Well, God kills the kittens- the Republicans kill everything else. :D

Actually, there is a sad story to this poster, because it is, to an extent, true. Funny Thing, Bill Frist (remember him?), A republican from Tennessee, performed medical experiments on shelter cats while researching the use of drugs on the mitral valve. By his own account, Frist improperly obtained these cats from Boston animal shelters, falsely telling shelter staff he was adopting the cats as pets. In his 1989 book Transplant, Frist admitted that he killed these cats during medical experiments at Harvard Medical School, as part of what he claimed were his studies.

In his book, Frist asserted that he succumbed to the pressure to succeed in a highly competitive medical school. Frist stated that he "treat[ed] them as pets for a few days" before he "cart[ed] them off to the lab to die." He went on to say, "And I was totally schizoid about the entire matter. By day, I was little Billy Frist, the boy who lived on Bowling Avenue in Nashville and had decided to become a doctor because of his gentle father and a dog named Scratchy. By night, I was Dr. William Harrison Frist, future cardiothoracic surgeon, who was not going to let a few sentiments about cute, furry little creatures stand in the way of his career. In short, I was going a little crazy." (source)(source-NY Times)

Republicans kill kittens. Its a sad fact. But thats not all.

Rudy's wife Judy cut live dogs open to demonstrate surgical tools; Mitt tying the family dog to the top of a station wagon and Mike Huckabee's son's dog-strangling "scandal" - Why is it that Republicans mistreat animals - more so than their liberal counterparts?

In his essay "Compasionate Conservatism", Matthew Scully discusses the issue in depth. In his essay, he claims he interviewed an "eminent conservative columnist," and found that, "nowhere in all his writings do I find any treatment of any cruelty issue, never mind that if you asked him he would surely agree that cruelty to animals is a cowardly and disgraceful sin- And when the subject is cruelty to farmed animals—the moral standards being applied in a fundamental human enterprise—suddenly we’re in forbidden territory and “I don’t want to know” is the best he can do."

Interesting. Although I am suspicious of this "eminent conservative columnist-" certainly, if he felt this way about cruelty to animals he may have had a different approach. We must search the essay further, until we find this logical conclusion:

Often conservatives side instinctively with any animal-related industry and those involved, as if a thing is right just because someone can make money off it or as if our sympathies belong always with the men just because they are men.

The Profit motive: Killing animals one at a time. So please, don't vote Republican...
But I digress:



Have a good weekend, Readers.

Oh, and a side note: I will delete spam-ish comments. That means you, Schuster.

ADDENDUM: Obligitory Sarah Palin reference

I keep toying with the idea of this list in my mind, so here we go:

1) Anh "Joseph" Cao.

A Representitive from a liberal Louisiana district, Rep. Cao was the sole republian voter for the Health Care reform bill in the house. After the passage of the Stupak Ammendment, erradicating abortion-related language in the bill, Cao, a devout catholic {1}, said that the bill was what the mostly impoverished people of his district needed. Kudos to this man, who put people in front of politcs, and idiologies second to real, progressive change to getting basic care to those who need it.


2) Dede Scozzafava.

Sarah Palin can see New York State from her house. New York State congressional candidate Dede Scozzafava, whom I believe was an incumbent dropped out of the election when Sarah Palin butted in. Palin was "disgusted" with Scozzafava's moderate Republicanism, and endorsed a right-winger who was more in line with her party's "just say no" politics. Scozzafava, while she was in Congress, was fiscally conservative. She often pushed for fiscal disclipine at the national level {2}, but unfortuneately for her, she compromised. She was non-discriminational: She supported making homosexual marriages a decision for couples to make in New York, and she also pushed for keeping abortion decisions between families. Because of these two social isssues, she was too far into the "dark side" for that little lady from Wasilla. So, when her right-wing opposition (who lived out-of-state and had no idea of any of the local issues -going so far to complain about a newspaper's questions not being presented to him beforehand when they were printed in a local paper the day before the interview) started making a fool of himself, she dropped out and supported her democratic opposition, William L. Owens. Owens will soon be sworn in as the next representitive for her district. Thank you, Dede.

