"The next president will be a steward of our economy at a time when the bills from eight years of neglect and mismanagement will be coming due. He - or she - will have to turn our nation and our economy around," Hillary said.City of SacramentoAnnouncement of Available Positions on theCommunity Racial Profiling CommissionApplications Due: 02/29/08 at 5:00 p.m.
read more | digg story
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Monday, February 11, 2008
Friday, February 8, 2008
Fire Mary Peters For Unlawfully Opening Border To Dangerous Trucks From Mexico
February 6, 2008
(Washington, D.C.) – The Teamsters launched a nationwide grassroots campaign to fire Transportation Secretary Mary Peters for unlawfully opening the border to unsafe trucks from Mexico.
“It’s a disgrace that Mary Peters is still in office,” said Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa. “She has broken the law and defied the will of the American people by exposing them to dangerous trucks from Mexico.”
The Senate voted 75 to 23 and the House voted 411 to 3 to keep the border closed to unsafe Mexican trucks. The legislation became law on December 26, 2007 as part of the Omnibus budget bill. Under Peter’s direction, the Department of Transportation has refused to comply with the law.
The “Fire Mary Peters – Lawbreaker” campaign includes:
A web site, www.FireMaryPeters.com, with blog, downloadable “Fire Mary Peters” windshield signs, recommended actions and an e-mail component urging concerned citizens to ask their elected representatives to find Mary Peters in contempt of Congress.
Posters and floor graphics now up in the Navy Yard Metro stop near the Department of Transportation (DOT) in Washington.
An anonymous hotline set up for whistleblowers to report additional transgressions by Mary Peters.
A leafleting campaign at the Metro stop, where DOT employees will be handed cards asking them to call the hotline to report other laws that Mary Peters has broken.
“Fire Mary Peters -- She Breaks the Law” bumper stickers mailed to thousands of Teamsters and others.
“Fire Mary Peters” radio commercials to air on WTOP, the No. 1 radio station in the Washington, DC area, and nationally on the Air America radio network.
“Fire Mary Peters” Web ads on key political sites in Washington, DC and Arizona, Peters’ home state.
The Teamsters Union will argue in court on February 12 that Peters broke federal laws aimed at ensuring American motorists aren’t endangered by allowing Mexican trucks on U.S. highways. The case will be heard in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
The Teamsters are supported by CONATRAM, the federation of Mexican truck drivers who categorically reject Mary Peters’ program to open the border. They fear it will devastate their industry, just as U.S. agribusiness wiped out Mexican farms after the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
The “Fire Mary Peters” campaign has a special focus in Peters’ home state of Arizona, where letters and bumper stickers have been mailed to thousands of Teamsters, urging them to take action.
It’s an open secret that Mary Peters is planning to run for governor of Arizona in 2010. Arizonans need to know that Mary Peters is the lawbreaker who opened the border to Mexican trucks.
For more information about the campaign, go to www.FireMaryPeters.com.
Founded in 1903, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters represents 1.4 million hardworking men and women in the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico.
Contacts: Leslie Miller,
(202) 624-8734
Galen Munroe
(202) 624-6904
(Washington, D.C.) – The Teamsters launched a nationwide grassroots campaign to fire Transportation Secretary Mary Peters for unlawfully opening the border to unsafe trucks from Mexico.
“It’s a disgrace that Mary Peters is still in office,” said Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa. “She has broken the law and defied the will of the American people by exposing them to dangerous trucks from Mexico.”
The Senate voted 75 to 23 and the House voted 411 to 3 to keep the border closed to unsafe Mexican trucks. The legislation became law on December 26, 2007 as part of the Omnibus budget bill. Under Peter’s direction, the Department of Transportation has refused to comply with the law.
The “Fire Mary Peters – Lawbreaker” campaign includes:
A web site, www.FireMaryPeters.com, with blog, downloadable “Fire Mary Peters” windshield signs, recommended actions and an e-mail component urging concerned citizens to ask their elected representatives to find Mary Peters in contempt of Congress.
Posters and floor graphics now up in the Navy Yard Metro stop near the Department of Transportation (DOT) in Washington.
An anonymous hotline set up for whistleblowers to report additional transgressions by Mary Peters.
A leafleting campaign at the Metro stop, where DOT employees will be handed cards asking them to call the hotline to report other laws that Mary Peters has broken.
“Fire Mary Peters -- She Breaks the Law” bumper stickers mailed to thousands of Teamsters and others.
“Fire Mary Peters” radio commercials to air on WTOP, the No. 1 radio station in the Washington, DC area, and nationally on the Air America radio network.
