MAYDAY.US is a SuperPAC to end all SuperPACs.

Leave a comment

American Flag

Hey friends, listen up!

I just supported #MAYDAYUS, a crowdfunded, kickstarted campaign to reclaim our democracy. You can check it out here:

MAYDAY.US is a superPAC to end all superPACs.

They are pushing for fundamental election reform to get money out of politics, restoring our democracy to one of the people rather than one of the fat cat political donors.

Their strategy is to support candidates who, once elected, are committed to getting money out of politics. The ultimate goal is eradication of the Citizen’s United decision and the unlimited political spending with it through a constitutional amendment.

Don’t think this is an issue? In the 2012 election 0.00042% of Americans donated three thirds of all money given to Super PAC.(Source: That is 132 Americans donating more than EVERYONE ELSE. This money has bought the lack of policy we have seen since then.

The MAYDAY movement is has single-minded focus of reforming our country’s election process, which will in turn make politicians responsive only to the public’s concern rather than to special well-endowed interests. This inevitable victory on election reform will be a windfall for every other movement with broad public support that has been stifled due to lack of billionaire backing, from LGBQ rights to gun control.

Here is a TED Talk outlining the inception of the MAYDAY movement: The passionate MAYDAY pitch begins at 10:30, but i encourage you to watch the whole video to capture the spirit of the movement.

Right now they are gearing up for the 2014 elections. While they are looking for donations, popular support is most important.

If the nation knows the strength and viability of this organization’s commitment to campaign reform it will only be a matter of time before our democracy is restored.

I have never asked anyone to advocate for my issues, but if everyone from Joseph Gordon-Levitt to Steve Wozniak is emphatically endorsing this movement, I think I too should help spread the word.

Spread the word, incite debate, make change.

If there are questions or comments post them here, I’ll do what I can to answer them:)


The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act Signed: Excellent Reform (That Some Hate)

Leave a comment

Michelle Obama was right when she denounced this childhood obesity as “national security threat.”  The Center for Disease Control and Prevention recently announced one of every three American children are overweight, one out of four are “obese.”  Those that are obese at age 10 will be suffering from hypertension while being a significant risk of having a stroke, diabetes, and heart attack by age 40.

Her unbreakable resolution, campaigning relentlessly for nutrition, has culminated in her husband, President Obama signing The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, which will designate $4.5 billion dollars to improve the standard of nutrition in schools throughout America.

What is The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act and What Effects Will it Have on My Kids?

In the developed world America has the lowest standard of living; while an American will live roughly till age 75 the average Japanese man will live to 85.  I did a survey and every American I talked to said that they wanted to live a longer life rather than a shorter one.  This act is pursues this simple, ancient wish.

There are a number of specific policies that this legislation will enact:

– Reimburses schools significantly more for each free lunch they give out.  These free lunches are exclusively given to kids below the poverty line and cannot afford to buy lunch.  This will allow lower class students to

– Requires all public schools to have “science-based nutrition standards.”  School lunches will move away from deep-fried carbohydrates  towards nutritious and varied meals

– Communal eligibility for free lunches; if 40% of the student population cannot afford food then all breakfasts and lunches for the entire student population is free.  If 2/5 students cannot afford lunch in nearly all situations the other 3 kids desperately need their lunch money as well.

– Foster Children are Automatically Eligible for free lunches.  Many foster kids fall through the cracks of the public lunch system, starving because of their unstable home life.  This gives them the opportunity to get one or two good meals five days of the week, regardless of how much they are moved around

– Children on Medicare get Free Lunches; if these children are on Medicare they have more important  issues than worrying about their lunch.  Now they no longer have to worry.

– New reforms on educating low-income children about the effects of obesity and how they can stay healthy.  It will educate them specifically about  the advantages, both socially and medically, of sports, why they should eat healthier food over less healthy food.

Some legislators  are praising this bill as an example to follow; others are denouncing this bill as an infringement on American constitutional rights.

Who is Rejecting this Act?

There are two separate camps that are resisting and actively trying to weaken these reforms, despite the bill already being signed by President Obama.

The Democrats who are critical of this act are outraged by the $2.2 billion dollars that are transferred from the federal food stamp program to The Health, Hunger-Free Kids Act.  Kids who have dropped out of school will have a significantly harder time getting food stamps to get meals.  Many dropouts have unstable home life and by cutting off these food source will drive some to crime, to support themselves, and the shelters, putting an even heavy burden on the overworked shelter system in America.

