Very interesting when the officer get’s questioned by citizens standing by. More commentary and information links at the boing boing post where I found this.

Bad cop, no donut for you.

Image from here

A little over ten years ago, before debit cards became ubiquitous and people cared more about having actual bits of paper for the monetary worth, I had a discussion with a friend about how the world would  eventually move to a cashless society.   I argued over the cost and extent of such a venture going forward.   He did have one good point in his argument – anonymity.

He believed due to corruption (or anything else you wish to argue for) that there would always be cash money to allow for citizens to have an anonymous usage of money in society.   I had several more arguments going against this back then, but I couldn’t truly get around the anonymity factor, especially with small unmarked bills.  I don’t believe the anonymity factor is going to last too much longer though.

Enter in RFID dust, this effectively will destroy anonymity in a cash based society.   The technology was developed as an anti-counterfeiting method.   With this knowledge in hand we can make some assumptions.  The first is that the dust can be used to verify the authenticity of the bills.   The second, when it is truly embedded in the bills and not sprinkled into batches of money – that the RFID will contain a serial that will match the serial number on the bill itself.

If the dollar can “beacon” the serial number, then how does it become anonymous.   In theory before you use any paper money you could microwave it, but eventually that will no longer work either.  The next argument would be that only the government has the readers – this would be a “for how long argument”.   Think of the theft and tracking of the flow of money analysis that could be gained solely on a research perspective.  I can see in 20-30 years as the technology becomes cheaper and centralized databases are more available – that this type of tracking could be the norm.

I’ve written about software currently that can track the flow of money, there is no reason we wouldn’t be able to see real time tracking of every single penny in circulation by utilizing this technology.   The only thing stopping it right now is cost, which will drop.

Picture from here

I could pick on a few things actually, once again I didn’t vote for the guy, but I don’t absolutely detest him.   I’m in wait and see mode.  Ars Technica is reporting about Obama’s plead to push back the transition to digital TV.   If we look at the digital TV migration timeline, we can see the originally scheduled date was Dec. 31 2006.   Because of multiple issues it was pushed back and brings us to this upcoming Feb. 17th as the transition time.

We can argue that the government hasn’t done enough to inform the public or make it easy for the public, but I would argue otherwise.   I was well aware of this migration when it was first discussed over 10 years ago.   All in all the government has pushed out this transition longer then necessary.   You can say that’s it’s a good cautious thing they are doing by waiting and delaying, but every delay costs the tax payers more money.

If we truly want to get through this we need to pull the bandage off as quickly as possible.

At first you may think this post is because Barack Obama won last night, that doesn’t bother me.  I think he’s made history being the first Hawaiian president. We could go on that he’s the first african-american president, but that just puts us back into the same stereotype that made this a battle for him to get to the white house. He had a white parent and a black parent, truly a message to those in the future. Your future is not set by your heritage, but its what you make it yourself.

I knew my candidate wasn’t going to win, I wrote in a name of the only man in the last decade that has soundly spoken to me in politics. That being said I found out yesterday that my vote doesn’t count. Under Ohio state law, if you write in a candidate and that candidate has not registered as a write-in candidate, your vote is dropped and not counted. I legally don’t have a say in the president (or any other position) that has any matter or weight. In theory if everyone except one guy in Ohio performed a write (would never happen), someone could win the state with a total of one vote. This is the anti-thesis of a democracy. Each person is supposed to have one vote and one say.

My choices at the election are limited to candidates that others have decided would be one of the good choices for me to make. I’m not entitled to a true personal opinion. Essentially because I had to waste time to cast a vote that wasn’t counted I did more harm then good. I’m back to not voting ever again, until a politician speaks to me the same way my candidate did.