“Fire Mary Peters” Web ads on key political sites in Washington, DC and Arizona, Peters’ home state.
The Teamsters Union will argue in court on February 12 that Peters broke federal laws aimed at ensuring American motorists aren’t endangered by allowing Mexican trucks on U.S. highways. The case will be heard in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
The Teamsters are supported by CONATRAM, the federation of Mexican truck drivers who categorically reject Mary Peters’ program to open the border. They fear it will devastate their industry, just as U.S. agribusiness wiped out Mexican farms after the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
The “Fire Mary Peters” campaign has a special focus in Peters’ home state of Arizona, where letters and bumper stickers have been mailed to thousands of Teamsters, urging them to take action.
It’s an open secret that Mary Peters is planning to run for governor of Arizona in 2010. Arizonans need to know that Mary Peters is the lawbreaker who opened the border to Mexican trucks.
For more information about the campaign, go to www.FireMaryPeters.com.
Founded in 1903, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters represents 1.4 million hardworking men and women in the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico.
Contacts: Leslie Miller,
(202) 624-8734
Galen Munroe
(202) 624-6904
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
EARLY MEDIEVAL SYNTHESIS...
The early medieval synthesis was composed of three elements. The first of these elements was characterized in the time period 324-632 A.D., in which religion dictated government. The second element was over religious interpretation and the creation of a new form of government that held more political power to military control. In the second phase, Charlemagne realized that his empire was ungovernable which led to a feudal society. The third phase created the foundations for modern forms of government; they just had to be refined. Charlemagne realized that even religious toleration couldn’t solve the problem of social stability; society had to be governed locally.
The initial period of the Byzantine Empire followed the various interpretations of religion into society as a whole. By Constantine establishing the Empire in the East, he was opening the empire up to conflict but felt that was the best place to keep the empire intact. When Justinian took power, he decided the best way to rule was by taking care of the population and instilling certain values. The same Christian values pacified much of the population, yet led to turmoil amongst others as peoples struggled amongst religious interpretation and true descendents from their belief system. Soon the western part of the empire would fall and religion would become the law of the land, which struggled to identify with protecting people or providing support.
Mohammed ruled by strict Islamic law, and took Mecca by force in 632 A.D. This was especially significant because for the first time in history Islamic armies were attacking Constantinople. The strict interpretation of Islamic law into society gave people less security at the expense of individual freedoms. The variance of interpretation led to various splinter groups amongst, both, Christians and Muslims. From this instance people on the world scale tend to view religious tolerance as a sort of freedom from experience. When people mix religion and government, the people become less free.
Christian and Islamic religions struggled to define whether or not images were permitted in describing religious prophets. This led to many conflicts between the East and West, the West proclaiming no use of images to the East. Charlemagne realized that the religious division of the country would ultimately lead the people to an ungovernable state. The problem he struggled with was which was more important to the control of a country, the fact that the people were fed or protected. Modern theorists could interpret these meaning into modern Republican and Democratic contexts. Republicans are usually for security and Democrats are for the general welfare.
The second time period then created a new form of government. The new form of government was one of which imperial generals seem to gain more control. They gained more control because they control, both, the money to feed the population and the power in a military to protect them. This was a quick and logical solution to feeding and protecting the population, yet leads to modern situations of conflict.
The feudal society created in the second phase was basically a society for protection. This is where the world first originated the idea of possession and real ownership as a basis for power and control. The strict interpretation of Islamic law proved to lead to famine and tyrannical leaders. More emphasis was placed on worship then to the population living well. By 1071 A.D., the Turks had overrun Asia Minor and began to drive out the Muslims as Christians and Muslims struggled for supremacy in the region.
Alexius I Comnus of the East called on Western aid in time of trouble which signaled the beginning of the first crusade. This third element is responsible for the foundation of modern governments of countries like France, Italy and England. The idea of political concentration from top down was a central theme. The previous elements described a time of struggle between food and safety; meanwhile, society was progressing towards working only a few days a week and provided safety.
The world view of the middle-ages was that of being backwards originally, yet time proved that it was a time of progress. Religion proved to be the bloodline to leadership and ultimate voices of grievances. The same grievances were often times agreed upon on local levels because people chose to live amongst those like themselves, for security and religious freedom mainly. The middle-ages birthed feudalism, which then birthed capitalism. There has always been a constant struggle for a common ground between religion and power. This is the period from which the birth of Islamic extremism came, the belief that God was the ultimate power and sometimes many have to die to preserve that power in the name of Islam.
