enough not to: it says that the NRA is saying that the government shouldn't take away gun rights from suspected terrorists, comparing it to Cold War McCarthyism.

I am a total supporter of the Constitution. It bothers me whenever the government or individuals take away or harm others' rights, because the Constitution provides for freedom, and that shouldn't be taken. There's always the debate over a strict interpretation or a loose one, and both have their benefits. However, when deciding whats legal and not, we must always keep in mind the question of whether our decisions will prevent someone else from their freedom. That's why it makes a lot of sense to argue for gun rights for people who haven't been convicted of terrorism.

However, if we were to take a look back in American history, we would find that civil liberties such as the right to bear arms have been taken away before in times of military necessity. So why would this situation be any different? We are in a war-like state, even if it's against an unclear enemy. If we were to look back in history, though, we would also find that terms like 'terrorism' have been used quite loosely to convict individuals. Will terrorists always be suicide bombers, or will they end up being school-ground bullies? After all, they are terrorists to the kids they beat up.

It's kind of like the people who say that the new immigration law will cause racial profiling. Opponents of this law will probably say that it will prevent many Muslim Americans from owning guns. Maybe that is true, maybe not, but I want to say this: more people die every year from car accidents than from terrorism. More people die from cigarettes each year than from terrorism. More people die from choking on food each year than from terrorism. So should we just ban car ownership from people who have caused accidents, cigarettes from prospective smokers, and food from those that have choked? And should we leave all those things free for everyone else, just totally single out those groups? It's kind of ridiculous, and so can the hype be about terrorism.

Yes, it's a terrible thing to do, but killing a family by hitting their car after a night of drinking is horrible too, and that happens much more often. We must protect the rights of individuals until they prove that they are not responsible enough to have them. If, as a country, we don't do this, we will end up living in an oppressive, dictatorial nation.

We aren't what we say we are

America is usually considered the most capitalist nation in the world. While we clearly aren't totally capitalist, we have a system that allows businesses to compete quite a bit. But it is hard to maintain capitalism when you want to break up big businesses and maintain competition. By breaking up the corporations, the government removes their incentive for competing, and it's interfering in the market.

At the moment, the Senate is trying to pass some sort of financial regulations that would prevent businesses from becoming too big. I can totally agree that monopolies and oligopolies can be bad; they have the power to raise prices. If they're the only company selling pencils, no one else is around to compete, so there's no way to keep the prices low.

But doesn't capitalism and competition kind of lend itself to having big businesses. As they expand and take over other companies, they get big. It's why they compete in the first place. That's why it's hard to decide how far to go when trying to regulate business. On the one hand, you want to have the free market system many people dream about, but you don't want huge companies to become oppressive.

So how much should the government regulate?

Sometimes the best party is no party

I could sit here and apologize for discussing the same things over and over again, but I won't. I care about the things I write about. If I didn't, I wouldn't have much to say, and since I have a lot to say, I care.

That said, here's some evidence that either my non-partisan effort is working, or that more and more people are like me: sick of current politics. I didn't realize that the numbers were so high. Unaffiliated voters now outnumber party voters in some very important states: Iowa, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. Too bad that in Iowa, you have to be a registered Republican or Democrat to caucus in those presidential primaries. Then you're pretty much left with the major party candidates. I guess you could vote for other people, but without a large enough independent population, it would be tough to actually elect anyone.

What would be great is if the two major parties get scared. Once they do, they'll realize that they can't always just fight each other; they have to have real agendas that actually benefit the American people. So many times, the politicians act only in the interest of being elected. And to get elected in this country, you almost have to be affiliated with either the Democratic or Republican party. That two-sided thinking creates situations where the politicians only give the American people two choices: ours or theirs. In truth, there are many other solutions to the problems, but independents aren't a big enough group to actually gain any respect for their side(s). Hopefully now that the numbers are growing for independents, they will be able to make a valuable impact on government.

If we would have just listened to our forefathers, we might not be in this mess, and others. George Washington, the very first president of this country, said,

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism."

He already knew, or had a feeling, that party politics were bad, that it would lead to a scary situation. Maybe that's where we're going?

Immigration Revisited

See. I'm not the only one who thinks Arizona has done something right. And if some of the people just think that reform is needed, but not what Arizona did, that's fine. Like I said, hopefully the actions that have been taken will send a message to the federal government.