The people that say if I don’t vote I can’t complain. That is a load of crap. I’ve written about it before and I am writing about it again. Given the information I know now, if I was going to vote again I would do the same thing. Do I still have a say in your mind if I conscientiously write in a vote that I know will be dropped and not counted? I’ll vote for someone I can believe in, you can not tell me I can’t have an opinion or complaint because I don’t have that feeling towards one of the other candidates. You can’t tell me I don’t have a voice because I won’t vote on the lesser of what I consider evils and bad for America.

The ones that have apathy to vote, I can agree with you on. I however will only vote in what I believe in. Those that vote the party line without caring the actual issue or person, they are even worse. For the African -Americans that voted for Obama – I hope you enjoy the man and not the color of his skin. If his skin tone is what made you like him so much more you are wrong. For that voted for McCain because of the color of his skin (or more specifically Obama’s) you are also deeply wrong. The vote should not be about the ethnicity or gender of any candidate, it should not be whether they are republican, democrat, or any other party. It should be a judgment of who the person is. If you however voted for the person that spoke to you, whether you won or lost yesterday you voted correctly. If you voted for the major candidates, you have a voice.

I however, it seems, do not have a voice or a choice. It’s all because I refuse to subjugate myself to not having original thought. I knew I was not making a difference and not causing my candidate to win, but I voted with choice and conviction. I just think it’s wrong that you won’t listen to me, or allow me to have my say when it’s all said and done.

Image from here

Image from here

I voted today – I wrote in Ron Paul.   I didn’t vote for any democrats or republicans (I’m a registered republican) out side of Ron Paul.  Every other vote was for someone outside those two parties.   I don’t trust the Diebold machines they are using (I also think they are the ones banned in the Cleveland area).   There was hardly any privacy and someone with good eyes would have been able to see the printed verification page.  The voting took place in a church which despite the message of embracing hte community, I still feel violates the the seperation of church and state.

I wasn’t going to vote, and I probably will never vote again unless, someone inspires confidence in me like Ron Paul did.  Do I think that a write-in canidate has a snowball’s chance in winning?  No I don’t.  So essentially I just random picked people that weren’t in the primary parties for everything else, and more or less voted willy nilly on things – does this make it so I have a write to complain?  Too many people say you can’t complain if you don’t vote.  I call bullshit on that.   If it’s apathy and laziness, maybe your right.  If you make a concious and informed decision to be pigeonholed into a yes or no answer, into choosing the lesser of two evils, you may be right.

I have no faith in voting for president, I don’t trust the electoral college, I’m also voting in Ohio – so enough said on that side.  The whole process needs to be redone and sorted out.

Picture from here.

Looking at my access logs on the site I noticed a referral from this page.  At the top of the page it stated this:

Blogged without permission to: http://creeva.com/2008/08/08/i-cant-link-to-your-web-site-man-your-retarded/.

Now my first instinct was “What the Hell”, I then checked and verified this came up under a creative commons search and made a screenshot.

Now under creative commons that applicable (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs) (I searched to see what was allowed to do to the image after this came up) it states:

Under the following conditions:

• Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).

  Attribute this work:

  
  What does “Attribute this work” mean?

  The page you came from contained embedded licensing metadata, including how the creator wishes to be attributed for re-use. You can use the HTML here to cite the work. Doing so will also include metadata on your page so that others can find the original work as well.

• Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes.
• No Derivative Works. You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.

I did copy (well I linked to the photo on Flickr) and I distributed the work because it was embedded in a blog post.

The conditions:

Attribution – I followed the norm for creative commons licensed Flickr images which is to link to enclosing page where the picture is from.   No other conditions were specified by the creator, so I took the industry norm for such usage.

Noncommercial - Though someday I would like to get paid, my blog is a non-commercial work and I would testify under oath and in court that my blog has never netted a single penny into my bank account, into my pocket, and in any tangible meaningful way.

No derivative work – when speaking of the image I did not alter, transform, or build upon the image in any way.

