George W. Bush is a great friend, to his friends. That is a friend you would like to have.
He is such a good friend, that he will do this for them:
Destroy Social Security so his broker friends can reap commissions on trading on private accounts.
Give tax breaks, so you 'create jobs' with the money you don't have to give the IRS
Help your heirs keep all of your money, as you don't have to pay taxes on your parents' estate.
Pass a new bankruptcy law that allows you to keep a multimillion dollar home, while the blue-collar workers lose it all, and still have to pay the credit card companies.
Same, so his Financial Industry friends can keep collecting from people that lost it all due to any reason: including disease, divorce, etc.
Alloy you to fire everybody, move your business elsewhere in the world, continue to sell here like before, but with additional tax advantages.
Expatriate your Corporation Headquarters to Bermuda or elsewhere, and still sell to the Federal Government, undercutting your stupid competitors that insist on paying taxes to Uncle Sam.
What a Friend you've got!
Friday, March 18, 2005
Sunday, March 13, 2005
Farming of the Sea
We are stealing the life out of the oceans.
There should be a worldwide ban on farming international waters.
We should only catch the fish we can grow ourselves in fish farms.
In the meantime, we can do a small part by only buying (at the market and in restaurants) fish that have been harvested in fish farms.
There should be a worldwide ban on farming international waters.
We should only catch the fish we can grow ourselves in fish farms.
In the meantime, we can do a small part by only buying (at the market and in restaurants) fish that have been harvested in fish farms.
Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh
I admire Lou Dobbs and I agree with most of his causes.
I also find it surprising that he never published any of the emails I sent him, mostly supporting his position but with a different perspective.
I never found a Hispanic name under the emails that he reads and publishes.
I also admire and agree with many issues that Rush Limbaugh supports. I called many times to his show. I was never allowed to voice my opinion on his show.
Am I being paranoid?
I also find it surprising that he never published any of the emails I sent him, mostly supporting his position but with a different perspective.
I never found a Hispanic name under the emails that he reads and publishes.
I also admire and agree with many issues that Rush Limbaugh supports. I called many times to his show. I was never allowed to voice my opinion on his show.
Am I being paranoid?
We are so used to it...
If you use the expression "How much are you worth" with most any foreigner, he/she will be appalled beyond description.
The idea that a person's value is determined by his/her money, is repugnant in most cultures.
The idea that a person's value is determined by his/her money, is repugnant in most cultures.
Flat Tax
The Flat Tax (or tax simplification) initiative is a Trojan horse.
Tax simplification has universal appeal and it is an easy sale. How would not want to have a simplified tax system, potentially saving us tax-preparation fees, time, etc.?
But the proposed solution of a Flat Tax, or tax on consumption is a trap.
A blue-collar worker spends all of his/her income; therefore, his/her entire wage will be taxed.
Bill Gates spends a much smaller portion of his income: most of his gains will be tax free.
Taxing the spending does not promote savings: most Americans have to spend most of what they make to survive, they don't have the choice of saving or spending.
Tax simplification has universal appeal and it is an easy sale. How would not want to have a simplified tax system, potentially saving us tax-preparation fees, time, etc.?
But the proposed solution of a Flat Tax, or tax on consumption is a trap.
A blue-collar worker spends all of his/her income; therefore, his/her entire wage will be taxed.
Bill Gates spends a much smaller portion of his income: most of his gains will be tax free.
Taxing the spending does not promote savings: most Americans have to spend most of what they make to survive, they don't have the choice of saving or spending.
Rewards to the Rich
The rich have already being rewarded by the simple fact that they are already rich.
Do we need to cut their taxes, such as the inheritance tax and the dividends tax cuts?
Meanwhile, the gap between the rich and the poor is widening. History shows us what happens when the gap becomes overwhelming, and this is something the rich should be interested in preventing.
Some are, Warren Buffet among others decried the abolition of the inheritance tax. He is being generous as much as intelligent.
Do we need to cut their taxes, such as the inheritance tax and the dividends tax cuts?
Meanwhile, the gap between the rich and the poor is widening. History shows us what happens when the gap becomes overwhelming, and this is something the rich should be interested in preventing.
Some are, Warren Buffet among others decried the abolition of the inheritance tax. He is being generous as much as intelligent.