The Obama Administration justifies this transfer of capital to help counter the dropout problem.  They reason that if these wayward youth do not have a stable meal plan outside of school it will give them another reason to come in and get lunch.  In this manner they have a much better chance of rejoining the education process.

Republcians critical of this act, notably Sarah Palin, claim it is an infringement on these children’s constitutional rights.  These conservatives claim that if these kids want to eat unhealthy food it is their god given right.

I disagree; I do not support any form killing my fellow citizens, even if is tasty.  Is there anyone who would say differently?

(Full Text of  The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act)

The Rise of American Plutocracy


Recessions have plagued America for the last forty years because of reckless behavior by the rich.  In the latest recession major corporations swindled innocents out of billions of dollars with faulty stocks, derivatives, and sub-prime loans they knew were going to fail.  After the economy failed these men were generally unaffected, still receiving million dollar bonuses despite the economic distress of the rest of the population. These men are plutocrats, the ruling class in America.

These financial titans still remain largely unrecognized despite the fact they have been ruling the United States, a plutocracy where governmental policy is determined by those with the most money, since the Gilded Age.  it is during that time period that the plutocrats first rose to power.  The laissez-faire mindset ruled the American economy in the late nineteenth century, launching massive industrial expansions and technological revolutions; this formed largely unregulated industries with purely capitalistic purposes that dominated the industrial, financial, and political spheres of America and made the country a plutocracy.

Laissez-faire conducted economic activity in America during the late 1800’s. The first factories in America were rare, but they created colossal quantities of goods at cheap costs.  Audacious entrepreneurs and sage investors recognized that factories had greatest potential for mass profits, but they also knew any level of government regulations would hurt their incomes.  Government inspectors would prevent installation of innovative technologies that would increase outputs but endanger workers.

To protect their interests and investments the upper class pushed for deregulation of industry throughout the Gilded Age, both though legal and illegal methods.  The presidents of this era are often referred to as the “do-nothing presidents” because they did not create any major changes.  The first roots of plutocracy arose here during this inaction.  Unwritten agreements were made by politicians and these emerging industrial leaders.

Those industrial leaders who funded politician’s campaigns, to get them into office, would be favored by these politicians once they were in office, instead of these politicians exclusively looking out for the Americans who voted them into office and who they are supposed to represent.  As time wore on plutocracy continually eroded democracy in the American government, with each passing election allegiances of numerous politicians switched from their people to their sponsors.  Laissez-faire served as a front for big business and plutocracy to expand rapidly in America.  Meanwhile the common man was learning that he did not like this new system of government, despite the fact he did not yet know it exists.

As the corporate leaders became millionaires, people across America suffered and were regularly injured in the factories. Industrial giants greatly profited from the lack of regulations, expanding industry in America to rival that of the European superpowers like Britain, France, and Germany.  In order to maintain high volumes of production safety standards were removed.

The Jungle, by Upton Sinclair, was a novel written in the Gilded Age which muckraked conditions of meatpacking factories in Chicago and exemplifies the best and the worst of industry in America.  The factories had terrible working conditions, in one meatpacking factory, “the place ran with streaming hot blood – one waded in it on the floor.  The stench was almost overpowering,” (53-54).  Workers fared poorly in the factories, there are numerous incidents in the book where workers die, one was, “killed in an elevator accident,” (83).  Another man was killed when a, “wounded steer had broken loose and mashed him against a pillar,” (85).  These industrial accidents came from the unmonitored technologies that were used in the factories, which were deliberately made unsafe so they could produce goods at a faster rate.

Dangerous tools and equipment were used in every factory in the country; they produced more goods but at the expense of worker safety.  The industrial leaders uniformly decided to pick profits over people, laissez-faire allowed them to do this with the blessing of the government they virtually own and the curse of the people they were injuring in the name of a better profit margin.

Outside of work the labors fared little better, they had no capital because they were financially cheated by the factory owners.  Immigrants coming to America could no longer stake a claim on the plains; the land had been almost entirely bought up by settlers or railroad companies.  Their only viable options where they could move to were the cities, where they could get a job in a factory.

