Coffee-nomics: What money system works for you?

An article was recently posted about Obama on Facebook. The review was highlighting Ed Wills opinion on economics under President Obama’s Administration. The review is not intended to offend anyone. Ed proposes a very sound argument and valid points. I too agree with a large part of what Ed Wills has written. However, in my comment below I choose to disagree with Ed. I posted Ed Wills article first and then my response.

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan”. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A…. (substituting grades for dollars – something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. It could not be any simpler than that.
Remember, there IS a test coming up. The 2012 elections.

These are possibly the 5 best sentences you’ll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

by: Ed Will

I disagree. Reading the article closely and absorbing it as I have been told to absorb everything else taught by professors(I choose to use critical thinking here. (If you’re confused, ask questions and learn more. The authors of our world are responsible for clarifying things)). Logic, Law, and morals are all constructed as some form of freedom. Yes, we are at this point all universally free, but not free in the sense of survival. Very few if any at this day and age could survive independently apart from our globalized cooperatives.

I disagree and do believe that there are mathematical and economical equations existing today that could very well make change we need. I also believe that those who choose not to work and those who choose to are free to do so. In nature, things work together and the strong help the weak(there are no f-ing grades). In the world of religion, there are beliefs, that keep moving forward and believe in a world were separation is a choice that they are evolving beyond. Past, present, and the future will inevitably prove this, whether it’s in 50 years or 30,000 years.

When separations end, political parties will work with integrity and honor. When separation ends Families will once again become strong and interdependent. When separations end, the dollar will do the same for everyone. When separations end we will see a spiritual religion that all have been either consciously or unconsciously waiting for.

On this note, believe that Obama can offer the vision, while we humans WORK not in vain, but service this Earth for a brighter more healthy tomorrow.

the Art of: “Dear Somewhere in Between,”

Dear Somewhere in Between,.

Great Blog!!!

 

Its like having a fresh squeezed, ice cold glass of OJ on a warm summer morning.

REFRESHING

to see such a creative and conceptual blog. If you haven’t been, then GO, and if you have any recommendations regarding other great photo or art blogs please let me know.

MAHALO.

Honolulu Coffee Company Latte Art

Honolulu Coffee Company at Ala Moana is one of my top picks when I’m looking for quality coffee. The baristas are friendly, focused on detail, and professional. The coffee they serve is locally grown and locally roasted. Stop by on your next trip to Ala Moana Shopping Center.

Within the eyes of the beholder: Re-blog – World better without religion?

Thank you Cogitating Duck.

World better without religion?.

It’s interesting how subjective thinking, which is religious based, seems to have left our atmosphere. Even religious leaders and advocates have some how isolated themselves into a more scientific approach. There are some eastern philosophies that urge us toward a more detached understanding of religion and the vast understandings of GOD. Tibetan belief seems to have found a way to stay true to historical faith-based tradition, all while logically and scientifically presenting their case to the world.

I “imaging” John Lennon really seeing no place for universal creationism. He lived during a time when scientific pragmatism seemed to be at its pinnacle. Moral relativism was become the founding principle of our new world. Do you think Lennon acted out as a spiritual person or advocate of religion? Was he urging the world to form a new age understanding and to temporarily leave behind classical theology? Or did he simply feel suppressed and isolated within his limited moral understandings?

Coffee and politics: Are pragmatic politics really practical?

Today NPR highlighted a small segment surrounding pragmatism. They were primarily speaking of politics in Syria and middle east. The question highlighted was stated similar to this question, “Are modern political policies which are built on pragmatic logic really safe guarded from extreme reasoning?”.

Do we believe that just because a policy may be useful its true? Do we relatively push aside inconvenient truths when it boils down to religion and reason?

These are questions that politics built on pragmatism must face and address. As capitalism and socialism begin to integrate into a modern civilized society we need to look beyond theory to find practical solutions. Sometimes we need to look beyond our experiences to a place of vision. This vision is one that of course needs to have the support of the humanity being governed; clarity and vision is found in the laws and policies that are to be manufactured for humanity’s freedom and liberty. Centralism is not a sound way to represent a new change in political policy. It satisfies the unsatisfied by addressing a possible solution, which is then later redressed when a slight piece of progress is identifiable.