3) Abraham Lincoln.

Lincoln is pretty cool. He passed the homestead act, created the transcontinental railroad, created the first income tax, increased the federal tariff, guaranteed fair republican governments in every state, created the department of agriculture, the first government (chartered to banks) issued paper currency, and made Thanksgiving a federal holiday, and fought with tact to end the civil war. Thanks, Abe!

(To my Constitution Party friends, He violated the constitution in double-digit amounts in his tenure, more so than any other President.)

And conservatives champion him as a good representitive of their beliefs. Here here!

4) Gen. Colin Powell .

Basically, this guy is really cool because he endorsed Obama and he was a Republican. Although many conservatives may call him a RINO (Republican-in-name-only), Powell supported Obama because he supported an exit strategy from the wars in the middle east. What a novel idea! Although we haven't yet seen this exit strategy, At least Mr. Powell was keeping the best interests of our troops in mind when he made his endorsement, instead of simply going political. Powell had served under both Bushs and beyond, keeping the war department in line with his ice stare. Meanwhile, on the campaign front, Sarah Miss Pale-in was telling the world media it would be a good idea to nuke Pakistan. McCain later denied these claims, excusing them because Palin couldn't hear the question correctly (she was talking to a voter, so either she really thinks that, or she isn't listening to the American people).

Anyway, why would you even say that? Even if you didn't understand the question? Thats the question I don't understand.

5) *shudders* Sarah Palin *shudders again*.

Now, anyone that knows me will be riddiculously surprised to see Sarah Palin on this list. From me. Although your eyes are not decieving you. Sarah Palin is on the list, albeit, the last on this list of my faviorite Republicans. Why, you ask? Good question. I don't know if I'm in my right mind right now. I'm unsure, even, if this is even me writing this, because I certainly do not agree with Sarah Palin. at all. (except when she said saving the economy was all about job creation and the bailout... and the health reform would do that... Then I agree with her).

No, Sarah Palin is on my list because she is the catalyst, a battering ram if you will, to the destruction of the Republican Party. It is my firm belief that Ms. Palin is diving the party into three categories: Those who will always vote Republican, Those who would have voted Republican but now won't, and those who hate Sarah Palin, and there are many. See, Palin's radical conservatism- not fiscal conservatism (she was for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it, see, infastructure is really, really, really cool if you're not a national embarrasment), but social conservatism- especially against gays and lesbains, is a turn off to most conservatives. Although she's got the niche market of chirstian, fundamentalist republicans cornered, moderates are just outraged. The Mormons, even, (Mittens Romney, ring a bell) have recently chastized her and supported a law in Salt Lake City allowing Gays and Lesbians to work in government, which previously was illiegal- and fiscal conservatives are much the same. Where Libertarians were likely to vote on the conservative ticket, the anti-social progressiveness from Sarah and those like her turn away votes that could be garnered from the surprisingly large block, what until the Christian Political Revolution made up the Republican party.

This is why Sarah Palin is cool, she's doing Dem's work for us: dividing the party, making it much easier to get elected by being somewhat intelligent.

-

I expect to update this list every so often. I hope you enjoy it! Please leave your own comments on who you think should be here. I have Annonymous commenting turned on, but it would be nice to see who reads this, so sign your name or something if you feel like it. Otherwise, I understand the respect for privacy.

List will be over there -------------------->

~Brennan

Sarah Palin is set to speak in Salina with her new book. I really want to go picket it. Also, everyone should go buy her new book. Its hilarious!

She is coming to promote her book: Going Rogue, And American story. Well, first off it were a true American story It'd talk about not being able to afford healthcare or not being able to find a job (or having your job outsourced to China)- Or moreover, it may talk about the great American industrialist like Anderew Carniege who went rags-to-riches by jipping everyone out of the "American Free Market System" of competition.

Or maybe it would be about how not to give an interview.

Nonetheless, It is an American story (according to her). Dad, I think we should go to Salina, even if the tickets are sold out. Hope she doesn't fly to the capital of Africa by mistake. You'll never know the next time she decides to go rogue on someone.