The coronation of Charlemagne represented the synthesis in many ways because he was the first person in power that meant well, but realized before he died that his empire was out of the control of being governed. He attempted to implement new versions to existing laws and nothing seemed to pacify the population, the continued to fight over interpretations. What he also noticed was that control could be held from the bottom up with peace but not from top down. Religious leaders and later feudal lords tended to have more control over the population because they protected and fed them, which in turn kept them tied to the land.
The administration of justice was best through the lords of lands. The feudal system also gave birth to common law, but the lords had the power to judge anyone because they controlled every facet of your life. The wealthy controlled the peasants and even later they controlled the way peasants voted. This leads us to common critiques of capitalism, whoever were to control the others wage would undoubtedly control their government.
The main battle for control was a heavy reliance on mercenaries to run the military operations for money. The kings often had less power since they relied more heavily on other people’s army. The common solution was sovereign territories which developed after. Basic principles developed in the middle ages laid the foundation for what we call government or democracy now. The king ruled the kingdom, the duke ruled the dukedom, and the count ruled the country. This is later translated into many different modern regimes based upon each biblical following.
The wealth of the empire was a constant problem as is wealth in the modern era. Certain religious sects favored wealth over values. Marriage was often looked to as a way of mobility, not for love. Marriage for love was birthed after the middle ages. Feudalism was being interrupted because of money, similar to the way capitalism is talking world stage today. Wealth, religion and power continue to plague society today and it may well all stem from happiness. The church always taught severe desire is the punishment for sin. As each church struggled for supremacy, so did the people.
The initial period of the Byzantine Empire followed the various interpretations of religion into society as a whole. By Constantine establishing the Empire in the East, he was opening the empire up to conflict but felt that was the best place to keep the empire intact. When Justinian took power, he decided the best way to rule was by taking care of the population and instilling certain values. The same Christian values pacified much of the population, yet led to turmoil amongst others as peoples struggled amongst religious interpretation and true descendents from their belief system. Soon the western part of the empire would fall and religion would become the law of the land, which struggled to identify with protecting people or providing support.
Mohammed ruled by strict Islamic law, and took Mecca by force in 632 A.D. This was especially significant because for the first time in history Islamic armies were attacking Constantinople. The strict interpretation of Islamic law into society gave people less security at the expense of individual freedoms. The variance of interpretation led to various splinter groups amongst, both, Christians and Muslims. From this instance people on the world scale tend to view religious tolerance as a sort of freedom from experience. When people mix religion and government, the people become less free.
Christian and Islamic religions struggled to define whether or not images were permitted in describing religious prophets. This led to many conflicts between the East and West, the West proclaiming no use of images to the East. Charlemagne realized that the religious division of the country would ultimately lead the people to an ungovernable state. The problem he struggled with was which was more important to the control of a country, the fact that the people were fed or protected. Modern theorists could interpret these meaning into modern Republican and Democratic contexts. Republicans are usually for security and Democrats are for the general welfare.
The second time period then created a new form of government. The new form of government was one of which imperial generals seem to gain more control. They gained more control because they control, both, the money to feed the population and the power in a military to protect them. This was a quick and logical solution to feeding and protecting the population, yet leads to modern situations of conflict.
The feudal society created in the second phase was basically a society for protection. This is where the world first originated the idea of possession and real ownership as a basis for power and control. The strict interpretation of Islamic law proved to lead to famine and tyrannical leaders. More emphasis was placed on worship then to the population living well. By 1071 A.D., the Turks had overrun Asia Minor and began to drive out the Muslims as Christians and Muslims struggled for supremacy in the region.
Alexius I Comnus of the East called on Western aid in time of trouble which signaled the beginning of the first crusade. This third element is responsible for the foundation of modern governments of countries like France, Italy and England. The idea of political concentration from top down was a central theme. The previous elements described a time of struggle between food and safety; meanwhile, society was progressing towards working only a few days a week and provided safety.
The world view of the middle-ages was that of being backwards originally, yet time proved that it was a time of progress. Religion proved to be the bloodline to leadership and ultimate voices of grievances. The same grievances were often times agreed upon on local levels because people chose to live amongst those like themselves, for security and religious freedom mainly. The middle-ages birthed feudalism, which then birthed capitalism. There has always been a constant struggle for a common ground between religion and power. This is the period from which the birth of Islamic extremism came, the belief that God was the ultimate power and sometimes many have to die to preserve that power in the name of Islam.
