Election 2016

Another election cycle and another opportunity to see the core behavior of whoever may be our next Commander-In-Chief.

Agree or disagree, here's my thought process: No more career politicians or corrupt lawyers in the White House! When considering either party this literally narrows it down to two people: Trump and Carson. 

Trump was born into wealth and is a bully who is most likely to start a nuclear war due to insulting Iran, China or Russia. He cannot threaten legal action against other countries to get them to do what he wants (as has been his go to tactic throughout life) and sanctions have proved meaningless under the Obama administration. So what's Trumps plan? He doesn't have one. He just wants to 'win' and add the presidency as another notch in his belt.

Carson on the other hand, was born into poverty and earned his way through life to become the most successful neurosurgeon in the world. He knows what it's like to live in poverty and struggle to overcome social boundaries and knows what it's like to work hard in order to get results.He is also a vocal God-fearing man which is admirable considering this generally doesn't add to any candidates popularity. More importantly, Carson has tangible plans to fix our nations problems. For example, he has stated that having a fixed tax percentage for everyone with no deductions/write offs. This is brilliant because it closes loopholes and eradicates the mass confusion that ensues upon the dawn of tax season. He also advocates individual responsibility by promulgating a health savings account for each citizen upon their birth.

Where is Trump on these issues? He simply wants to 'win' and be 'great'! 

Keratoconus: DALK Cornea Transplant

The surgery itself went well. However the Dr. put a small air bubble behind my layer of tissue in order to sandwich it up to the donor tissue and the air bubble was too big! The pain from the high press was unreal… immediately after the first surgery I was drifting in and out of consciousness and began to vomit. My core temperature was also fluctuating rapidly (sweating like crazy one second then freezing the next). The Dr. took me to an exam room and poked a needle in and removed the bubble and it was immediate relief. Along with a few flashing black vertical lines, this is basically what I saw before he took the air bubble out: http://teedhaze.com/images/public/tv-snow.gif

The next day (Tuesday) the Dr. examined me and said he needed to put the bubble back in immediately. The numbing drops didn’t work at first so the pain was unreal when the needle went in. He apologized and put other types of numbing drops in and they worked. He got the bubble in and it was all over within 5 minutes.

Unfortunately the air bubble he put in disappeared somehow over night. He said the body may have absorbed it too quickly. He also said he has only ever had this happen to one other patient he had out of the hundreds of DALK procedures he has done. So he said he needed to put the bubble in again. I begged him to put me to sleep for the procedure! He agreed to and the next day (Thursday) we went off to the OR.

This time he put a large air bubble in and let it sit for 15 minutes while I was still knocked out. He then released some of the air before allowing me to wake up. To our relief it worked! When I woke up things were pretty stable but then started to go down hill. I had that splitting headache feeling like I did the first time I woke up and I was in extreme pain- 10 out of 10. Then for some reason it miraculously dissapeared and the pain was back down to about 2-3 out of 10 which is normal. Personally, I believe that God performed a miracle at that time.

The next day I came back for the followup visit and the doctor said ‘now THIS looks like a cornea transplant!’ and said the bubble was still there albeit a little smaller, but that the donor tissue and my native tissue had become attached as they were supposed to. He also said he was surprised how quickly my eye was healing. I was very relieved!

It is now day 4 since the surgery and I will be going back to Rochester on Wednesday (3/5) for another followup. At this time I can see better than I could see before the surgery. It is still very blurry but I think that’s normal for only 4 days. I have a very slight headache but I attribute that to the eye drops. My primary concern is the redness of my eye. There is also a strange bubble that you can clearly see in the center of my eye, I am not sure what that means. Here are some pictures:

1.5 days after surgery:https://plus.google.com/photos/115402764144655431061/albums/5568528792469280401/5986583760414380098?banner=pwa&authkey=COrV-5m5hOmC4gE&pid=5986583760414380098&oid=115402764144655431061

3 days after surgery:
https://plus.google.com/photos/115402764144655431061/albums/5568528792469280401/5986583763305494386?banner=pwa&authkey=COrV-5m5hOmC4gE&pid=5986583763305494386&oid=115402764144655431061

2nd Amendment Rally, Albany NY

Hello Everyone,

I'm glad to report that yesterday's rally in the state capitol appeared to be a success for 2nd Amendment supporters not only in New York, but across the nation. Indeed, it is estimated that there were between 7,000 - 10,000 people in attendance! Though the speech I wrote was not delivered verbatim (there was not nearly enough time), Assemblyman Gary Finch used it to form his brief address to the crowd. 