And make sure they aren't killing any turkeys behind her. It is thanksgiving time, you know.

I started this post, the Denver Post, back in April and I only now just finished it. Blogger thinks I actually posted in in April, but It really is worth a read, so, link here.

Isn't the urban landscape beautiful? Especially with a TRAIN STATION in the back? :p

I was writing along a few minutes ago, minding my own business, when who would call other than Newt Gingrich's campaign people. I talked with this guy, who asked if I was Mr. Walter (sure I am) and that I had a message from Newt. I said I'd like to hear what he had to say.

Here's how the prerecorded message went: Hello, thank you for taking my message. I'm worried about the Obama Administration blah blah deficit spending blah blah socialist blah blah like another country in Europe blah Newt blah Thank you, have a goodnight.

Then there was some pretty elevator music for awhile and some woman comes on the line, asking me this "survey" question: Do you believe that deficit spending and empowering government bureaucrats will save our economy?

My answer: Well, first off, you're asking me a leading question- and I'm inclined to say yes, as anyone would, to the bureaucrats thing, but we must look at the overall issue here: Government is the only entity with money right now, and if no one else has money, how are jobs going to be created. Government has fiat, and therefore is the best way to jump-start the economy.

The woman pauses, then: "I certainly don't understand your point, sir. Have a good evening" *click*

Moral of the story: Conservatives don't understand me. Economists do.

I'm flying in turbulence, but I'm going to start blogging again. Surprise!

My latest letter to the editor got posted in the Mercury the other day:

To the editor:

The news reported in Sunday’s Mercury about the increase in Manhattan’s federal funding is great news for the community. As our city grows, however, it is important to know how to spend this new money wisely. Manhattanites do not truly know what an additional 20,000 people will do to our town, and that number may well grow higher as new labs and businesses flock to our city. Manhattan already is the largest city in Kansas without a public transit system, and our roads show it. Imagine the stark differences in traffic between Manhattan during the summer and when school is in session- that is the difference 20,000 students- some of whom do not drive- make. Manhattan is in dire need already for a fixed-route transit solution, and we will finally have the means to implement it with these new federal funds.

Transit’s most glaring benefit is to first take vehicles off the roads and consolidate their passengers into one vehicle. This alleviates congestion along major corridors and avoids costly expansion if done correctly. Transit, however, also has benefits beyond traffic consolidation. The most unique and beneficial unforeseen consequence is in developmental patterns. Portland, Oregon’s modern, 4-mile long streetcar system, constructed in 2001 has generated $3.5 billion dollars in urban development within a two-block radius from its route. Similar “Transit-Oriented Development” (or TOD) in Denver and cities across the country are being built next to transit because it provides easily accessible services and access to jobs without the need for a private vehicle. K-State’s landscape architecture classes undertook a study about what an urbanized Manhattan might look like in their “MKS Futures” program this past summer. Included in one of the proposals was a basic, roughly 3.5-mile long streetcar line that connected the campus with Aggieville, a proposed TOD site near the stadium, and downtown. Such a basic proposal would not cost much more than our downtown redevelopment project and could be used in conjunction with a smart, bus-based transit program to provide reliable, useful transit to the Flint Hills region, and to act as a starter system for increased service in the future. What MKS Futures proposed is not all that radical. Manhattan used to have streetcar transit linking the Fort and the University to downtown, and cities our size have been actively considering bringing back streetcars to the streets with the imminent increase in the price of gas. Cities like Kenosha, Wisconsin and Boise, Idaho have already implemented or are planning such systems.

We must be forward thinking as our population balloons. Where are all these people going to live, and how will all these people move given the confines our city provides? These are questions our city administrators must answer. Manhattan can and should be at the forefront of restoring transit to city streets and act as a beacon to good, sustainable, and working transit.

Brennan Walter

831 Pierre Street

I thought it was great, although I'm surprised at how very few comments I've gotten on it at school last Friday. My English teacher noticed it, as did a few of the librarians, but all-in-all I think only 6 people told me they saw that. I wrote one on urban development last year, and I got like half the class to notice it. Oh well.

