University Suckers

Saturday, April 29, 2006

Open Letter

By now I'm sure you've asked yourself: "If he hates what they are writing in the paper, why doesn't he just write letters to the editors." The Oracle has a strict policy on letters sent in to the editor, which must meet the requirements quoted below:
"Letters should not exceed 400 words in length. Letters must include name, major, and year in school. They also must include phone number and street address for verification purposes only. All letters are subject to editing for content, grammar, taste and length. All letters are published at the discretion of the editorial board. Only letters sent via email will be considered."

-For content? "Taste"? The only editing I see that is justified is editing for grammar, profanity, and possibly length; who wants and excessively long paper to be full of typos and trash? But content?! I wouldn't want The Oracle to edit my letter for "content" even if the edit made me agree with someone to the degree of one-millionth. And what is this "taste"? Is it stuff like profanity, or is it arbitrarily at the hands of the editor when it comes to their judgement? The reason I don't send in my letters to The Oracle is because of their eagerness to edit and limit the ideas someone concerned about the viewpoints that The Oracle is carelessly projecting, but on the other hand its writers are free to let people preach impossible dooms-day theories, cut down on successful businesses, speak superficially about economic theory and capitalism, and make shallow attempts to justify socialist medicine; the foolishness is inconceivable.


Friday, April 28, 2006

Zeus, The Boogeyman & Price Gouging

Hurricane Charley reveals flaws of free market - Opinion


"According to state statute, "price gouging" occurs when, during a state of emergency, the price charged for a "necessary" good or service exhibits a "gross disparity" with the average price of that good or service before the state of emergency was declared. The state has posted a Web site to draw attention to the crime and its $1,000 fine, and Attorney General Charlie Crist has filed lawsuits against two hotels."

-Price gouging does not exist in private business (Here). Whenever you pay for something, you willingly shell out the money because you feel that you are getting a fair exchange with your money for their product. You said the term "gross disparity"; well what is "gross disparity"? An arbitrary law without clear guidelines? Somehow this "law" reminds me about the anti-trust "law"...hmm...

"Today, the market is doing little for middle- and working-class Americans. It encourages growing income inequality, sending of jobs overseas, media consolidation, dependence on Middle Eastern oil and escalating environmental damage. Many Americans today need a number of things the market will never provide: A living wage, quality public schools and day care, a stable and affordable health-care system and the hope for a comfortable retirement. Perhaps now is a time to think seriously about a movement to empower government to protect its citizens from some of the excesses of the market..."

-From what I can tell, what you are complaining about comes from governmental interference that has already happened, and you are asking for more interference because you think it can solve the problem. This is not how it works. If true Laissez-Faire capitalism was established in America, none of the core issues that you named would truly matter. This "living wage" you speak of...what is it? "Quality public schools and day care", those institutions should be privatized, and finally a "stable and affordable health-care system and the hope for a comfortable retirement", because it's clearly the government's job to provide all of these. Psyche. The fact still remains that the individual is in charge of all of these issues; you choose how much you become educated, and on the same token, you choose what kind of retirement is ahead of you. Period. "Dependence on Middle Eastern oil and escalating environmental damage." An oil refinery has not been built in on American soil since the Carter administration -- over 30 years ago. A refinery has not been built because of environmental radicals and their reckless agenda that makes it next to impossible for human growth because of deceitful restrictions that organizations such as Earth Justice, Greenpeace, PETA, among numerous others, promote. Which is why prices went up immediately after the hurricane that rocked New Orleans; it destroyed one of America's only refineries. Demand is at an all time high, but we can't produce what we need because of foolish regulations. It is no wonder why we are so "dependent" on the Middle-East; we can't retrieve oil from our own country because, according to people like Sean Kinane, we create too much "environmental damage" and should save the wilderness by restricting the construction of more oil refineries.