Using this image like I did I was well within my legal rights.  I left this comment on the page:

You know you stated that this was blogged without permission to my site on the page http://creeva.com/2008/08/08/i-cant-link-to-your-web-site-man-your-retarded/

The problem with this is that you released your photo under creative commons.  For all my posts I only seach for flickr photos licensed via creative commons, just so I can use images legally.

I clearly underneath the photo linked back to this page which is attribution – I didn’t obfuscate, nor did I claim it was my original image.  If anything it was to help drive traffic back to your site since I didn’t want attribution given to me any way shape or form.

Now I don’t mind the fact that you state it’s blogged without permission, but this comes down to the fact that you licensed your photo under creative commons originally, and you don’t seem to understand the rights you’ve given up by this.  I’m not using this commercially, so I am within my right.

Please see this flickr search:

http://flickr.com/search/?q=Kitty+Reindeer&l=cc&ss=0&ct=0&w=all

and you can verify that this image is listed under creative commons use – or see this screenshot http://flickr.com/photos/creeva/2909390861/

Under more in depth searches – you are not allowing commercial use of this photograph, which I am not doing.   You are also not allowing anyone to modify, adapt, or build upon – which I also am not doing.

Also though Flickr allows you to remove a creative commons license legally once something is released under creative commons it’s eternally released and irrevocable.

While my first instinct was to remove this image I’m letting it stand because of the license you chose regardless of your understanding of the license.

If the creator had contacted me in any way shape or form this may have been a different issue and I may changed the image (at least on this site I don’t know if I could catch everywhere I crosspost to).   Now however since I am a firm and hard believed in public domain and creative commons rights for creators, it’s become a matter of principle.  If someone doesn’t understand what creative commons is, they shouldn’t use it otherwise they will loose rights that they thought they had.  I did not publish this in a book and made no commerical profits off htis image.  I followed the license as it was written and intended.   If the creator didn’t understand those rights, well that’s another issue.

According to Wired.com, the hacker who last week broke into Palin’s e-mail account has left the grand jury without an indictment.   Now the real question I have, how does a crime with such national exposure and high profile as this one go without punishment?

The only logical thing I can come up with is they snagged the wrong kid.  If they don’t have the wrong that doesn’t mean he won’t be indicted (which he should be), it just means more evidence needs to be presented.

I’m not saying the kid attempting this coup is wrong (though it is), the proper thing after suceeding would have been informing Palin.  Unfortunately he decided to post the login information on an online forum.  At that point is when all hell broke loose.

Since I just wrote about DHS pre-crime detector which shows if the the subject is being deceitful or is planning on doing something, I wonder if they are aiming it at this kid as he leaves the courtroom?

No Indictment Against Palin Hacker | Threat Level from Wired.com

Picture from here

Ars Technica is reporting that a school in Pennsyvania has suspended 2 students for creating a Myspace profile of their principal mocking him.  A federal judge upheld this ruling when they were sued by one of the students for suspending them for something they created on their own time outside of school.   Personally I find this disturbing on two fields.

The first I want to bring up is parody.  I’m not sure why they didn’t take the parody defense.   To their non-target audience I’m sure the language and style they used was reprehensible, and to the school district bordering in libel.   I however remember what it was like being a teenager, a time period that most adults don’t allow themselves to identify with once they age past it.  The key thing they need ot look at is the target audience.   It wouldn’t be truly fair to have a trial of teenagers to be judged by their “peers” and have the jury made up of people older then 25.   That seems to be the tipping point when the social norms of the next high school generation are lost on the adults.   The language is different.  The clothing is different.   The attitudes are different.  Unless a similar mindset can be understood by the jury, the teenager will loose almost every time in a “Damn kids don’t respect anything” moment.  I think parody would have been the correct defense.