NYS Assemblyman Al Stirpe (D-Onondaga, Madison Counties?) (who apparently voted in favor of the tight gun restrictions) reportedly was so flustered that he dropped the "f" bomb during a closed-door meeting with protestors.... not realizing the meeting was on camera until it was too late! 

It was also reported that during a meeting NYS Assemblyman Samuel Roberts (D-Syracuse Area) stated that most of the people in his district felt Cuomo's SAFE Act was wrong, but that he would vote in favor of it again if he had a second chance simply because he himself thought it was right. This is literally the opposite of being a representative!

At any rate, below is a copy of the speech. Thanks again, and please feel free to pass this along to whomever you feel needs a brief history lesson!

CLICK HERE: Speech 2/28

The Straw Man...Fallacy

This is in response to Amy Bingham's article at ABC News: Romney's 47%
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This seems to be a classic straw man fallacy, wherein a person’s position is altered or maligned to cause misinterpretation. Straw men are very popular in political circles. Even though the above quote is not from an opponent, as is commonly the case with straw men, it is generally known that the national media favors President Obama. If heard in passing, one could easily interpret Romney’s “telling” remarks as condescending. However, an alternative interpretation of Romney’s remarks – in the context of this very close election is that is Romney describing the 50% that almost certainly will vote for President Obama no matter what.

            Moreover, other commentators have indicated that a key challenge for Romney, if elected, would be to lift many of those in the “entitlement community” to believe that it actually is feasible to earn a decent living without reliance on government assistance. I do not think Romney was saying (or at least meant to say) that he totally disregards 50% of America's vote, as some in the media portray. No fool in his or her right mind would run for office and meaningfully say something of that nature and expect to win. If I'm wrong, however, and Romney did mean what he said, then he is simply wrong for saying it. Nevertheless, we'll never know for sure what he meant; it's open to interpretation.

            President Obama also had a slip up this week, but how quickly the media has forgotten it. (Obama: 'I actually believe in redistribution') My question is, if Obamacare Tax is such a wonderful thing, why is there a convenient exclusion written into it so that the President's family and Congress don't have to pay or abide by it? Also, how can we have a free market system when we have a president who openly "believes" in wealth redistribution?
           The bottom line is, it is not our job (or the media’s job) to defend Mitt Romney, but it is our job as free citizens to educate ourselves and vet both candidates. Both men have said things they regret. Let us not forget, however, that only one of them has had a four year opportunity to fix things and has failed. Personally, I think it's time to hire someone else for the job. Like I said, though, Romney is probably not going to be able to fix things overnight (nobody is), but at least he will start changing things into a better direction by practicing fiscal responsibility as opposed to raising taxes and redistributing wealth using Marxist policies.

Illegal Aliens

In response to Seyla Benhabib's NYT article:
The Morality of Migration
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, nobody is advocating for a permanent freeze in immigration. This country is comprised of immigrants (with the exception of the indigenous). However, in our young nations history, we have ever used immigrations quotas to help balance out the population and the economy. For example, there was a big quota on Chinese immigrants at the turn of the [20th?] century.

Anyway, this is a very slanted article. The author continually expresses sympathy for illegal immigrants while completely ignoring many of the major effects if has on people who are native to or migrated legally here. Regardless of how these children ended up here, the U.S. government is not obligated to provide anything to the children of illegal immigrants. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Consider the following:

1) A family of 4 comes across 10 orphans. The family lives on a tight budget. They know they can't possibly take in 10 orphans without themselves becoming indigent, so they do their best to support the orphans from afar- working with non-profits and other organizations.

2) A family of 4 comes across 10 orphans. The family lives on a tight budget. They know they can't possibly take in 10 orphans without themselves becoming indigent, but they take them in anyway. Months later the whole family is receiving welfare from the government.

The "liberal democratic society" the author refers to would choose option 2. History has proven over and over again that politicians cannot legislate the impoverished into wealth. It just doesn't happen. In fact, when this is attempted, it simply goes the other way leading to an expansion of the population living in poverty. Money cannot be pulled out of thin air, and the more money the government prints, the less valuable the American dollar becomes.