Thursday, April 27, 2006

Guy Who Hates Technology Lectures Through Loud-Speaker

ULS-sponsored author to speak on anarchy - News


"Anarchy descends upon USF's Tampa campus this evening when the Alliance of Concerned Students and the University Lecture Series co-sponsor the appearance of author John Zerzan. Well known throughout the anarchist community, Zerzan works as an editor for Green Anarchy magazine and hosts an Anarchist radio program in Oregon."

-So USF is paying him? So, he's taking money from an establishment and using it; he can't be serious.

"Zerzan has stayed in contact with Kaczynski since his arrest, as cited in an interview from

"In my visits with Ted, I found him polite, friendly, very sharp and possessing a sense of humor," Zerzan said in an interview with "He certainly put on no airs whatsoever and has seemed a very patient and self-disciplined person. Lawyer Tony Serra and I agree: Ted is not crazy.""

-I love how he doesn't make it known that this man killed innocent people. "I found him polite, friendly, very sharp and possessing a sense of humor", is that relevant to him not being crazy? Someone being kind has nothing to do with their mental state; it just shows what kind of shabby logic Zerzan uses. It just shows how he draws conclusions, seemingly about everything, that are completely fictional because of his false premises, and innumerable fallacies.

"Zerzan was also involved in the World Trade Organization protests that caused damage to chain stores Starbucks and the Gap."

-Is that suppose to be an admirable action on his part? For him to willfully destroy someone elses property? Maybe it's me, but it sounds more like a crime.

"Zerzan has been lecturing around the country, promoting his idea of anarcho-primitivism. Anarcho-primitivism, according to a University Lecture Series pamphlet, "proposes that we should use prehistoric societies as models of how a free society should be constructed."

-"Proposes that we should use prehistoric societies as models of how a free society should be constructed" means the exact opposite of a free society. Anarchy is more similar to a monarchy than one would think; there's always someone in charge. Without individual rights, freedom, and independence, a free society cannot exist. Please tell me what's so "free" about an exponential growth in infant morality ratings? What's so "free" about not being able to get surgery, from lack of equipment & skill, when one needs it? What's so "free" about having to kill a bear with your barehands to get fed? What's so "free" about cavemen...LIVING IN CAVES? Zerzan is talking about a human race that built man up from mud-huts to the moon, and he's trying to convince the world that it's a horrible thing for man to become productive. "Zerzan has been lecturing around the country, promoting his idea of anarcho-primitivism.", let's see: Since he travels the country, I'm going to assume that he uses some form of travel, I'll go with the airplane option. While in the airport, he may grab something to eat at the concession stand. From the airport he gets in a car, and arrives at USF to tell the world of the "positive sides" of anarchy. It didn't dawn on him that man made the plane that he flew in, man made the food that he ate (and made it safe so he could eat it), and man made the car that he rode in; if I were to get into detail, I could name literally millions of things that were man-made that he engaged in from the airport to USF, from handrails to concrete. So he's using the things that he's against to convey the message of anarchism? What did he write his notes with for his lecture? Since Im sure that he wrote them with paper and pen, this man is a walking contradiction.

"I would say Anarchism is the attempt to eradicate all forms of domination," Zerzan said. "This includes not only such obvious forms such as the nation-state, with its routine use of violence and the force of law, and the corporation, with its institutionalized irresponsibility, but also such internalized forms as patriarchy, racism (and) homophobia."

-All forms of domination? He apparently forgot the form of domination where someone else from another cave has a bigger stick and can tell him what to do through force and force only. Corporations make things happen; they save millions of lives, they make life easier, they promote wealth and make the world go around. Is it "institutionalized irresponsibility" that drove a company to produce Zerzan's book, Against Civilization: A Reader? While we're asking questions, what's going to keep someone from killing another person only because of race or sexual preference in Zerzan's "perfect" society? I'll answer it for you; absolutely nothing. The only way that the problems Zerzan specifically named ("...such as the nation-state, with its routine use of violence and the force of law, and the corporation, with its institutionalized irresponsibility, but also such internalized forms as patriarchy, racism (and) homophobia.") can be completely eradicated is through unregulated capitalism; which happens to be in direct contrast with everything that Zerzan stands for.