Now let’s look at the freedom of speech angle.  There is quite a few that feel like I do that the traditional schooling these days is to extinguish individual thought and bring people around to “group think”.  We all have our moments when we feel group think is a good thing, most of that time is when group think agrees with what we are thinking.   However when a student has individual thought they seem to get punished.  About eight years ago my sister was almost suspended for going to school with pink hair.   The problem was that “it was a distraction” – really?  Life is all about distraction and things that block you from achieving your goals.   Work through it.   She (nor the boys in question from the beginning argument) hurt or threatened the life or welfare of those around them.   Even then it should be either handled by the police or if it happened in school, by the police and the school.

One of the arguments the defense used was that though the boys wrote the information outside of school, it was targeted at students in it.  Duh!  Almost the whole of their society is wrapped up in school.  They don’t really live work and interact within the community.  Their peer and focus groups are almost all inclusively within that school.  Of course it’s going to be their target audience.  The same way that writing an OP-Ed piece for the local community newspaper is targeted at that community.  It doesn’t matter if the person that wrote the piece technically lives outside the city borders, it’s still valid.  They are addressing their peer group.  What we have now is we are creating a society where it is considered to mock or question public figures.  If their are repercussions outside of the normal legal channels, students then gain a greater fear of authority then they should have.

Like work, there needs to be a seperation between a students personal lives and their work lives.   What I do on my own time is none of my works business.  When I am at work it is completely their business and I have to deal with anything that stems out of my decisions from there.   If this case was going after the libel or slander side of the coin, which is where it should have gone, it should not have been handled by removing the children from the school.  It should have been settled in the courts and outside of the venue of schools.   The biggest issue is while if I do something egregious outside of work that can have a negative effect on the company, I can get fired.  Schools however should not be allowed to fire or punish students on things that take place outside of their borders of jurisdiction, which end at the edge of school property.

It seems the news media broke the story about my last minute presidential run before I had a chance to announce it on my blog.  Watch the video below.

Picture from here

UPDATE:

A commenter below pointed out via snopes that this list is a fake.  Like the commentator stated I only wish Palin to be sunk on her own merits and don’t wish to spread more false accusations.   While I may not like any of the candidates I will only be spreading true stories as far as I can find them.   I’m sorry I didn’t research this thoroughly enough before i posted it.

It’s no real secret that I am very unhappy with both candidates in the race and will vote for neither.   I would Digg or post more things from the Obama side that showed some of the gaffes and issues, unfortunately it seems it is easier to dig up dirt on the republicans.   LiveLeak printed a story about the books that Palin wanted (wants) to ban.  I don’t believe in the banning of any material nor do I believe in censorship.   I believe this is at ethical odds with the freedom of speech.    So even though I consider myself a republican, I guess in Palin’s eyes I’m not a good one.   Let’s look over the ones I have read (read the article for the full list).

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
Blubber by Judy Blume
The Canterbury Tales by Chaucer
Carrie by Stephen King
Christine by Stephen King
Cujo by Stephen King
Day No Pigs Would Die by Robert Peck
Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller
Flowers For Algernon by Daniel Keyes
Forever by Judy Blume
Grendel by John Gardner
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone by J.K. Rowling
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets by J.K. Rowling
Harry Potter and the Prizoner of Azkaban by J.K. Rowling
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire by J.K. Rowling
How to Eat Fried Worms by Thomas Rockwell
Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl
Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman
Little Red Riding Hood by Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm
Lord of the Flies by William Golding
The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare
Night Chills by Dean Koontz
Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
The Pigman by Paul Zindel
The Shining by Stephen King
Tarzan of the Apes by Edgar Rice Burroughs
Then Again, Maybe I Won’t by Judy Blume
Twelfth Night by William Shakespeare
Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary by the Merriam-Webster Editorial Staff
The Witches by Roald Dahl

I guess with reading all of these books I must be too scarred and converted to be a republican.  I apologize for being dirtied by these words – or something.   I guess I should go start a book bonfire out back – then maybe I’ll fit in with the rest of the party.

Picture from here

Yesterday I saw and article about Barack Obama being the new number one person on Twitter.  If you don’t know what Twitter is, I don’t know how you managed to find my blog, but beyond that it’s a micro blogging site.  I’ve been on twitter for awhile now and I enjoy it, different people get different things out of it.