The coronation of Charlemagne represented the synthesis in many ways because he was the first person in power that meant well, but realized before he died that his empire was out of the control of being governed. He attempted to implement new versions to existing laws and nothing seemed to pacify the population, the continued to fight over interpretations. What he also noticed was that control could be held from the bottom up with peace but not from top down. Religious leaders and later feudal lords tended to have more control over the population because they protected and fed them, which in turn kept them tied to the land.
The administration of justice was best through the lords of lands. The feudal system also gave birth to common law, but the lords had the power to judge anyone because they controlled every facet of your life. The wealthy controlled the peasants and even later they controlled the way peasants voted. This leads us to common critiques of capitalism, whoever were to control the others wage would undoubtedly control their government.
The main battle for control was a heavy reliance on mercenaries to run the military operations for money. The kings often had less power since they relied more heavily on other people’s army. The common solution was sovereign territories which developed after. Basic principles developed in the middle ages laid the foundation for what we call government or democracy now. The king ruled the kingdom, the duke ruled the dukedom, and the count ruled the country. This is later translated into many different modern regimes based upon each biblical following.
The wealth of the empire was a constant problem as is wealth in the modern era. Certain religious sects favored wealth over values. Marriage was often looked to as a way of mobility, not for love. Marriage for love was birthed after the middle ages. Feudalism was being interrupted because of money, similar to the way capitalism is talking world stage today. Wealth, religion and power continue to plague society today and it may well all stem from happiness. The church always taught severe desire is the punishment for sin. As each church struggled for supremacy, so did the people.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Fraternities....
First and foremost, whether you be male or female, the most important thing about preparing for college is to always remain focused on the books. All incoming freshman are going to be constantly harassed by Fraternities and Sororities of all sorts, especially, if you are the least bit attractive. Pick your roommates wisely, watch not to drink too much and always have protection of all sorts, mace and condoms both. College is, truly, the most important and unique experience of your life! Be yourself and think about every action you take, including, friends, groups and any activity you partake.
You're probably thinking to yourself, what does this guy know? Well, I'll put it like this, I've been to numerous colleges, both, University and Community Colleges alike. I've had sex in the UCLA dorms when I wasn't even suppose to be there! One thing about college, if there is a will, there is a way. I've been banned from more than two bars, in addition to, being kicked out of numerous ones, Jack Daniels is one hell of a drink.
adparams.getadspec('c_billboard1');
Ladies, you will be bombarded by weak pick-up lines and invited to places that you would never otherwise go. Fraternities, good ones anyway, have access to an abundance of resources through prior brothers and such. I dated a sorority girl, before she joined, needless to say, we still do whatever. Her best-friend dated the head of a fraternity, he was a good guy, but, he was also one of the most shady characters I've ever encountered. It's all about what people see on the outside, sadly, not the inside. Pay attention to your environment, and always, look at the guys ulterior motives, regardless of whether you are right or not. Stay in the books and look good while you're doing it. Pay attention to college magazines and such, they are popular for a reason.
For the guys, you have it a bit harder, never burn bridges! I love to work-out, through that I met a lot of people, never joined a fraternity either. I dislike every aspect of their existence, but, they are good for something. Do you, be yourself and watch the politics of being a college student, people don't forget who you dated and, even, what you drink and where you hang-out. It's all about what you bring to the table. I was never fraternity material because I'm ambitious, power hungry and have a bad temper, basically, I'm brutally honest! That's never a good thing, but, I do manage to get a ton of play and met a lot of interesting people.
Take my advice or don't, but at the very least, listen to it and every other piece of advice you receive, then, only then, make your own personal decision on what course of action you will take. My college experience was exciting, in addition, I got in a ton of trouble, but, people know me where ever I go, that's all I ever wanted. What do you want, think about it and go from there.
You're probably thinking to yourself, what does this guy know? Well, I'll put it like this, I've been to numerous colleges, both, University and Community Colleges alike. I've had sex in the UCLA dorms when I wasn't even suppose to be there! One thing about college, if there is a will, there is a way. I've been banned from more than two bars, in addition to, being kicked out of numerous ones, Jack Daniels is one hell of a drink.
adparams.getadspec('c_billboard1');
Ladies, you will be bombarded by weak pick-up lines and invited to places that you would never otherwise go. Fraternities, good ones anyway, have access to an abundance of resources through prior brothers and such. I dated a sorority girl, before she joined, needless to say, we still do whatever. Her best-friend dated the head of a fraternity, he was a good guy, but, he was also one of the most shady characters I've ever encountered. It's all about what people see on the outside, sadly, not the inside. Pay attention to your environment, and always, look at the guys ulterior motives, regardless of whether you are right or not. Stay in the books and look good while you're doing it. Pay attention to college magazines and such, they are popular for a reason.