Went off to debate at Shawnee Heights which is kind of in Topeka. That is, you drive through Topeka and then you gotta drive another half hour to get to the high school. Its in the middle of nowhere, and its huge! I hate going to SHS. You have to drive through suburb upon suburb and then through half of Shawnee County. We had a really nice bus a la USD 383's version of a coach. They call it an "activity bus" and its really nice looking. Apparently the district has two of them, but for a debate/ forensics team we've only gotten to use it twice. Mainly because there were no varsity "sports" going on this weekend. Our football team won the first round of the state bracket and is currently undefeated, so I doubt we'll get to use it again next month. I should have taken a picture.

Healthcare with a public option passed the house. Joseph Cao is my new favorite Republican.I think I need a list of them. The USCCB has some fun things to say about him. At least they support the bill in general.

Don't normally listen to hip-hop, but this has a good message. The Sargonites "Children of the Matrix"

-Thats it for now. I will post again... soon :D

In the city of Denver, in downtown, literally on the pedestrian mall/ 16th street, is a curved glass building that used to be home to the first Starbucks I've ever been to in Denver, and the Rocky Mountain News. RIP Rocky, I really did like the cool tabloid covers you had. The Denver Post is the only one left now, besides a right wing-extremist paper that no one subscribes too. Oh well. Anyway, The title of this post is called, the "Denver" post because the post is dealing with Denver, not because I really like the Denver Post, but because this is, in fact, a Denver.... post...

Anyway...

In the city of Denver, a few blocks from the downtown 16th Street pedestrian mall, is a rather imposing building in the Greek revival style. Around this building are hundreds of people with cameras, and numerous police cars. Its a pretty cool place.

In the city of Denver, a few feet from the downtown 16th Street pedestrian mall, is a rather imposing building in the Romanesque style. Around this building are much smaller numbers of people with cameras, and a police car or two, a large amount of buses, and trains - mostly late trains.

--------------------
These two buildings that exist downtown have an interesting similarity. Granted, they are both in the downtown, urban core (yay!), but the sheer purpose of these two buildings is much more, and the purpose of one of them mutually benefits the purpose of the other, and vice versa. In fact, the mutual benefit can save the entire economy.

What?

Yep...



What's Wrong?

The American economy is obviously struggling. As banks created more and more money out of thin air (after caps on how much this could occur were removed by the Bush Administration), making frivolous loans, the ability to repay the government for the money they ordered was lost. This is called a "bank FAIL" or, when your bank runs out of money, it can't make loans. And no bank WANTS to make a loan. Why would they? No one can pay anything back because they don't have a job because the company they worked for had to default on a loan because of bad banking practices giving loans to people who can't pay them back. Its a viscous circle, that continues to make itself worse. Thus, the late 2000's recession was born- the worst since 1929.

Reconstructing America

The two buildings that I mentioned earlier are, in short, the answer to our economic issues- Plain and simple. Conservatives argue that we can't possibly keep spending money to solve all of our problems, whilst democrats argue that we have to spend in order to save our businesses and our workers from certain failure- those same workers and businesses that require markets from Americans to stay buoyant. Thats where the first building, the federal mint, comes in. We must understand a few principals of our economy- that is, our money only has the value that our American citizens- and the citizens of the world put into it. The principal of a "balanced budget" in Washington is a bit of a misnomer, then, because as long as the dollar still has value, it will be used to purchase things. Now, I am all for fiscal discipline- don't get me wrong. We really do need to have an income for every dollar that is spent in Washington. But, for the most part, that isn't easy to do- Especially now that we're fighting a war and we have a huge economic crisis on our hands that requires government help to keep basic services and businesses providing millions jobs soluble. Yes, fiscal discipline is great and it prevents inflation as we saw during the Clinton Administration, but sometimes- especially in an economic hard time, we must spend more to get more.

Reconstructing America can, and arguably should be our foremost goal in approaching the solution to America's economic crisis. America's infrastructure is the key to making our industries and corperations tick. If our railroads, roads, bridges, airports, and public transportation systems were up to snuff, we'd all be moving more efficiently. We'd import less oil, soften the blow to our planet, decongest our roads, foster urban development and use suburban land for farming or sustainable development. But, that is an INCREDIBLE amount of infrastructure to build. Here's how all of it could be a single-fell swoop to save the economy, once and for all.