In the months to come we are left with the reality of a possible shift in consciousness. This shift will be decided not by the political parties in debate or the religious congregations sprawled across the Americas. It will be decided by the sovereign body of citizens who serve their duty to vote, voice their beliefs, and whom are willing to be heard.

Just as our founders went against a classical form of pragmatism, we to must contemplate the solutions and problems our leaders present. Sometimes the canvas must be wiped clean. All law that is supposedly governing us into a civilized and free society must be  removed, because its purpose has not been served. We must ask those whom are willing and endowed with the power to reestablish the integrity of our constitution to diligently do so.

As we look toward pragmatic solutions lets share common experience. Lets look within the now. This now is seen through the new, press and media. If we have built our nations law and policy upon solid foundational values, then why are we facing such crumbling adversity? Why are we not admitting that we have collectively, both leaders and citizens, have messed up. We have taken a wrong turn, we have misunderstood our definition of right, we have become humbled by our own teachings.

One cup of coffee: Do you have a cup of coffee first thing in the morning?

Every morning of every day I contemplate whether I should treat myself to a delicious cup of coffee. I enjoy brewing my coffee at home. Not only is it more artistic, but  it’s economically more efficient on the wallet.

My real question is, “are there bigger benefits to having a cup as soon as I wake up or not having one until I have had breakfast?

Pros:

1. I get to feel a sense of excitement in my morning routine. As soon as I smell the coffee brewing I get focused.

2. Sharing is caring: I look forward to sharing a delicious pot, cup, or espresso shot of coffee with anyone I can.

3. Coffee first thing in the morning gives me an extra boost of energy.

Cons:

1. It’s sometimes a bit rough on an empty stomach.

2. I realize that I get attached to having a cup first thing in the morning.

3. Coffee really lacks nutrients and can suppress my real appetite.

These are a few things that came to the top of mind. Really casual pro’s and con’s that are more opinion based. If anyone would like to add their comments or insight, please feel free.

Have a terrific day and enjoy every cup of coffee.

South Carolina enjoys their coffee: Conservatively tight, topped with silky froth and highlighted with nuances of boldness.

Today’s polls were stunningly clear. Newt Gingrich pulled ahead of his opponents with a stunning 243,153 votes(40.4%). His closes opponent MItt Romney finished with 167,279 votes(27.8%). Rick Santorum, Ron Paul and Rick Perry collectively gave their best efforts, but finished far behind Newt Gingrich.

Newt Gingrich	243,153	40.4%
Mitt Romney	167,279	27.8%
Rick Santorum	102,055	17%
Ron Paul	77,993	13%
Rick Perry	2,494	0.4%
Other	8,192	1.4%

Source: AP

Once polls closed and the news spread, the political arena, eagerly awaited Newt Gingrich’s response to his victory. He addressed his party in a very commanding and assured manner. He started by gratefully thanking and recognizing his family and top advisers. He then segued into his political address. He strategically highlighted his opponents strong points, which indirectly empowered the Republican party on his behalf. Once building the platform that he was victorious over his colleagues and was moving the republican agenda forward; he begun unleashing his attack on the Democratic party.

Addressing the differences in both parties through a dualistic relativism that empowered his campaign was his main tactic. It was very clear that he had worked with local community leaders, business owners and constituents. His confidence was anchored within the morals of classic America. Loyalty and sovereignty to the constitution and its purpose were clear and concise in his speech. Newt Gingrich did portray one very distorting characteristic. He demoralized the integrity of President Obama. It does work as a classical political philosophy, however seems a bit out dated for modern civilized society.

In the end Newt Gingrich left viewers with a very anxious wonder. Will Obama rebuttal all accusations? Will Newt Gingrich bring a even more powerful call to action in Florida? Is this the begging of a very heated battle for Republican votes?

Freshly Brewed

The power of fun

Video of the day: The F word: Famine is the real obscenity.