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

"George Bush Doesn't Care About Black People; Of Course I Have No Proof, Look At What I Do For A Living"

Race viewed as reason for slow relief effort - News


"Black leaders on the USF campus have said that the federal government's relief efforts came slowly because the majority of the Katrina victims were African American."

-It is not the government's duty to provide relief to anyone. There is such a thing as insurance; but I suppose it's the governments fault (again) that the homeowners of New Orleans didn't have that either, right? As Dr. Michael J. Hurd puts it:

"Most will disagree with me that government insurance for natural disasters--popularly known as FEMA--should be discontinued. Many will say it's lacking in compassion to even think such a thing. Yet if there were no FEMA, and disaster insurance were left to the private market, people would be required to plan ahead. If the risk of living in an area like New Orleans--a known flood risk for nearly a century--were too expensive, then people would move to safer ground long before disaster hits. Instead, tens of thousands die."

Sounds good, except that people hate the free market for some reason. I'm in favor of saving lives, so therefore we can further conclude...

"Kanye West, a popular hip-hop artist, raised a swell of nationwide discussion when he said during a telethon on NBC that "George Bush doesn't care about black people." Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice commented, saying that it is ridiculous to think this is a race issue. According to a Wall Street Journal poll, West's opinion is a reflection of the opinions of many black Americans. Seventy percent of blacks and 27 percent of whites said that the federal government's response was slow because of the race of the majority of the victims. The poll also showed that 67 percent of white Americans and 27 percent of black Americans said race was not a factor. According to student body President Maxon Victor, there is no excuse for the slow response."

-Those numbers don't mean anything. How they "feel" has no bearing on the situation at all. There was once a time in American history when the government wasn't expected to step in; the more we lean towards socialism (welfare, eminent domain, Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, etc.) the more we will realize that it actually hurts America more than it helps. Everyone knows the condition of New Orleans before the hurricane. The sight of political leaders and rappers whining that people have a right to be taken care of, signifies that the people have no responsibility whatsoever for themselves. Kanye West also said that "I hate the way they portray us in the media. If you see a black family, it says they're looting. See a white family, it says they're looking for food." However, the last time I checked, you don't need six pairs of shoes or 25 t-shirts, footballs, heineken or miller-lite to survive.

"The government and everyone knows where the impoverished neighborhoods are," he said. According to Crystel Dawson, president of Black Student Union, it should have never taken five days for the government to respond.

"They're Americans," she said.

Even after the first week, Victor said the government still has not dealt with the major issues.

"Think socially what is going to happen to these impoverished neighborhoods," he said.

These areas were social disasters before Katrina devastated them, said Victor, who believes Bush never cared about these areas before."

-I don't care about those neighborhoods either; no one who thinks rationally should. Look at all the crimes that were committed before and after the hurricane struck; "...mass looting in New Orleans, assaults on people in shelters, the raping of girls, and shots being fired at helicopters that are trying to rescue people." Why should anyone care about vicious criminals? I would like to hear "what should have happened", please be sure to contact me with the action plan that should have been executed. After all of that settles, stealing and committing crimes is not a racial problem. It's purely psychological. Because your white does not guarantee that you will become successful; on the same token, being black does not guarantee living in a welfare state either.

"I am not a Bush hater; maybe a basher," he said.

While he said that he feels this was a race issue, Victor does not want anyone to think that he is against white people.

"I am against a system, not a people," he said.

"I'm not surprised," said Dawson. "It seems that we are always the last ones to get a response to social and economic issues.

"I'm from Miami, Florida. I lost my house during Hurricane Andrew. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) was in Miami the very next day to help," she said.

The difference between the two hurricanes was that the majority of the areas hit by Andrew were white, middle-class areas, and the majority of areas hit by Katrina were black, lower-class areas, Dawson said.

Blacks are not high on the priority list of the federal government, according to Dawson."