Aside: If WW2 got us out of the Great Depression, that means we'd produced millions of... stuff... and put millions of people to work making that stuff. This is similar.

Yes We Can

So, yes, millions of people, with jobs putting cash in their pockets, building the high speed rail system of tomorrow, building double-track mainlines to haul goods faster, more efficiently, all the equipment, locomotives, rolling stock, train stations, maintenance centers, the steel rails putting rust belt Americans back to work in the nation's steel mills- modernizing them because producing steel in the US, close to rapid demand for steel in large amounts is profitable- to Colorado, where gravel would be mined for road beds, to Maine, where Portland Cement would be poured to make the sleepers for the rails- to Detroit, where skilled auto workers again put locomotives together instead of cars, to Rhode Island, the nation's largest construction economy- building thousands of train stations throughout the nation.

All these people, industries, would have money in their pockets, would modernize and be able to compete in the global economy again like Germany after WW2- again, the USA would top the EU in GDP, and we'd do it efficiently. We'd save the economy, modernize our industries, making ourselves competitive again for businesses to move in, and maybe save the planet while we're at it. Sure, it'd cost billions, but the gratification for such a project would easily pay off in a decade after we're done. And surely in this time of war, if we can find all this money to kill people, we can find money to help people.

Why not print the new money on recycled paper, too?

My first attempt at a political reprieve is this: the plight of Global Warming.

First, this post is dedicated to my sister, Laura Walter, whose dedicated position on the detrimental effect that humans have had on climate in the last few decades.

The context of this post, is written entirely as a response to my cousin, Andrew Schecter, who in a recent post claimed that humans alone can't destroy the environment. The context of which, and the ensuing debate with my sister can be viewed here: Back to Basics
-----------

The problem with the entire debate, is failure on both sides of the argument to completely comprehend the entire issue at hand. However, the first step to solving a problem, as you know, is admitting you have one. This, the problem is that we haven't rectified that we are, in fact, at issue in the debate. In fact, numbers just make sense. Based on ice core samples being taken out of the antarctic ice sheets (which are falling apart into the Ocean), we can measure atmospheric Co2 levels all the way back to when Antarctica moved reciprocated into it's current position at the breakup of Pangaea. Now, the breakup of Pangaea was a long time ago, and it took some time for the magnetic poles to rotate to their current position, and for the continental drift to put Antarctica in that exact spot, but the point is, we have LOTS of data from the ice sheets of how Co2 levels compared to that of the modern day.



The graph on the right shows the average Co2 rates for the last few years. as you can see, the graph goes up, showing that the either the rate that we are dumping C02 into the air is rising, or the rate at which it is being absorbed is decreasing. Now, its probably attributed to both, but the rate, although misrepresented by the graph's scale, is great. The graph on the left, shows a larger range of dates, but we can see that during the same time period, and especially during the industrial revolution and the widespread use of the automobile vs. other forms of mass transportation (trains, trams, etc.) during the '60s and '70s correspond to a greater average world temperature. Now, although these two graphs were the easiest to find, others abound on the wide range of Al Gore's internet. Didn't he do a great job?
---
Andrew Schecter, the cousin of mine who incited this great debate, posed an interesting solution to the climate crisis in "Thawing Alaska-" hence, the name of this second post. The idea is, letting the world warm up to the point that global temperature, especially in the polar areas as it is already doing, melts the ice caps would create enough arable land to sustain a greater number of people on the earth. Cool. (no pun intended)

Methane gas is 10 times as potent as a greenhouse gas as that of Carbon Dioxide. Thus, the effect of putting one ppm of methane is equivalent of 10 ppm of Co2. If you accept the simple fact that rising C02 levels have a correlation with a higher average global temperature, a large amount of methane in the air would be a huge wake-up call.