What about other problems caused by illegal immigration? To name a few:
Pollution: Many illegal aliens crossing the Mexican/American border have absolutely trashed our beautiful country. (Illegals Trash AZ Border) America is quickly becoming the laughing stock of the globe. We can protect the borders of South Korea, but somehow we can't protect our own?

Violence: Drug violence is exacerbated by illegal immigrants. A larger portion of our youngsters are getting involved in drugs. The higher the demand is for the drugs, the more violence is committed. It's relative. Also, over the last year or two there has been a series of vehicle incidents involving illegals who were drunk driving who ended up killing our own citizens.

Economics: There aren't enough jobs for Americans at this time. Why should we allow amnesty for illegal aliens? They have not paid into social security -or any social programs for that matter. How many illegals aliens are we paying for in our prison system? It's true they have worked on farms, but why not replace them with our own teenage youth and keep our currency in our country?

Of course we should not disregard the circumstances these people are living in within their home countries. After all, there is no reason to migrate unless one is living in an uncomfortable situation. As a nation, however, we should be condemning these oppressive/violent governments (Pakistan?)- not rewarding them by lining their pockets with money borrowed from China. Instead, we should have compassion from afar as there are already plenty of Americans who either cannot or will not support themselves and their families.

Educating Young America

In response to Gary Gutting's NYT article:

Who Should Teach Our Children?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personally, I don't think the article does justice to the argument the author is [seemingly] trying to present. Simply put, when laying forth and arguing complex issues each issue deserves an in-depth analysis.

There are many variables overlooked when addressing progress in our secondary and elementary education system. Good teachers know that not all kids learn the same way and plan accordingly- but only if they’re allowed to. Though there are certainly many qualified teachers in the public sector, they are often limited in the classroom by curriculum mandates chosen by Washington bureaucrats and state officials.

Among other requirements, the absence of the above stipulations in private schools generally attracts new teachers and promotes a positive attitude and creativity in and outside of the classroom. Similarly, the lack of these stipulations allows for better, meaningful discipline, as the teacher does not need to fear a lawsuit for doing what is right.  In conjunction with these favorable considerations, charter schools (in New Orleans, for example) are proving they are capable of allocating funds much more efficiently.

From what I understand, the New Orleans charter school system mentioned above employs teachers who have completed doctorate level educations. I suspect this is because individuals with PhD level educations have a desire to learn, rather than regurgitate rigid, mandated lesson plans.

It may sound like I’m pushing hard for privatized education, but in actuality, I’m simply advocating for reduced government involvement when it comes to educating our children. It’s no secret that it is very difficult for many teachers to separate their personal ideologies and the curricula they teach from. Highly politicized public sector unions don’t help.

In conclusion, there is no "degree" that magically turns an individual into a good teacher or mentor. I do believe there does need to be some [minimum] government involvement. However, the way our public education system works now is very convoluted and restrictive. We can’t demote or let go of the teachers performing poorly without lawsuits or other frivolous processes being filed, and because of this, we don’t have the funding to hire better teachers.

Discipline? ...What's that?

In response to the comments posted by readers of a certain Boundless.org post [Saying Yes to Sex (as God Intended)], I decided I would try to smooth things out between the seemingly oppressive church and the indignant. The below post was also written in the comments section of the article:

All sins are viewed equally in the eyes of God, however, not all sin has the same consequence. I opine that the church propagates sexual abstinence outside of marriage simply because intercourse a) involves two individuals, henceforth tainting two individuals and b) is an action that cannot be physically rectified. Though lying certainly can (and often times does) lead to an unintended action, once you have had sex, you cannot 'unsex' yourself or anyone else.) The trouble with this perspective is it implies that, even after we have become renewed in the spirit, our souls and bodies are separate. Essentially it implies that we can repent and be forgiven spiritually, but not physically. As we know, however, the Bible states that once we accept the atonement we wholly belong to God and, in fact, our bodies are to be treated as temples of the Lord.

I agree the church has inflated the consequences of sexual sin, but (I believe) with good intentions in mind. However, it should be universally understood that scare tactics do not keep people from having or thinking about sex. That being said, let us not be so naive to think that sexual transgression is confined to out of wedlock intercourse.

I conclude from my life experiences and individuals I have spoken with that, from a physical standpoint, one can only combat the temptations of sexual desire with one thing this society perspicuously lacks: DISCIPLINE.