-How can the government be against black people if you were helped during hurricane Andrew? Because white people were the "majority"? I could have sworn that there were more hispanics in Miami than "whites"...hmm...Let's check the facts. According to Miami Population and Demographics, the total population of Miami for the year 2000 was 362470 citizens. A total of 238351 of those citizens (65.76%) were from all the Hispanic backgrounds; Cuban (123763 or 34.14%), Mexican (3669 or 1.01%), Puerto Rican (10257 or 2.83%) and any "other" Hispanic or Latino country (100662 or 27.77%). As for any non-Hispanic, non-white citizen, the statistic is 124119 or 34.24% of the entire population. The numbers for being a caucasian citizen were 42897 or 11.83% of the entire population of Miami. A total of 65.76% of Miami's population was Hispanic and only 11.83% of the population was white; how is this favorable to whites, if they only make up a little over one-tenth of the entire population of Miami? I do realize that hurricane Andrew did strike in 1992 and not in 2000, but the relevance of this article to those numbers is still a solid one. Besides that, everytime a hurricane develops and strikes the country, different procedures and action plans must be drawn up. You cannot expect to approach every natural disaster in the same manner. On another note, Dr. Michael J. Hurd states (again):

"Katrina is a genuine tragedy. It's fine for private cirtizens to help the victims of a tragedy, although I never read in the Constitution that it was a guaranteed right to be provided by tax dollars. Even so, what virtue is there in pretending that the aftermath of this hurricane is all the fault of the federal government for not "doing enough"? The federal government has encouraged, for decades now, a mindset of helplessness and government dependence by the very population hardest hit by this storm (poor, mostly black and welfare-dependent people, of which, we have sadly learned, there are many in the New Orleans area)."

-Self-reliance?! In America, the country founded on freedom?! We can't handle that kind of responsibility!

-I advise all who have read this article to also read: The Real Injustice in New Orleans: The Welfare State's Assault on the Productive Individual, Ammunition for Poverty Pimps, Despair in Disaster, Rebuilding New Orleans, and Rebuilding New Orleans -- and America.

Tuesday, April 25, 2006

Trees Are Worth More Than Humans...Right...

Students must choose between sustainability and collapse - Opinion


"At least three major ecological emergencies face our planet: global climate change, overpopulation and the unsustainable use of resources. All are interconnected and all can lead to societal collapse. The choices we make regarding these issues may determine whether our society will continue or fail."

-By saying "global climate change", you mean to weasel global warming in that definition. I'll tell you straight out, global warming does not exist. Well, 1997 Global Temperature Review: Sorry, No Global Warming, Are the Media Giving You the Whole Story on Global Warming?, Environmental Myth Report, Fact #2: The Most Reliable Temperature Data Show No Global Warming Trend, Global Hot Air, Global Lying, Global Warming and Hurricanes: Still No Connection, Global Warming Hot Air Courtesy of the U.N., Global Warming is More Scare than Science, Global Warming Speculation vs. Science: Just Ask the Experts, Global Warming vs. Prosperity, Global Warming Would Be Beneficial To Human Civilization, Global Warming, Melting Ice Caps and Rising Sea Levels, Global Warming: Fact and Myth, Hurricane Katrina and Global Warming, Hurricanes and Global Warming: Interview with Dr. James J. O'Brien, Hurricanes and Global Warming: Interview with Dr. Roy Spencer, Hurricanes and Global Warming: Interview with Meteorologist Dr. William Gray, Keeping Your Cool on Global Warming, Kyoto is Dead, Liars! Liars! Green Pants on Fire!, Mommy, There's A Monster Under My Bed! (A Review of Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths), More Than 15,000 Scientists Protest Kyoto Accord; Speak Out Against Global Warming Myth, New Year Begins with Old Green Lies, Open Water at the North Pole is Not a Result of Global Warming, Polar Ice Cap Studies Refute Catastrophic Global Warming Theories, Scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth's climate, Scientists Warn That Actions Based On Unverified Climate Models Is Premature, State of Fear by Michael Crichton: Exposing the Global Warming Sham, State of Fear: Michael Crichton and the End of Radical Environmentalism, Ten Things Everyone Ought To Know About Global Warming, The Day After Tomorrow: The Ice Age Cometh?, The Global Warming Hoax, The Kyoto Global Warming Conference: Who Cares Who Wins, As Long As America Loses, The Kyoto Politics, Round 2, The Myth of Catastrophic Global Warming, The New Religion is Global Warming, The Politics of Hurricanes and Global Warming, The Scientist Trap, and finally,
Why the Green Church of Environmentalism Has No Tolerance for Skeptics seem to be saying (with proof I may add) the exact opposite of what you preach. Be sure to read through all of these, just to get a feel for the truth, it may come in handy for you to use one day. What is this "overpopulation" that you speak of? Is it so bad that babies aren't dying as much as they used to? Is it so bad that people are enjoying life longer? Is it so bad that people are leading longer, more productive lives? While I'm asking questions, what does the "unsustainable use of resources" mean? I haven't seen anything resembling what you're saying at all happen.