I was thinking about it this morning though, at what point is there going to be repurcussions from social network friends and followers.  I’m not talking about a senator tweeting “Out with the mistress for a hot time” and the press finding out about it (though in twenty years I can see that escaping the “Facebook Congress Edition” website.   I’m tlaking about Barack getting number one.   I know that NASA has multiple twitter accounts, do they follow Barack?  If they don’t what if Barack is really into Twitter, is he going to remember that NASA didn’t follow him and adjust their budget accordingly.  What about the Burea of Indian Affairs, are they his Facebook friend?

While this is all seems kind of silly now, it won’t necessarily be so in the future.   In twenty to thirty years the kids and teenagers of today that live and die by their online social networks are going ot be running for office.   Will their attention span be as short?  Will they be ones that think social networks are social networking in general is so important that they will remember who their friends were before their the election and act accordingly.   This is just pondering, but I am curious

Picture from here

I can say that so far as I know, my wife agrees with me in this election on my reasons for non-voting.  However no matter how we discuss the elections there is no real way to know what the other person is truly thinking.   In the 2004 election we debated and discussed the election to death and thought that we both knew who the other wanted in the election.

In that November we were watching the election results and talking about our candidate, but as the results came in one of us was happy the other upset.  What??????  How can this be?  We were watching OUR CANDIDATE.  The candidate we had BOTH been behind the previous months.   The election didn’t go the way at least one of us wanted.   Miscommunication?  Maybe.   Unless you have a lawn sign out though that your spouse put up and you agree with, don’t take it for granted, it’s all in the wordings and in between the lines.  Sometimes you miss the forest for the trees.

Picture from here

While the first thing I could say about why I’m not voting for president would be easy.   It’s the excuse I’ve used for years, I think the electoral college has co-opted the ideal of a true democracy.   We’ve been able to rise to the point with technologies and communications that one person equals one vote can actually mean something in this country.   While we do have a representative government this by no means equates to a need to a representative voting across the board.   Once the electoral college is abolished in his current state, and it becomes just an agency that overseas the election results and verifies them – then we can free and open elections that can actually give power to the people.   Currently in a multitude of scenarios your vote doesn’t matter.   Are you a republican in a 90% democrat voting district – sorry your vote doesn’t count outside of the district.  Your a democrat in a republican district?  Same sorry luck for you.  One vote for over person should mean something.

The second reason I could say is that neither candidates that I wanted received their nominations.   Yes I supported one from each party and at this point who they were doesn’t matter (Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich), since I won’t get a chance to vote for either of them, I may be registered as a republican but I would vote for whoever holds my closest ideals.   Unfortunately the ones I wanted aren’t coming along for the ride.

The real reason?  Well we compound the first two reasons and come up with another.   I don’t like any of the candidates.  Some people would say since I’m not going to vote that I don’t have a say.  That I can’t complain about who wins.   I call bull on that.   I have every right to my opinion and will voice it.   I don’t think I should be forced to decide who I hate the least to run the country to be a good citizens.  If your candidates gives you something you can identify with and something you can believe in – I congratulate you and encourage you to vote.   My non vote is my own way of expressing my opinion – I encourage you not to vote also if you feel you are choosing between the lesser of two evils instead of the greater of two goods (which is how it should be).

I want people just to be.   It’s that simple we are all equal and different.  Pointing out the differences, whatever our meaning, brings about one group hating another group, because the other group stands for something they are against.   I think that people need to stop voting the party line, there is no possible way every democrat or every republican can believe everything their parties believe in.   Of course many people will only vote for their own parties.   We treat this like a game, that the parties are football heroes and elections are games.  The presidential election of course would be the party’s superbowl.