Even in the cities work was scarce; for each worker position there were dozens of desperate immigrants vying for it.  The factory owners could pay their employees virtually nothing and the immigrants would gladly work anyway, the alternative was starving to death.  All the immigrants could do was grumble and call the industrial leaders names, like robber barons. Workers lived in poverty, in addition to working in inhumane conditions, because the alternative was to starve.  The workers were financially dependent to the company, but the company did not care at all about them; unions began to emerge to combat this problem.

In response to encroachments on basic human rights and liberties unions slowly emerged, despite violent rebuffs by the robber barons.  Union members only wanted decent pay and a safe working environment; this would not have been a problem but it would have been at the expense of the robber barons.  Every modest request was denied by the company owners.  As unions became even more and more desperate they resorted to strikes to improve their jobs and wages.  Sometimes the unions won, most of the time they lost because the corporations had far greater assets.  During the Great Strike of 1877 the strikers were able to shut down nearly all railroad traffic across the US.  In response President Rutherford B. Hayes, at the request of notable railroad owners, called out federal troops to successfully quell the strike. In this display of force plutocracy revealed itself to be the ruling force in the country. Democracy had given way to plutocracy, no longer were the concerns of the many were the center of focus for the government, now only those with money were valued.  The worst tragedy of this coup was the common people were misled into believing the plutocrats were heroes.

The public adored the robber barons, despite the grievous toll they were extracting on the common man, because of unfortunate striking incidents and well placed charitable donations.  Union leaders continued to press forward with strikes, hoping they would gain enough leverage to force the corporations to bow to their demands.  They suffered numerous setbacks, notably during the Haymarket affair strikers were blamed for a bomb that killed seven police officers.  Public opinion swiftly turned against the strikers; nobody wanted to support anarchy.  The industrial leaders amplified this outrage using their newspapers to spread the word of the attack.

Weakened by violent incidents, the unions resorted to discrediting the robber barons, criticizing their unethical habit of hording money while their own workers starved.  In response millionaires donated absurd amounts of money to various charities; for example, John D Rockefeller donated $55 million dollars over his lifetime, enough money to build hundreds of buildings, construct numerous foundations, and buy him a pristine public image that no scandal could tarnish.  Instead of demanding his arrest people everywhere believed the man was virtually a saint and had the right to be rich.  Social Darwinism, a belief that in a laissez-faire economy the fittest businessmen are the ones who thrive, was created to explain why Rockefeller and men like him had succeeded where countless other people had failed.

The powers of the union receded, except for isolated victories they were held at bay by the robber barons.  Little progress was made to benefit the workers.  The labors were forced to work dangerous jobs or suffer with unemployment.  Robber barons ruled America, hoarding money while their political puppets did their bidding to get them even more money; the Age of Plutocracy had begun.

Today America is a plutocracy.  Elected officials win modern elections primarily because they spend more money than their opponents.  As the middle class collapses, and more and more Americans fall in poverty the plutocrats continue to demand deregulation of key America commerce sectors, such as meatpacking industry or the stock market; without regulations these industries will continue to endanger the health and stability of America.  Laissez-faire is alive and well, recklessness allowed by this guiding principle is responsible for the last four recessions.  The only threat left to the plutocracy is itself; should the recessions of increasing magnitudes continue, due to plutocrats insatiable greed, there will come a day when the common men as one to no longer be play things of the plutocrats.  They will call the fallout of this uprising the Second Civil War, and it will be a hundred times more costly than the first.

Lowering Taxes will Torpedo You and the Economy: Vote No Question #3, Massachusetts 2010

1 Comment

Everybody likes to save a little money, but to my knowledge everyone likes having a functioning police force a little more, right?

Those of you from the international community can learn from this article as a case study; those of you from Massachusetts actually should pay attention so you don’t accidentally ignite anarchy across your home state.

Question 3 on the 2010 Ballot is as follows, or so my friends at Ballot Pedia tells me (,_Question_3_(2010))

“This proposed law would reduce the state sales and use tax rates (which were 6.25 percent as of September 2009) to 3 percent as of Jan. 1, 2011”

So that doesn’t seem so bad right? I wouldn’t mind having a little more cash to spend everyday, maybe save up to get a big screen TV or a fancy vacation to the Caribbean.  That is the incentive for this law; people like to keep their own money.

The counter argument to the law is as follows:

Pictured: Detroit

Turns out by cutting taxes by almost  half reduces the state’s budget by almost half.  Since we do just happen to still be in a recession there isn’t a lot of fat they can trim off the budget, as it is the state government is doing the bare minimum and still running at maximum capacity.  By slashing taxes state jobs are also be slashed.  Programs shrunk beyond repair.  The entire slow motion popping water balloons program will have to be canceled.