For the guys, you have it a bit harder, never burn bridges! I love to work-out, through that I met a lot of people, never joined a fraternity either. I dislike every aspect of their existence, but, they are good for something. Do you, be yourself and watch the politics of being a college student, people don't forget who you dated and, even, what you drink and where you hang-out. It's all about what you bring to the table. I was never fraternity material because I'm ambitious, power hungry and have a bad temper, basically, I'm brutally honest! That's never a good thing, but, I do manage to get a ton of play and met a lot of interesting people.
Take my advice or don't, but at the very least, listen to it and every other piece of advice you receive, then, only then, make your own personal decision on what course of action you will take. My college experience was exciting, in addition, I got in a ton of trouble, but, people know me where ever I go, that's all I ever wanted. What do you want, think about it and go from there.
Something In Racial Profiling...
Racial profiling has been, as well as continues to be, a monumental problem that has been side-stepped by politicians since the founding of the United States. Cultural stereotypes and inequalities continues to be a way to suppress a class of people for the benefit of another. This is evident with Mexican-Americans today. As a modern-day Martin Luther King put it, there must be a return to ethics in the public circles of influence, replacing, racial reasoning with moral reasoning.
The failure of white elites, the prominent ruling class, to acknowledge the abuse of the minority classes is, by far, the largest problem (West, 4). Overwhelming evidence is apparent in the disparities of income and wealth in the country, without, signs of slowing, in actuality, the disparities in wealth are growing.
adparams.getadspec('c_billboard1');
By bring issues of racial profiling into the public square, the problem will be brought to the forefront. We don't need more affirmative action laws, these laws tend to hurt more than help. What we do need is to change the, us versus them, mentality and return to a more ethical approach lacking in racial profiling. In fact, Congress recently passed an ethics bill, so, the lack of ethics in politics is already apparent.
The United States prides itself on democracy and a free-market, the same two elements that suppress other classes, for the simple fact, to maintain wealth and power of the elites. Attitudes and values must change, economics and politics continue racial profiling, without, properly addressing the issue, many times, not even considering it a problem (West, 12). The countries leaders must, first, realize that racial profiling does extsist.
The us versus them mentality is often used at the overall expense of women. Women of all classes and races, are neglected at the expense of furthering the advancement of men in the battle of racial profiling. This is evident in the earnings of women versus men in similar, often exact, fields (West, 27). A coalition must be formed on the political field to address these issues together.
The only way to change racial profiling is to form a coalition, based upon, moral reasoning and values. Race is class in America, with unequal distribution of welath and property, the only resourse that minorities have is in the political spectrum. When people realize that the power base lies with them, only then, will things change, in addition, the will only change gradually. Nothing in this country moves quickly, just look at the war in Iraq.
The failure of white elites, the prominent ruling class, to acknowledge the abuse of the minority classes is, by far, the largest problem (West, 4). Overwhelming evidence is apparent in the disparities of income and wealth in the country, without, signs of slowing, in actuality, the disparities in wealth are growing.
adparams.getadspec('c_billboard1');
By bring issues of racial profiling into the public square, the problem will be brought to the forefront. We don't need more affirmative action laws, these laws tend to hurt more than help. What we do need is to change the, us versus them, mentality and return to a more ethical approach lacking in racial profiling. In fact, Congress recently passed an ethics bill, so, the lack of ethics in politics is already apparent.
The United States prides itself on democracy and a free-market, the same two elements that suppress other classes, for the simple fact, to maintain wealth and power of the elites. Attitudes and values must change, economics and politics continue racial profiling, without, properly addressing the issue, many times, not even considering it a problem (West, 12). The countries leaders must, first, realize that racial profiling does extsist.
The us versus them mentality is often used at the overall expense of women. Women of all classes and races, are neglected at the expense of furthering the advancement of men in the battle of racial profiling. This is evident in the earnings of women versus men in similar, often exact, fields (West, 27). A coalition must be formed on the political field to address these issues together.
The only way to change racial profiling is to form a coalition, based upon, moral reasoning and values. Race is class in America, with unequal distribution of welath and property, the only resourse that minorities have is in the political spectrum. When people realize that the power base lies with them, only then, will things change, in addition, the will only change gradually. Nothing in this country moves quickly, just look at the war in Iraq.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