"Many media outlets, politicians and business leaders irresponsibly paint human-caused climate change as "under debate" by scientists. This gives a platform for naysayers to complain about the financial costs of taking action, while refusing to acknowledge the huge costs resulting from climate change. Soon after taking office in 2001, President George W. Bush "unsigned" the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty calling for a reduction in the pollutants which cause global warming. In doing so, Bush wrote that Kyoto "would cause serious harm to the U.S. economy." But the contrary seems to be true; after recent devastating hurricanes, which were strengthened by the unusually warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico, we now know that there are substantial costs to not taking action to prevent global climate change."

-Apparently Bush is unable to do any good (at all) from your point of view; go ahead and check out the FACTS listed above and still , logically, try and keep your argumental foundation. Yeah, I've noticed too, there's nothing left to stand on.

"Despite a global population of 6.5 billion, overpopulation seems a taboo topic except in xenophobic circles. However, environmental alteration among overextended populations usually leads to resource depletion. This was a common phenomenon in many of the failed societies that Diamond studied, including some that were technologically advanced such as the Maya of Central America."

-"However, environmental alteration among overextended populations usually leads to resource depletion." Examples? Proof? The word usually?...Someone is stretching the truth...Again, dear reader, I encourage you to read the links above; they actually provide examples, proof, quotes from experts, and enforced natural evidence. I know from reading The Oracle, you are probably not used to such things, but get use to them because they're not going anywhere.

"If the wealthier nations of the world wish to avoid societal collapse, they must confront and solve the three grave, interrelated environmental crises of human-caused global climate change, overpopulation and unsustainable resource use."

-It sounds like another dooms-day revelation. Oh no. I'm so scared of something not proven to happen. "Societal collapse"; this is the exact type of terminology that is used to impede human progress and enhance the enviromentalist agenda; don't buy into it, it's all 100% fabricated crap.

The Conclusion:

-For all the things that mankind has done that's been good, it still boggles my mind of how people still try to predict these dooms-day theories. Did Rome fall because of the burning of fossil fuels? :)

Let's Fire Politicians Because They Don't Vote A Certain Way, It Will Totally Solve All Of Our Problems

Fire the Democrats who vote like Republicans - Opinion


"On Saturday, I received a letter from the office of Rep. Jim Davis, the member of the U.S. House of Representatives who ostensibly speaks for those in his district, myself included. It was a reply to a letter I wrote him asking why he had not started impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for acts they had committed since taking office in 2001. These include misleading the country into a war of aggression - Secretary General of the United Nations Kofi Annan said, "From the (United Nations) charter point of view, it (the war) was illegal" - encouraging torture, spying on Americans without a warrant, and other high crimes and misdemeanors. Davis replied he had not done anything because none of his colleagues have initiated the process yet. Davis' words were not those of a leader."