Now lets think about this. If methane is a highly potent gas, shouldn't states with lots of methane be focused on more than states or causes of C02 pollution? Well, sadly no. The largest producer of methane in the entire world is not a factory, its the Ocean. The Ocean contains billions of tons of methane stored at the bottom of the ocean in the form of ice. Its frozen! However, large amounts of the potent gas are released into the atmosphere on a daily basis in areas where the Ocean is shallower and warmer, the most perfect example is that of the Bermuda Triangle. Oh yeah, Methane gas is also much lighter than water. Or, if water or air has incredibly high amounts of methane in it, you can't fly in it because there isn't enough atmospheric oxygen, and you certainly can't float in it because the pressure pushing back on your boat's hull isn't great enough to sustain buoyancy. Large releases of methane gas have been documented on film and are available on Youtube.

I've actually been a culprit of a mass methane release, when wading down a local creek, I stepped on some old leaves at the bottom of the creekbed, and gas started forcing itself to the surface in large amounts, and it became harder to walk in the water and get out.

Anyway, the Ocean releases a lot of methane into the air in the Bermuda triangle and I just found out that I'm really good about going off on a tangent.

The conclusions one can draw from this are astounding. Scientists speculate that the oceans need only rise, on average, 6 degrees for the deep-sea methane reserves to begin rushing to the surface. After that, they expect that the reaction from this would be so significant that the reaction wouldn't stop, and that so much of the sun's heat is trapped inside the atmosphere that the earth would turn into something exactly like the planet Venus. Until the methane dissipated out into space over millions of years, we'd just be a very, very hot ball of gas floating around the sun. Venus has water in its atmosphere, but no oceans... huh...

Even if these facts are extreme, imagine if the methane levels were not enough to drive us to Armageddon, but think of all the water that would come from melting Alaska. All the glaciers, and all the atmospheric ice. Everything.

An evil, liberal hippy hates San Francisco

Okay, so its Armageddon, but that is seriously what we're looking at if we go on not acknowledging we're part of the problem. Its not a lack of information- any of the facts I've just presented can be found at any worthwhile research institute. Kansas State's own environmental research station at the Konza Prairie has shown an average increase in temperature every year for the last several years- the facts are there, and so is a load of ignorance. My absolute favorite quote of all time ever and everywhere is this:

“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”
- Galileo Galilei

Use your minds, they were given to you by God to be used. God has endowed us with these facts and intelligence, not for us to refute him on His behalf, but so we can use them for His benefit. Don't you think God wants us to protect this thing he made for us? Think of the potential sins we've done in the simple ignorance of our own achievements!

Hey, This is Brennan Walter, and after years watching and listening to a number of various viewpoints, I've decided that I need, again, a little corner of the internets dedicated to me.

Updates

When this blog is launched tomorrow, April 25th, 2009- It will mark the beginning of something I hope that will continue for quite some time. Although I'm not going to dedicate myself to a rigorous schedule for posting, I think that this will be able to be updated as time allows, and as need arises.

Topics

The topical coverage of this blog will be largely political. I'm not going to lie. I have lots of things to rant about, but first setting everything up is the priority. I will probably cover mine, and other political opinions and point out weaknesses, hypocrisies, and just plain silly stuff. Religion will also play an important part of it, but for the most part, I'll consider this my place to have my own ideas published, recognized, and commented upon.

I look forward to coordinating with other blogs. My sister, of course, with her "Millards in the Mountains" and other family members and friends will all play huge rolls in deciphering the topic of the day. All in good fun, I hope :D

Personals

If anyone actually cares with whats going on in my life, A certain portion of this bog will be dedicated to my life, which is somewhat repetitive and boring... Oh well.

Name

The name of the blog is "The New Deal." This was proposed by my dear cousin Jenny Fairchild. Not only is this the "New Deal" in respects to the new blog, the "New Deal" policies of FDR and the Scandinavians during the Great Depression play on much of what is happening this time in America. A bit of "New Deal" economics would be a great refresher for me, at least- and eternal credits to my cousin for the amazing name.

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

Thats about it for this first post... I'm almost worried about pressing the "Publish post" button... its almost ominous...

Thanks,
Brennan