Tax Cuts for the Rich
This is a tax cut for individuals, not corporations.
Corporations create jobs, not individuals.
To equate richer individuals (that save on taxes) with job creation is a stretch at best and not the result of logical thinking. There is no relation of cause and effect to that proposition.
Corporations create jobs, not individuals.
To equate richer individuals (that save on taxes) with job creation is a stretch at best and not the result of logical thinking. There is no relation of cause and effect to that proposition.
Distorted Messages
Often repeated lies, become true. This was the basis for the Nazi propaganda (a lie repeated often enough becomes truth).
The problem is that we loose the original meaning of words and entire concepts as a result.
I.e.: doctors like to lease space in office buildings strategically located next to hospitals, and they often call those facilities "Medical Arts Building".
I hope that medicine remains a science, not an art. I.e.: I expect a very precise incision in my body from a scalpel of a very knowledgeable doctor, not a pretty cut.
The problem is that we loose the original meaning of words and entire concepts as a result.
I.e.: doctors like to lease space in office buildings strategically located next to hospitals, and they often call those facilities "Medical Arts Building".
I hope that medicine remains a science, not an art. I.e.: I expect a very precise incision in my body from a scalpel of a very knowledgeable doctor, not a pretty cut.
Stolen Symbol
A yellow ribbon used to signify "bring them home".
Karl Rove and his team identified this and radically changed the meaning of this powerful and powerful message.
By writing on it "Support Our Troops", it replaced the original meaning of the yellow ribbon with a new message that is very hard to oppose.
We all support our troops. That is why we want them back, safe and sound.
Karl Rove and his team identified this and radically changed the meaning of this powerful and powerful message.
By writing on it "Support Our Troops", it replaced the original meaning of the yellow ribbon with a new message that is very hard to oppose.
We all support our troops. That is why we want them back, safe and sound.
RE: House Vote on Corporate Tax Havens, refused.
American companies based on the US pay corporate taxes and contribute to our Treasury and help pay for America’s bills. Companies that decided to dodge their tax responsibility chose to move their business address elsewhere, making us pickup the tab that belongs to them.
Since a corporation’s main (and sometimes sole) purpose is to increase their bottom line, why would any US corporation decide to stay here? It is more expensive to remain ‘American’, putting them at a competitive disadvantage to those that bailed out to Bermuda and other tax havens.
In fact, to remain here is a bad decision under the present rules.This is the current state of affairs, one that Congress and the Presidency created: precisely the same people that swore to protect and defend America. If they don’t care about America, why should anyone else (including every single remaining American corporation)?
These are the people we elected because they promised to protect us and look after our welfare and interests.To use the people’s money to do business with these expatriate-of-convenience corporate former citizens is a disgrace and an affront to all Americans. These corporations that show no loyalty to the US are the same that ship the jobs overseas for the same reason they moved out their corporate headquarters to a mailbox in an island.
Their only ‘allegiance’ to America is to the American market where they dump their goods and services.Since the House sided with them, the process of expatriation of corporate headquarters will only accelerate; they have the green light, even the enticement, from our elected officials. Not to move out would be negligent, bad business practice and should lead to the firing of any CEO that is reluctant to joining the bandwagon.
Every day a corporation remains American, it lose money without any redeeming or equivalent benefit to their business. The message from Congress and the Presidency is clear: if you chose to stay here and pay our taxes you are stupid.
The bill defeated in the House was not meant to stifle international competition, as it was not directed to impede any foreign company from doing business here: it was directed only to American companies that chose to move out, with the only goal of avoiding paying our taxes.
Shame on those legislators that defeated this bill!
Since a corporation’s main (and sometimes sole) purpose is to increase their bottom line, why would any US corporation decide to stay here? It is more expensive to remain ‘American’, putting them at a competitive disadvantage to those that bailed out to Bermuda and other tax havens.
In fact, to remain here is a bad decision under the present rules.This is the current state of affairs, one that Congress and the Presidency created: precisely the same people that swore to protect and defend America. If they don’t care about America, why should anyone else (including every single remaining American corporation)?
These are the people we elected because they promised to protect us and look after our welfare and interests.To use the people’s money to do business with these expatriate-of-convenience corporate former citizens is a disgrace and an affront to all Americans. These corporations that show no loyalty to the US are the same that ship the jobs overseas for the same reason they moved out their corporate headquarters to a mailbox in an island.