-Encouraging torture? What are these "other high crimes and misdemeanors" that you speak of? Do you smell that? I sure rhymes with "bullspit"... Using Dr. Thomas Sowell's example: "If a captured terrorist knows where a nuclear bomb has been planted in some American city, and when it is timed to go off, are millions of Americans to be allowed to be incinerated because we have become too squeamish to get that information out of him by whatever means are necessary?" Even if this wasn't the case, is it really intelligent to notify all the terrorists all over the world that they can remain silent when they are caught, without fear of their actions? As Dr. Sowell says again "There is no penalty for false claims but potentially deadly consequences for letting international terrorists tie up our legal system by exercising rights granted to American citizens and now thoughtlessly extended to people who are not American citizens and who are bent on killing American citizens and destroying American society."

"Davis, like Nelson, also voted for Bush's illegal war of aggression against the people of Iraq and continually votes for the obscene Pentagon budgets that fuel the Bush doctrine of expansionist militarism. Davis, like Nelson, voted for the Patriot Act during its first inception; however, he did not vote at all when the act came up for renewal."

-"Ilegal war of aggression"...that's funny. The "left" and the "right" shouldn't vote "certain" ways (the way that most of their party is voting) they should choose the most rational, logical alternative and go with it. For some reason you think they should be fired, which I think is laughable. You're obviously liberal, and you assume that anything your party does is automatically correct because they do it, and you agree with them. It would be nice if we could start talking about becoming humans (i.e. using our rational consciousness) and not this "robot" race that you obviously strive for.

"Others running for Davis' seat are less progressive. State Sen. Les Miller, D-Tampa, advocates using coal and nuclear power as energy sources. Another leading candidate, Hillsborough County Commissioner Kathy Castor, has been the only non-homophobic voice on the County Commission, yet shows she is not serious about the office by not mentioning the war in Iraq on her Web site."

-I see nothing wrong with nuclear power. It is the cleanest, safest, and cheapest way to provide energy to the masses. I don't see how those issues correlate with their political stance, but O.K. you're right.

Monday, April 24, 2006

Socialized Medicine Is A Bad Idea

Mandatory health insurance a good idea - Opinion


"For a long time, it seemed like a distant dream. Now, plans for universal health coverage are finally reaching the stage where they might become reality. In fact, they already have in Massachusetts."

-Socialized medicine does not work. Socialist anything doesn't work. You have to wait on waiting lists for months just for a basic operation.

"The MassHealth law, passed on Tuesday, aims to cover 95 percent of all of the state's uninsured residents by 2009 by requiring all residents to obtain health insurance by July 1, 2007. Among the provisions of the law are clauses mandating companies with 11 or more employees to offer health insurance, fining businesses that do not offer insurance and expanding the help provided to those who cannot afford insurance."

-How is forcing a company to do something moral? The government is forcing companies to offer health insurance, and they have to "help" the people who cannot afford it. If they cannot afford it, then they do not deserve to own it.

"Despite the obvious benefits of the plan, one of the most positive things to come out of the debate concerning the law is that both parties came together to negotiate an efficient plan advantageous to all citizens. Of course, hard to dismiss is the fact that the state was facing a loss of $385 million of federal Medicaid money if the Legislature did not reach an agreement by the deadline. Still, the cooperation of Democrats and Republicans, as well the plan itself, should serve as a guide to not only other states, but the federal government as well. Not often do the two parties so overwhelmingly agree on a single issue, yet that is exactly what America needs right now, during this time of war and economical instability."

-Just because both parties came to agree on something doesn't make it right (or a good-thing for that matter). What if both parties agreed to kill minorities, or anyone that didn't like? Would that still be a "positive thing"? So what are these "obvious benefits" that you speak of? I love how no proof is ever given. Let me give you the facts; as capmag's own Glenn Woiceshyn puts it:

"The failure of Canada's experiment with socialist medicine is readily apparent: long waiting lists and wait times for specialized services, conveyor-belt treatment for routine services, chronic shortages of family doctors and hospital beds, gross inefficiencies, slow innovation, stifling and wasteful bureaucracies, warring “special-interest” groups, and the exodus of good doctors to greener, freer pastures."

On top of all of that, the socialist government taxes over 50% of your entire income to support this "moral" medicine practice. America was founded on the views of freedom, individual rights and independence, socialism does not belong here. Save it for France.

"The passage of the bill blurs not only the lines between the parties, but also the lines between wider political views. In an interview with the New York Times, Romney said, "There really wasn't Republican or Democrat in this. People ask me if this is conservative or liberal, and my answer is yes. It's liberal in the sense that we're getting our citizens health insurance. It's conservative in that we're not getting a government takeover."

-How isn't the government taking over? By forcing companies to do something that they do want to, the government oversteps its boundaries once again.

"If the plan succeeds, let's hope other states take cue from Massachusetts. Universal, government-sponsored health plans have worked in other countries for decades, but a nation as big as the United States cannot handle the issue federally. The initiative needs to come from the states, and one has already stepped up to the plate."

-They've "worked"? Please tell me your definition of "worked". If by "worked" you mean that they have been nothing more than complete utter failures, then I guess I will accept your definition. America is about self-responsibility. If you don't have the funds then you do not get luxury items such as a ferrari, a house in the Hamptons, health insurance, an 80' yacht, etc.

Sunday, April 23, 2006

New Capitalism?

American debtors must find a new capitalism - Opinion


"Historically, America will not budge when it comes to protecting its right to capitalism."

-America won't budge? What about the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890? What about The Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914? How about the Robinson-Patman Act, or the Hart-Scoss-Rodino act? The FTC was setup in 1914, to do what you ask? To regulate trade. It seems that the government has only stifled the true genius of this system, which is unregulated trade.

"An increasing number of Americans are in debt, especially students. Financial aid is being cut while tuition is rising, leading to record numbers of students in debt, a large amount of which is credit card debt."

-What do you think the cure is for this? For the government to hand out money to everyone? To socialize the education system? Nothing in life is free; your primary education falls under that. As Thomas Sowell once said "There is no such thing as beneifts without cost." Some questions you may want to ask yourself, instead, are: "Why is tuition rising?", "What can I do to achieve more scholarships?", "Why am I completely ignorant of how the economy functions?", etc.

"At the same time, the government has actively catered to the credit card companies and made it harder for individuals to declare bankruptcy. This leaves credit card companies reaping profits while the people elected to represent citizens' interests sell off their rights. How is that for taxation without representation?"

-This is exactly what I meant by "baseless nonsense" that I added into my banner. When the facts arise that prove credit card companies are in some deeply entrenched conspiracy with the government, come talk to me. Even with that said, if the government is making it harder for people to declare bankruptcy, how are the credit card companies reaping the benefits? With bankruptcy, the government pays off the credit cards full debt (which is generally thousands of dollars); but if the person doesn't declare bankruptcy, the debtors will usually just pay the minimum payment. Now if you were in charge of the credit card company, would you rather the government pay you thousands of dollars directly, or have some dead-beat pay you a minimum payment of $25.72 monthly? With that said, why would the government, because of the credit card companies, make it harder to declare bankruptcy, when it benefits the credit card companies more? You also said that: "This leaves credit card companies reaping profits while the people elected to represent citizens' interests sell off their rights." What rights? The right to bankruptcy? Apparently you have this "right" to others money, just because the government labeled it as acceptable. You only have the right to what you earn, and as far as I can tell, it doesn't include my respect. On another note, how is what for taxation without representation? As far as I can tell, that sentence is completely irrelevant to this entire topic.

"Most of these individuals would hardly say they are "free," as they are trapped in paying off credit card bills and the like. Suddenly, paying the rent or buying groceries becomes so hard that goals the individual meant to pursue are no longer feasible."

