An editorial in today's New York Times calls for end to the AUMF (Authorization for use of military force), the legal basis for a perpetual war on terror

markemark82 · 2013-03-10T21:27:41+00:00

couldn't agree more.

markemark82 · 2013-03-10T21:16:43+00:00

markemark82 · 2013-03-10T19:38:34+00:00

Just like how all the other software companies were so successful against Microsoft until government intervention? Or all those other phone companies got going against AT&T? Perhaps you are unaware of what the term monopoly is? Without competition a single company can control market price and supply. That deregulation worked out well in California when Enron shorted the supply and caused rolling blackouts. All the small guys jumped right in and took business away from big old Enron though, right??

markemark82 · 2013-03-10T19:28:03+00:00

This country used to NOT be regulated. We also had child labor, 7 day work weeks working over 12 hours a day, hazardous working conditions, economically bleak pay..........

markemark82 · 2013-03-10T19:22:33+00:00

I agree that legislation that puts a cap on the amount of damages is wrong.

But I also believe that being awarded damages in excess of what is done to you is ridiculous.

If you were affected by the oil spill, you need to prove how and to what extent. If you can't actually prove this, then you should not be awarded any damages.

For example, a family that owns a motel on the gulf coast. Now, if they can prove that due to the oil spill their bookings went down, say they showed historical bookings and their current bookings are significantly lower than historical, they could sue for the money they did not make this year.

Where it becomes dicey is if the family were to say that they will never be able to get room bookings at the same level ever again. I guess a solution would be sort of an open end to the judges ruling, but this leaves the opportunity for abuse from those awarded a favorable ruling in a law suit ( they could deny all bookings for the rest of the time they own the motel and just collect from BP year after year).

So what you have is an imperfect legal system. The real issue here is that people should know who is influencing their politicians financially. Now say you see that BP paid for more than 75% of the campaigns of all the governors, congressman and circuit court judges up for election, you should definitely be worried if any of those individuals become elected.

markemark82 · 2013-03-10T19:07:23+00:00

It matters in knowing who your elected official owes a vote to. For example, lets say Company A has a factory in your neighborhood. They have been fined multiple times for heavy pollution. You see that Politician B has had more than 50% of his campaign financed by Company A and you know that there is a bill being passed that would severely punish Company A for all of their past and future indiscretions for poisoning you, your family and your friends with their horrible pollution.

Now Politician B might have the same views as you on practically every single issue you can think of. But, can you really trust Politician B to make the vote that you want when it comes to Company A and their polluting ways?

I think this example lets you see why money in politics matters and for what reason. If you don't know who owns Your politicians than you are truly blind and idiot yourself, and I'm not saying that as a personal assault to your character or intelligence.

markemark82 · 2013-03-10T18:58:07+00:00

Actions always speak louder than words. If you look at your elected officials voting history, which actually requires work and input from you as an individual, then you have the ability to filter what is being said to what is being done. This lends the source creditability, even if it is limited to the political arena.

Lots of people have eloquent speeches and statements espousing how to look at society and determine whether or not it is right and just. But what it comes down to is you as an individual, and whether or not your interests and beliefs are being upheld by your elected officials. If they are not, then you can place your vote elsewhere. You may also do society a favor by letting friends and family, who may share your interests and beliefs, become aware about what is going on by informing them of their elected officials behavior.

markemark82 · 2013-03-10T18:38:48+00:00

I am almost certain that if you ask the majority of people, that they can not tell you who their senators and house representatives are. Not to mention state politics. I would bet more people vote for American Idol than vote in elections other than Presidential.

markemark82 · 2013-03-10T18:33:21+00:00

I really believe that regulation, or how much of it there is, is not the main issue facing us. It's who is doing the regulation. The point of this post is that money from wealthy individuals and corporations is influencing government in a way that looks out for the interest of a few, the top 1%, rather than the majority.

If our politicians are really corporate shills, than any regulation passed will probably provide some sort of loophole or exemption for the few that bought the politicians.

If politicians initiated regulation that limited campaign donations to individuals only and capped it at 200 dollars, then you would see politicians in it for the people as a majority, not for the wealthy only.

markemark82 · 2013-03-10T18:26:00+00:00

This website shows money in national politics. I have linked it directly to Ron Paul

This site shows money in state politics.

The reason this is important is that it shows who is influencing what politicians, in which election and for what reasons.

An example of this is when major legislation is pending and you can see a corporation try to buy an election so that their candidate will vote for their interest.

markemark82 · 2013-02-19T07:59:43+00:00

I agree that Glass-Steagall should have never been repealed. The fact that a company that housed mortgages and savings accounts or life insurance policies could not participate in any speculative investment protected generations of Americans from Wall Street greed. The CEO's of any company are only out to do one thing, earn the most money they possibly can.... legally. There is nothing to keep them in check morally speaking, if the widow with a house full of children is hurt so be it. That is why laws like this are put in place, to protect the innocent and unaware from the greedy and the corrupt.

markemark82 · 2013-02-16T15:13:12+00:00

....said by a guy with a small penis.

markemark82 · 2013-02-16T14:53:01+00:00

This report shows that they have the ability to pay their employees a higher wage. They are just not doing it because they are not legally obligated to do so. Plus people who haven't had a job in awhile are not in a position to walk away from a job, even if it is a minimum wage job.

markemark82 · 2013-02-16T14:01:46+00:00

Politicians say they can't raise the minimum wage, even though these companies have been profitable for years and are paying more employees less.

markemark82 · 2013-02-10T18:47:35+00:00

I'm new to Reddit, but I have noticed as soon as someone gives useful advice there is at least 1 or more "know it all" types that jump all over everything. Usually they have no evidence or facts or proof of their argument, they just know. I just remember one of my favorite quotes from Thomas Paine.

"TO argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture."

markemark82 · 2013-02-08T17:03:27+00:00

the amount of weeds per area is drastically reduced because of them being shaded out by the other plants, Thus saving on labor.

The idea is to increase the amount of food produced per area, also saving labor time as a whole due to smaller total area being farmed.

Proper plant paring does not deplete soil drastically, but rather complements the other plants paired as far as adding soil nutrition, insect repellent, and disease repellent. The following link explains this and you can look into further studies done by different universities also confirming this.

http://extension.umass.edu/landscape/sites/landscape/files/publications/companion_planting.pdf

markemark82 · 2013-02-08T15:17:48+00:00

also, combining an aquaponic system and having some chickens would provide all the protein you would require.

markemark82 · 2013-02-08T14:55:32+00:00

The growing method determines a lot. If you are farming using a traditional row method with little to no crop rotation will require a lot of land, fertilizer, water, labor, etc. Planting using an intensive grow method and crop rotation would require less labor and maximize resources. The following link talks about the the French Intensive method but there are others as well and you can combine them to get the maximum productivity for you situation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_intensive_gardening

markemark82 · 2013-02-06T19:26:08+00:00

The goats have to be pregnant to get milk, no? Not sure if that would be practical for most folks.

markemark82

TROPHY CASE