Their only ‘allegiance’ to America is to the American market where they dump their goods and services.Since the House sided with them, the process of expatriation of corporate headquarters will only accelerate; they have the green light, even the enticement, from our elected officials. Not to move out would be negligent, bad business practice and should lead to the firing of any CEO that is reluctant to joining the bandwagon.
Every day a corporation remains American, it lose money without any redeeming or equivalent benefit to their business. The message from Congress and the Presidency is clear: if you chose to stay here and pay our taxes you are stupid.
The bill defeated in the House was not meant to stifle international competition, as it was not directed to impede any foreign company from doing business here: it was directed only to American companies that chose to move out, with the only goal of avoiding paying our taxes.
Shame on those legislators that defeated this bill!
As published in Matt Miller Online.
Before Social Security, the social security of each individual was on his/her own hands: no one was prevented from saving and investing on their own, during their productive years, to self-secure the remaining of their lives. Social Security was created to provide everyone a safety net, whether the individuals are good at saving and investing, or not.
The prospect (and actuality) of having seniors die homeless, sick and unable to feed themselves was too real and too great to ignore.At the beginning, social security was private. It did not work for many, so Social Security was enacted. The wellbeing and even survival of so many is way too important to tag it to the upturns and downturns of Wall Street or the financial savvy of each individual.
To ‘privatize’ all or part of it today is to go full circle and ignore the lessons of our history.It is also a way for Government to avoid the consequences of their irresponsible handling of the Social Security funds, by passing on the problem to the individuals: “After all, if you don’t know how to invest your own social security money to obtain the return you need to carry on, it becomes your problem, not the Government’s.”By privatizing any part of Social Security, Government is no longer responsible to provide a reasonable income to the retirees; it becomes ‘their own problem’.
This is a smart way for Washington to get this ‘hot potato’ out of their hands and dodge their responsibility. It also provides a windfall the Stock Brokers, Bankers and Financial Advisors, all of which will benefit from it regardless of the outcome for the retirees.Pablo Vitaver
The prospect (and actuality) of having seniors die homeless, sick and unable to feed themselves was too real and too great to ignore.At the beginning, social security was private. It did not work for many, so Social Security was enacted. The wellbeing and even survival of so many is way too important to tag it to the upturns and downturns of Wall Street or the financial savvy of each individual.
To ‘privatize’ all or part of it today is to go full circle and ignore the lessons of our history.It is also a way for Government to avoid the consequences of their irresponsible handling of the Social Security funds, by passing on the problem to the individuals: “After all, if you don’t know how to invest your own social security money to obtain the return you need to carry on, it becomes your problem, not the Government’s.”By privatizing any part of Social Security, Government is no longer responsible to provide a reasonable income to the retirees; it becomes ‘their own problem’.
This is a smart way for Washington to get this ‘hot potato’ out of their hands and dodge their responsibility. It also provides a windfall the Stock Brokers, Bankers and Financial Advisors, all of which will benefit from it regardless of the outcome for the retirees.Pablo Vitaver
Death Penalty
No doubt certain crimes are so repugnant in nature that it is only 'natural' to want the perpetrator disposed off (killed) as a deterrent to others and to protect our Society from having such person walk our streets ever again.
The problem might be the process to determine if the person really committed the crime that so horrifies us.
As we see that OJ Simpson was deemed innocent by a jury of his peers, and dozens of people serving life had been proven innocent by means of DNA testing... this brings into question the ability of our juries (and judges) to accurately asses the innocence or culpability of anyone.
Would you like them to decide, let's say, your involvement and responsibility in regards to ANY crime? They decide, literarily, if you will live or die.
It is sad to find out that our legal system has so many flaws. But it is even more sad if we refuse to admit to it, and act in consequence.
Our fallible legal system should not be able to decide on terminating anyone's life.
Pablo Vitaver.
The problem might be the process to determine if the person really committed the crime that so horrifies us.
As we see that OJ Simpson was deemed innocent by a jury of his peers, and dozens of people serving life had been proven innocent by means of DNA testing... this brings into question the ability of our juries (and judges) to accurately asses the innocence or culpability of anyone.