Spring Break 2011?

Here's something I'm guessing people don't think about: Puerto Rico. I know I don't. I might even say that most people don't know what Puerto Rico is. Well, it's not a country and it's not a state. It's something in the middle of the two. For those of you readers who don't know, Puerto Rico is a commonwealth of the United States. Think we didn't have colonies? Anyway, what that means is that they are 'owned' by the US, but they pretty much get to do what they want. They have their own government, much like a state. They have a representative in the House, but he doesn't get to vote on anything. Because of that, they don't pay federal income taxes. (You know, they whole no taxation without representation thing) Let's just say they've got a pretty sweet deal. No tax, citizenship, easy access to the US, and they live in they freaking Caribbean!



For many years, ever since we acquired Puerto Rico after the Spanish-American War, the people of the US and the people of Puerto Rico have debated what to do with the island. Should they become a state? Should they become independent? Should they just stay a commonwealth? In 1998, Puerto Ricans actually voted against statehood. But the issue is back. I read this article about it. On Thursday, the House voted to allow the people of Puerto Rico to vote on what they want. Nothing will happen, though, unless the Senate and Obama pass the bill, as well.


I think it's great that they get to decide. After all, we fought for our independence; maybe they want theirs. It's not right to hold a territory if they don't want it. But why would the regular people vote to become a state? Like I said, they have a sweet deal at the moment. They're basically a state, but without having to comply with everything the United States government does. They can enter the country just like a person from Hawaii can. I just don't think they would want to become a state and be bound to the US forever. Plus that whole income tax... icky.

Do we even want or need Puerto Rico? After all, we have fifty states. If we were to acquire a fifty-first state, that would just screw up everything! All flags would have to be remade with an extra star. The song Fifty Nifty United States would just have to be done away with. There are just so many little things that we would have to do to make it legitimate.

The article brought up a good point: will they have to speak English? To me, I don't care. Just make the island a bilingual state. That way, we English-speakers can visit without a problem, and they can keep their culture. I think it'd be cool to have a state that speaks an entirely different language.

If Puerto Rico were to become a state, though, would it be treated differently than the others? Would they be bound forever like the states are? Could they just decide to secede if they decide they don't like the arrangement? I hope they wouldn't be able to deny laws that the US government makes or that the US government would make exceptions for Puerto Rico. These are things that the people of Puerto Rico need to decide before they vote. I'm all for statehood if it is fully done, but if they're not willing, I think it might be time to say goodbye.

A Grand Cheer for the Grand Canyon State

Everyone's probably heard about it; Arizona has enacted one of the strictest immigration laws ever. So many people are quick to criticize it, but I see nothing wrong with it. I've been hearing and reading a lot about how it will incite racism and violence and it will destroy families and that America is the country of immigrants and it's the right thing to do to let them in the country. Yeah, no.

A law alone can not and will not cause racism. It is up to the individual officers in the state of Arizona to decide if they will be racist or not. It just happens to be that the state of Arizona shares a border with Mexico. Who else would be illegally entering the country through that state? Seriously, we racially profile terrorists, yet it's a crime to racially profile illegal immigrants in a state that is adjacent to the country that is the home of the largest number of illegal immigrants to this country?

I absolutely support the Arizona government for passing this. For years the federal government has had border patrols(they wouldn't racially profile, would they??) and built useless fences, yet has not solved the problem of illegal immigration. Who knows if they ever will pass legislation that will actually do something? Thank you Arizona, if not for solving illegal immigration, for at least putting it in people's minds that something actually needs to be done about it. I would probably support a federal-level bill dealing with immigration, but only if it made a difference. If it ended up nullifying the Arizona law, but left the whole issue unsolved, I would consider it a failure.

However, I am just against illegal immigration. If the system were to be tweaked so that more people could become citizens without loosening the requirements, that would be great. As many people say, America is the country of immigrants, and we shouldn't stop that. We just need to become the country of legitimate immigrants. My advice for anyone considering entering illegally is this: if you break our laws to come here, why should we take you seriously as a candidate for citizenship? You have obviously shown that you don't support our system.

So for now, go Arizona! I think that this law will help in your state, even if it pushes the illegals to other states. Hopefully you have sent a message loud enough to travel the 2000 miles to Washington, where they will respond with a national law closing opportunities for illegal immigrants, but opening up many more for individuals wishing to become citizens.