-...What? Please tell me how they aren't free? If you look at the situation, they are free when it comes to using the credit card (i.e. paying with money that doesn't belong to them), but aren't free when it comes to paying for the money that they contractually agreed to pay? Something sounds a miss...They were also free to choose a better job that they know would bring in a higher salary. They were also free to do better in school, to guarantee themselves scholarships and grants. Freedom doesn't sound like the issue here; the issue is based around self-responsibility, or lack-there-of.

"Yet after the attacks of Sept. 11, President George W. Bush famously announced in an address to Congress that if citizens want to help the United States prevail, they should go shopping."

-You don't have to use credit cards when you shop.

"Another increasing problem is that many individual corporations now own every aspect of a product's path to a consumer. They no longer only make a product and sell it to a wholesaler; they now also have the means to hype the product on media outlets they own and sell the product in its own stores. This concept of vertical integration means a corporation makes more profit and can more effectively corner a market and freeze the competition even more."

-As my friend David Radford said in response to this section of the article: "I don't see how a corporation making more profit is a bad thing since those are passed down in the form of savings to the customer and pay to the worker. I don't understand how vertical integration can lead to "corner a market and freeze the competition even more." It sounds like a baseless assertion. It also benefits the stockholders as well. I especially can't see how they can corner a market if they want to burden themselves with the administrative costs of owning a means of production when they could just pay someone a smaller amount to produce it for them, also companies that choose to own their means of production at a higher cost will fall before companies that choose to go for cheaper productive means. His assertion has no ground to stand on whatsoever."

"Ironically, vertical integration is also one character trait of communist regimes, the key difference being that in a capitalist model, the company is privately owned. In effect, capitalism is even worse than a communist setting as the private company has no duty to the common good, only a duty to its shareholders."

-Capitalism is worse than communism? Why don't we stack the innocent dead and compare the numbers to the death of innocents in America? Maybe then you will be able to see what a complete failure communism is, but judging by what you said, I seriously doubt it. "Capitalism is bad"; how? Capitalism thrives on the freedom of the individual to make their future as prosperous as they deserve. Communism is a means to enslave an entire nation. America is (somewhat) capitalist, and we are the most productive nation in the world; now compare our success to the U.S.S.R, China, Cuba, North Korea; anywhere else communism took hold. Tell me that all the jobs, products, and dreams America produces are irrelevant. The only dream(s) that the slaves under communist rule can imagine are getting out from under their collective enslavement. I dare you to name only one country that thrived (thrives) through communism. You can't and you never will be able to. If a private company wants to stay in business, then this "common good" (which by the way is completely arbitrary; I'm going to assume you mean low prices, etc.) which you speak of, must be upheld. I doubt wal-mart would lower its prices because the shareholder's request it; they lower the prices to increase their customer base, thus earning more in accordance.

"Capitalism, or rather Americans' understanding of it, will therefore have to change, as the way it exists in today is unsustainable. While nobody would argue that the model should be abandoned altogether, America needs to re-evaluate how it allows capitalism to control its citizens' lives before the country creates a new way of feudalism in which corporations take the role of nobility or landowners of the past."

-What? Capitalism doesn't control the people; the people control capitalism through the economy. What the consumer buyers regulates the economy. How much they (the consumers) buy of a certain product regulates the economy. Capitalism wouldn't exist if people didn't. It doesn't control our lives at all, in fact, a life founded around the capitalistic system is better for all; I can only hope that one day you, and all the people who take the same stand towards the greatest economic achievement that has ever existed, will come to realize what a favorable and just system capitalism really is. You said that "Capitalism, or rather Americans' understanding of it, will therefore have to change, as the way it exists in today is unsustainable." I'd agree with you, but in the wrong manner. I know that capitalism is the best system when unchained, to run free of government regulation, while you apparently believe we should come up with a new model completely. It should be changed only by letting it run free, as intended.

The Conclusion:

-From what I can tell, this idea of "new capitalism" is nothing more than socialism. I hate to break the news to you, but it doesn't work. I like to refer to it as "watered-down communism"; let's face it, not everyone is equal. The government is not here to support people that don't feel like supporting themselves, period.