Would you like them to decide, let's say, your involvement and responsibility in regards to ANY crime? They decide, literarily, if you will live or die.
It is sad to find out that our legal system has so many flaws. But it is even more sad if we refuse to admit to it, and act in consequence.
Our fallible legal system should not be able to decide on terminating anyone's life.
Pablo Vitaver.
Sail Across The Ocean
The Author:
Pablo Vitaver (Pablov) runs two companies he owns.
http://www/CrossTheOcean.com is a sailboat charter concern with one vessel: S/V Alegria, a Hylas 44 Sloop equipped with every piece of equipment for around the world navigation in comfort, safety and speed. With an USCG Captain's license, Pablo takes people from island to island in the Caribbean during weekly trips, and across the ocean for passages to and from Europe.
http://www.Vitaver.com is an IT staffing firm in business since 1993, providing for IT staff augmentation in the field of information technology. Vitaver sources computer programmers, system architects, technical writers, QA testers, Desktop Support Specialists, Data Base Administrators and Managers, Project Managers, Network Administrators and Security Experts to his clients.
Pablo Vitaver (Pablov) runs two companies he owns.
http://www/CrossTheOcean.com is a sailboat charter concern with one vessel: S/V Alegria, a Hylas 44 Sloop equipped with every piece of equipment for around the world navigation in comfort, safety and speed. With an USCG Captain's license, Pablo takes people from island to island in the Caribbean during weekly trips, and across the ocean for passages to and from Europe.
http://www.Vitaver.com is an IT staffing firm in business since 1993, providing for IT staff augmentation in the field of information technology. Vitaver sources computer programmers, system architects, technical writers, QA testers, Desktop Support Specialists, Data Base Administrators and Managers, Project Managers, Network Administrators and Security Experts to his clients.
Mediocre Decisions Producing Exceptional Results
It is a self-evident absurdity.
We look at mediocrity with disdain, but by definition, we settle for mediocre decisions. We make decisions by vote of the majority. The majority is the average.
Average and mediocre are the same. The mass, the mayority can only make mediocre decisions, as the median -the average in this case- is the average intelligence, capacity, etc. of any community, state or country. Some of us act surprised by the results we get when in reality, any other outcome would be surprising.
The only way to obtain better representatives (congressmen, president, etc.) is to raise the level of our 'mediocre' population by means of education. People can only make choices with the tools (education, information and intelligence) they posses. By increasing them, we improve our chances at getting better government and a better Country as a result of the decisions that such government will make.
That is the magic of Democracy; you will have a government as good as the people can chose. We can apply this reasoning to other nations as well. When we export Democracy to nations whose populance is overwhelmingly fanatic of the religious kind (fundamentalists) they will chose such government in a very democratic fashion.
That is Democracy to them, in it's purest form. This will produce nations governed by religious fanatics, 'a la Iran'. From a non-democratic stand point: is this good for America and the Western World at large? Is this good for the planet (assuming that it wants to keep the diverse life that inhabits it, including animals and plants)?
We already decided that we have the right to posses nuclear weapons and they don't. This is not a very democratic concept, but we agreed to look the other way, as it is evident that fanatics in power should not have the option of launching nuclear weapons. Are we willing to carry this thought all the way through?
At which point we decide that we turn from a position of dominance over other people's will, to a principled posture of 'everyone deserves to live in a Democracy, everywhere'? There is a disconnect somewhere in the middle, which creates an indefensible position that becomes increasingly unpopular, dichotomy and (let us face it) unfair, hypocritical and... undemocratic. So, are we for respecting the will of the majorities, everywhere? Is Democracy the answer to all and everyone, everywhere?
Maybe we should be honest and declare that we will not allow fanatics, tyrants or (basically) anybody we don't like to have the power to destroy us together with the rest of civilization. And follow up with steps that are consistent with that declaration. Removing the secular governments of Iran, Iraq, Syria (on their own territory and in Lebanon) may not be a smart move at this point of evolution of their own people.
I suspect that previous American Administrations, wisely, helped install those governments. We should continue with that tradition. We should not break dams unless we are thoroughly prepared to deal with the ensuing flood.
Pablo Vitaver.
We look at mediocrity with disdain, but by definition, we settle for mediocre decisions. We make decisions by vote of the majority. The majority is the average.