Damn... What are we going to post on YouTube now?

The effects of this will be devastating; worse than the loss of faith moviegoers had in Hollywood after watching 2012 (seriously, if that is how the world is going to end in just gonna move to Nepal today).  The state government of Massachusetts will become a dysfunctional skeleton, every department will be underfunded and will still have to have major lay offs.  Since the state is losing roughly fifty percent of its income it will have to fire roughly fifty percent of its total staff.  The state government is the number one single employer in Massachusetts, a lay off on this magnitude will increase unemployment to as much as 4%.  That really sucks.

Picard says it all.  Nobody wants to lay off their friends and family, you just want to save some cash to get through these hard times.  However, the amount of cash you believe you saving is much less than you believe.  Take a hundred pennies (if you don’t have a hundred pennies I cannot help you, you’re a lost cause) and count remove six.  This is roughly equal to the current tax.

If this tax is put in place you get three of those pennies back.  Translate that to real life. if you spend a hundred dollars a day, from the six dollars that would normally go to tax you would get three back.  Hooray, you can go down to Burger King and buy yourself a whooper.  Whoopie.  Now about the issue of you getting fired…

I hate my oh-so-creative boss

Remember those people your responsible for laying off, well they are coming back to haunt you and they are not amused.  Those with greater ability than you will very simply undercut you and steal your job.  Those of equal ability will compete with various replacement jobs you might try to get.  Those that are sub-par will gum up our healthcare and welfare systems, forcing you to pay more taxes to support them in their unemployment.  Those that are super sup-par though, they will actually help you out.  They’ll let you share their trashcan fire.

Well aren't you one lucky duck.

And yes, one last little, oh so insignificant, detail.  Who do you believe is the chief supporters for this question

A) Men and women struggling to get from one paycheck to another

B) Assorted charities supporting those less fortunate

C) Granny, with knife

D) A, B, and possibly C (as long as she keeps her weapons holstered)

E) Greedy Corporations

Gonna cut you.

If you answered C I know a great therapist who be more than happy to talk to you.  If you answered A, B, or D I’m sorry; you a romantic idealist.  If you answered E, you are right, *grim smile*

These corporations produce a variety of products, from jeans to skateboards.  Every item you are wearing was probably sold to you from one of these cooperations, imported from their sweat shops in Pooristan or North Poverty.  They want this bill to pass so you will be more inclined to buy their products, the cheaper something is the more of it people want.  They will be able to charge a lower net cost, because the tax is lower, on everything they produce, so people like you will buy more of it.  The end result is all that money you could have saved will probably just end up in these corporations pockets.

"Well how else are we supposed to take money baths?"

Increasing taxes will create massive lay offs, weigh down an already ailing economy, and benefit the fools who caused the second worst depression in human history to get paid even more money.

Letting taxes remain the same is actually a smart plan.  It will not make thousands of people unemployed, but it will cost you that whooper, and you’ll miss out on trashcan fires.

Your choice.

Personally, I elect there should be a third option: an increase in taxes.


I do not want massive socialist changes, just half a percent.  That won’t even cost you a candy bar a day.  However, it would be more than enough to refurbish the ailing state programs, employ a few people here and there to patch up the government.  Instead of stalling, to stave of the recession, Massachusetts will actually start making forward economic progress.

This small change will greatly reduce the recession (a functioning state government tends to do that) and will make everyone happier, whether they getting a new job or actually begin helped out by the government.

In conclusion: don’t be fooled by the cooperations, vote no on Question 3. Vote for your friends, vote for your family, Vote  for (insert patriotic nonsense).

Vote for yourself.

UPDATE:  For those you remain unconvinced that they won’t be affected by this tax cut –

Unless your from Gosnold, just east of Martha’s Vineyard, your going to be seriously hurting from this tax cut.  Boston alone will be losing over eighteen million to its educational system, which translates into higher local taxes on everything else.  And if you are from Gosnold, I feel sorry for you and the ridiculous name of your town.

If you think this whole Question is bad, lets talk about the National Deficit -(

If you disagree, agree, or have a wacky left opinion coming out of left field let me hear what you have to say.  The comment box should be just below and you have a keyboard.  You know what to do.

%d bloggers like this: