Where does my tax money go?

Sometimes I feel as though reading is doing more harm than good to my psyche. I read today about a research study done on polar bears showing that organohalogen compounds may cause shrinking in male and female sexual organs. The polar bears affected live in Greenland and Russia. The report stated that the affected species list was not limited to these noted polar bears but included the arctic fox, killer whales, and pilot whales. By this research team's findings, we can extrapolate that even a slight decrease in size of either the male or female genitalia, reproduction for these species could be difficult if not impossible.

All living creatures, especially those who do not have sentient thought, deserve protection of some form. The study shows that the polar bears, arctic foxes, killer whales, and pilot whales eat the ringed and bearded seals, which carry the organohalogen compounds. In turn, the affected animals are likely to begin diminshing because of these shrunken sexual organs.

My thoughts on the subject are as follows: Quit giving grants to people who do research on the mating habits and potential problems associated of mammals that don't directly affect the viability of the USA. This particular group of people may not have been funded by American dollars because the research group is based in Denmark, but many other researchers are getting my tax money to research the advanced mating habits of the random mammal. Why? Because if they can prove that it will improve the lives of Americans in general, the US government will grant money to their cause.

Now, I have to rant on a different, associated topic. These researchers write verbose, confusing theses on their topic of interest in order to obtain a grant. These theses are then sent to some uneducated government worker who reads them and determines the viability of the potential grant project. First, we need to have experienced, well-educated people determining where the grant money goes. Second, we need to eliminate the needless spending of money to save the random moth or any other wantonly sought extinction fight. If we can stop the useless grant seekers, who, in essence, are identical to the career college students or government handout whore, from obtaining free money for wasteful projects, maybe we can focus on domestic issues. It's our money and it should go toward our betterment. We must pull the 2x4 out of our eye before we can point out the grain of sand in another country's.

Wal-Mart & Communism

I recently read a report that related the facts surrounding Wal-Mart's Chinese stores. It seems that the labor unions, accepted and sponsored by their Communist government, are attempting to organize at the Wal-Marts in China. I wonder why you don't hear anything about this on the mainstream news during the primetime reports on the major networks? I would assume because there are too many anti-Communism conservative Americans who would cause an uproar by contacting their congressmen. Allow me not to get sidetracked just yet. The report went on to say that Wal-Mart, after several years of these unions attempting to invade the company, is willing to negotiate allowing their organization within the company. Here is a complete and utter mistake. I, as a capitalist, believe that you do what it takes to establish a profit providing that it's legal, moral, and ethical. I also believe that the employee is the backbone of any capitalist run organization. I do not believe that it is a good idea for the number one retail establishment in the WORLD to allow Communist run labor unions to set up camp inside sixty of their stores.

Ok, let's just make up a little tale that may not be too far from the truth. Wal-Mart has over 3900 stores in the USA. I know that China will only have their hands on 1.5% of Wal-Mart, but let us ponder a not-so-off-the-wall hypothesis. Let us assume that, since Wal-Mart allows employees to purchase stocks using a portion of their income from being employed at Wal-Mart (profit sharing), that 90% of them do. Let's also assume that since Wal-Mart is "willing to negotiate" with the Communist run labor unions in China, that it's possible for the labor unions in America to get their grubby paw on the company as well. What could be a logical summation of this series of events is that the latent Communists in the USA, namely the far left Democrats, the Green Party, the Skin Heads, and the like will have a foot in the door in bringing down capitalism in America. If enough of these types of people become employed at Wal-Mart and, with the backing of Communist China (whose population is about 1.3 billion to Americas three hundred thousand) who is to say that it's illogical to think that these Communist run labor unions won't or can't make their way into America? I think it's our civic duty, just like voting or obeying laws, to contact Wal-Mart and express our concerns. Then, we should all contact our congressmen and let them know that they ought to, at the very least, watch this issue over the next 10 years.

We will not allow those freedom stealing Communists to take over our capitalist nation.

Seat Belt Requirements

Imagine this: you're sitting at your dining room table having a quiet dinner. The television is playing at a moderate level in the background, but you're not listening. You are just having a peaceful, relaxing dinner with grilled beef, bean sprouts, corn on the cob, a buttered roll, and a glass of sweet tea (yes, you're in the south). You finish your meal except for the bean sprouts and start to wipe your mouth and hands of excess food. Suddenly, I burst into your house with a fully loaded double barrel shotgun equipped with a laser sight and tell you that your bean sprouts are healthful and can contribute to proper cellular respiration causing your circulatory system to funtion on a more efficient level. I tell you that you must eat these scrumptious bean sprouts or I shall be forced to use my shotgun on a part of your body. You stare at me, horrified and about to soil your pants, and, after a pause for reflection, you eat the bean sprouts. Did you really have to eat the bean sprouts? I mean, seriously, you run 5 miles three times a week, drink a gallon of water a day, and do yoga for your mental health. The answer to that question is no. If you don't want to eat bean sprouts in your own home and would rather throw them out with the orange rinds and empty milk cartons, that's your right. Why then does the government tell you that you must wear a seatbelt in the car while you are driving? How is it that we the people have given our government the right to tell us what to do inside a vehicle for which we have paid or are paying our hard-earned, tax-reduced paychecks?

This is a great example of how we want the comfort of knowing that, if we accidently hit someone or if some crazy person decides to attempt to end our lives, all parties will be a little more safe because we all have a reinforced nylon strap holding us fast to our seats to prevent whiplash, ejection, or the deformation of the skull because of blunt force. Provided the wreck doesn't land the engine in our bodies somewhere, this device will save our lives, and you can take that to the bank because statistics have proven through the number of lives saved in the use of these ingenious inventions. Regardless of safety and prevention, our job as individuals is to protect ourselves, our families, and our friends. Individuals and private organizations should promote the use of safety devices. Does using government force to compel people to "click-it or ticket" work? Yes, on those who are already responsible or have a desire not to incur financial suffering for not performing a two second safety precaution. The fact of the matter is that amazing principle called Natural Selection works in this case.

We as citizens and individuals have a duty not only to take care of ourselves and the ones whom we love but also to put citizens in office that will look after us in a way that promotes freedom while protecting our borders and those liberties which we are given. Any law that inhibits an individual's liberties just to prevent crimes and death is opening the door for laws that will eventually eliminate our personal freedoms.

Sex Offender Laws

WSB TV's website today has a report of the aftermath of a bill initiated by Georgia State Senate Majority Leader Jerry Keen and passed into law by that very assembly. This is a recent law stating that convicted sex offenders cannot live within 1000 feet of any church, school, or school bus stop. The report goes on to state that several counties' law enforcement agencies have issued and carried out warrants for these convicted sex offenders who have not complied with the new law and have not moved out of this new lawful range of said edifices. It has also stated that an unnamed judge in Atlanta has stopped, for an unknown amount of time, the carrying out of this law in respect to the bus stop provision. The report says the reason for this ruling is that it would force many people from their homes and compel those opposed to the law to argue its constitutionality.

I, having children, like the comfort of knowing that a sex offender cannot reside within 1000 feet of my childrens' schools or bus stops. I enjoy the peace of mind that comes with believing that the government is moving in the direction of protecting innocent children from the possibility of being accosted by these obviously abnormal individuals. Wouldn't any of us like to think that our children are safe when they leave our arms in the morning for school? My question is at what point does our comfort infringe upon civil rights? Is it just for our government to step on many peoples rights while looking out for the rights of others? Are we a nation of hypocrites in which our criminal rights system is extensive in protecting the criminal while our civil rights system is extensive in punishing them?

Let us ponder on this subject in respect to logic and reason. What we're doing here is telling those who have committed a crime and completed their sentence that they are limited in the choices where they will reside for the remainder of their law abiding days. We, those who have not been caught breaking any laws, then, are saying that, not only are we better than you who have been caught committing a heinous offense, but we also will call upon the government and their fire power to ensure that you and your household, no matter if you never commit that exact offense again, shall never have the same freedoms as the rest of us in respect to your place of dwelling again. This is not just by any standard. We as parents are responsible for protecting our children. The government is only responsible for punishing people who break laws when they break them.

Neal Boortz, a nationally syndicated radio host based in Atlanta, related a story to his listening base of a lady who had been convicted for statuatory rape at 17 because she had consentual sexual intercourse with her 15 year old boyfriend at the time. The law provided that she could not legally perform such act and convicted her for breaking this law. She now, because she is a convicted sex offender, cannot live within 1000 feet of any church, school, or school bus stop. This is not a just assessment by our judicial branch of an already broken law created by our legislative branch. In other words, maybe the source of our problem isn't the amount of legislation over criminals after exiting the punishment system but the punishment system itself. Instead of making laws to fit criminals back into society, we should amend or upheave our current punishment system.

Our government enjoys legislative and judicial liberties that infringe on civil liberties in a manner that is constant and overbearing. We as the citizens who elect these unqualified and overly lobbied aristocrats should stand up for our rights as humans first and then as American citizens and put a stop to the government's playing as our parents.