Average and mediocre are the same. The mass, the mayority can only make mediocre decisions, as the median -the average in this case- is the average intelligence, capacity, etc. of any community, state or country. Some of us act surprised by the results we get when in reality, any other outcome would be surprising.
The only way to obtain better representatives (congressmen, president, etc.) is to raise the level of our 'mediocre' population by means of education. People can only make choices with the tools (education, information and intelligence) they posses. By increasing them, we improve our chances at getting better government and a better Country as a result of the decisions that such government will make.
That is the magic of Democracy; you will have a government as good as the people can chose. We can apply this reasoning to other nations as well. When we export Democracy to nations whose populance is overwhelmingly fanatic of the religious kind (fundamentalists) they will chose such government in a very democratic fashion.
That is Democracy to them, in it's purest form. This will produce nations governed by religious fanatics, 'a la Iran'. From a non-democratic stand point: is this good for America and the Western World at large? Is this good for the planet (assuming that it wants to keep the diverse life that inhabits it, including animals and plants)?
We already decided that we have the right to posses nuclear weapons and they don't. This is not a very democratic concept, but we agreed to look the other way, as it is evident that fanatics in power should not have the option of launching nuclear weapons. Are we willing to carry this thought all the way through?
At which point we decide that we turn from a position of dominance over other people's will, to a principled posture of 'everyone deserves to live in a Democracy, everywhere'? There is a disconnect somewhere in the middle, which creates an indefensible position that becomes increasingly unpopular, dichotomy and (let us face it) unfair, hypocritical and... undemocratic. So, are we for respecting the will of the majorities, everywhere? Is Democracy the answer to all and everyone, everywhere?
Maybe we should be honest and declare that we will not allow fanatics, tyrants or (basically) anybody we don't like to have the power to destroy us together with the rest of civilization. And follow up with steps that are consistent with that declaration. Removing the secular governments of Iran, Iraq, Syria (on their own territory and in Lebanon) may not be a smart move at this point of evolution of their own people.
I suspect that previous American Administrations, wisely, helped install those governments. We should continue with that tradition. We should not break dams unless we are thoroughly prepared to deal with the ensuing flood.
Pablo Vitaver.
Friday, March 11, 2005
Play Nice with the Nasty
Idries Shah once wrote: Only the fool try to be honest with the dishonest.
Keeping up with the mandates of the Geneva Convention, the American Courts or any other rule of fair play, when dealing with terrorists and irregular forces is a loosing proposition, right from the start and holds no chances of prevailing.
Israel showed us that the only way to survive in such a war (did not say 'win') is to strike back with overwhelming force at each act of terror. The mind of a terrorists is extremely simple: he/she is acting out of fear. They blow themselves up because their mullahs hammered into their minds that if they don't they will go to (our equivalent of) hell.
We have to assure them a greater hell, if they do chose to attack us. This is complicated because of the fact that once they are dead, there is nothing they need to fear: you can't scare a corpse. But these fanatics are very family oriented: so the only deterrent is to show them (through actions, not promises) that their homes and families will be blown up if the chose to act against us. We need them to fear us more than what they fear hell itself. We need to assure them by way of actions, that there won't be peace or heaven for them, even after death, if they hurt us.
This is not nice or clean. Is not supposed to be. Neither is an endoscopy. But it is equally necessary if we want to protect American lives. I pity the American Troops that have to carry these dirty missions, while I will be profoundly grateful to them.
Golda Meier once said "I may forgive you (terrorists) what you do to us, but I can't forgive you for what to made our young soldiers do to you".
Capt. Pablo Vitaver
Keeping up with the mandates of the Geneva Convention, the American Courts or any other rule of fair play, when dealing with terrorists and irregular forces is a loosing proposition, right from the start and holds no chances of prevailing.
Israel showed us that the only way to survive in such a war (did not say 'win') is to strike back with overwhelming force at each act of terror. The mind of a terrorists is extremely simple: he/she is acting out of fear. They blow themselves up because their mullahs hammered into their minds that if they don't they will go to (our equivalent of) hell.
We have to assure them a greater hell, if they do chose to attack us. This is complicated because of the fact that once they are dead, there is nothing they need to fear: you can't scare a corpse. But these fanatics are very family oriented: so the only deterrent is to show them (through actions, not promises) that their homes and families will be blown up if the chose to act against us. We need them to fear us more than what they fear hell itself. We need to assure them by way of actions, that there won't be peace or heaven for them, even after death, if they hurt us.
This is not nice or clean. Is not supposed to be. Neither is an endoscopy. But it is equally necessary if we want to protect American lives. I pity the American Troops that have to carry these dirty missions, while I will be profoundly grateful to them.
Golda Meier once said "I may forgive you (terrorists) what you do to us, but I can't forgive you for what to made our young soldiers do to you".
Capt. Pablo Vitaver
Social Security Reform
Social Security means that. It is not intended to be anything else and certainly not a gambling kitty.
SS is not supposed to make us rich, or to become assets we can transfer to our kids when we pass away, as they are supposed to be working and earning their own way, not living on SS until they become eligible.
Money that is not spent by the recipient should go back to the Federal coffers to help other retirees, not to help the kids dodge the responsibility of their own sustenance.
The stock market is a big casino. The little guy (us) does not have the power of the big broker houses to manipulate or predict the future value of a share. This disparity normally means that the guy without a clue looses to benefit those that can affect the outcome with their massive purchase and selling power.
Private Accounts are gambling by proxy: we use our retirement money to gamble on the stock though a licensed gambler, a stockbroker or fund administrator. They have the license to gamble with our money and... they get paid by you, when you buy and when you sell, weather you make money or loose with your bet.
Your investment (bet) in the stock market goes up or down due to circumstances that are absolutely beyond your control. This is called betting.
Should we bet our lunch and rent money? Because your SS funds are there to feed you and house you when you can't work anymore.
Capt. Pablo Vitaver
SS is not supposed to make us rich, or to become assets we can transfer to our kids when we pass away, as they are supposed to be working and earning their own way, not living on SS until they become eligible.
Money that is not spent by the recipient should go back to the Federal coffers to help other retirees, not to help the kids dodge the responsibility of their own sustenance.
The stock market is a big casino. The little guy (us) does not have the power of the big broker houses to manipulate or predict the future value of a share. This disparity normally means that the guy without a clue looses to benefit those that can affect the outcome with their massive purchase and selling power.
Private Accounts are gambling by proxy: we use our retirement money to gamble on the stock though a licensed gambler, a stockbroker or fund administrator. They have the license to gamble with our money and... they get paid by you, when you buy and when you sell, weather you make money or loose with your bet.
Your investment (bet) in the stock market goes up or down due to circumstances that are absolutely beyond your control. This is called betting.
Should we bet our lunch and rent money? Because your SS funds are there to feed you and house you when you can't work anymore.
Capt. Pablo Vitaver
In Love With Democracy
We are so enamored with Democracy that we want to export it (impose it) on every other nation. Curiously enough, as we remove dictators and agitate the masses with the promise of self-ruling (very good intentions, in our minds) we remove the only obstacles that keep religious fanatic leaders from imposing the harshest forms of dictatorships in the same countries. From a National Interest perspective (ours) we are removing the sole containment wall to the aspirations of fanatics that want to rule those countries and turn their societies firmly against the US. Madrassas (the religious version of public education) simply indoctrinate their young on blind obedience to the Koran and hate to the US.
Many of the present rulers that keep the fundamentalists on check have been placed in a position of power with the help of prior (wiser) American Administrations. We are now undoing their risky, expensive and arduous job with the short sighted idea that People will know best whom to chose to rule them.
Capt. Pablo Vitaver
They are choosing Iran-style, religious fanatics to control every aspect of their lives, taking them back to the dark ages and provoking hate towards us... their liberators!
It is like blowing up a dam and then acting surprised becasue the water runs downhill.
Many of the present rulers that keep the fundamentalists on check have been placed in a position of power with the help of prior (wiser) American Administrations. We are now undoing their risky, expensive and arduous job with the short sighted idea that People will know best whom to chose to rule them.
Capt. Pablo Vitaver
They are choosing Iran-style, religious fanatics to control every aspect of their lives, taking them back to the dark ages and provoking hate towards us... their liberators!
It is like blowing up a dam and then acting surprised becasue the water runs downhill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)