We should not be behidn the parties like it is a game.  This is about leadership and our future.   If you say you would never vote for the opposite party then the one you think you belong in, well I’m sorry you are as narrow minded and idiotic as anyone whoever put sheets on their head and terrorized African-Americans for the sake of moral safety and decency.   Fighting for your party or candidate is a great thing, make sure you do it for the right reasons.

The kids were all heroic — all but a semi-heroic member of their troupe named Eric. Eric was a whiner, a complainer, a guy who didn’t like to go along with whatever the others wanted to do. Usually, he would grudgingly agree to participate, and it would always turn out well, and Eric would be glad he joined in. He was the one thing I really didn’t like about the show.

Now, I won’t make the leap to charge that gang activity, of the Crips and Bloods variety, increased on account of these programs. That influential, I don’t believe a cartoon show could ever be. I just think that “pro-social” message was bogus and ill-conceived. End of confession.

The Constitution states:

“No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.” – Article 1, Section 9

Rudy Giuliani is running for the highest office in the land and he has been knighted by the Queen of England. This knighthood, called “Knight Commander of the British Empire”, was bestowed on Rudy Giuliani on February 13, 2002.

I had read about this clause before but was unaware that Giuliani actually had such a title. Like the author of the linked article writes – Giuliani must drop out of the race or repudiate his title from England.

This article discusses the tech strategy of some of our presidential hopefuls:

Highlights

Senator Clinton has proposed creating a $50 billion national alternative-energy investment fund and increasing basic research budgets at key federal agencies by 50% over the next decade.

With the effects we are seeing in private industry research and the prevalence of people’s awareness and willingness to use alternative energy – why does this need to be a government investment. This should be done to allow the free market decide and innovate. Currently in the tech sector there is no stagnation that government needs to spend money on trying to get perceived innovation – the innovation is already happening.

Senator Obama has posited wider broadband penetration as a way to create job opportunities for the urban poor and says he’ll overhaul fees the government charges phone companies to pay for it.

Reducing fees and allowing the market to establish the way to do this – I also find no fault on holding the companies to actually do this if they want a fee reduction. There should be a term limit on this fee reduction with oversight of how compliant is the companies receiving this are.

McCain favors peeling back layers of Federal Communications Commission regulations to promote competition in Internet services.

The correct method is always less spending by the government or more freedom for companies (as long as they are not breaking hte law).

Edwards has proposed an alternative-energy fund to promote wind and solar power, and biofuel to make cars and trucks more efficient.

We are back to spending for innovation that is evolutionary and going to take place anyways – there is no reason to have the government invest in this when it is going to happen anyways.

Romney has said the country needs to invest heavily in new technology for power generation, nanotechnology, and creating new industrial materials.

We are back to the investing – tax credits and fee reduction are the ways to do this – reducing the amount of money into the government and staying with the companies reduces costs to the tax payers for the bureaucrats payroll that would administer this fund. Let’s please take the initiative so the government needs to have the least involvement and smallest pay roll possible as it saves us all money in the long run.

Obama, Edwards, and McCain have been most explicit on patent reform. Obama’s campaign says such a law would promote more scientific research and discourage excessive litigation.

There really is no way to reduce litigation without getting more explicit in the patent detailings. While patent reform needs to take place – I feel it involves more how a normal person can receive a patent without the help of big business behind them and allow them to leverage that patent as easily as big business.

Edwards’ campaign says he would create a national plan whereby the government pays for a year of public college for more than 2 million students who take college-prep courses in high school, work part-time during college, and stay out of trouble.

Why are we paying for this – do all of us that have finished college or gone int he past get a credit? There should be methods in dealing with the colleges – especially the State schools for cost reform instead of paying for students to go.

To figure out the cost to tax the payers – 2,000,000 x 30,000 (if they are going to a state school) 60,000,000,000 – which is 60 billion dollars. What taxes are going to increase to pay for this? The nation is already in debt over the Iraq war – we need to decrease spending until we get a balanced budget.

My biggest problem with this piece over all is that they didn’t mention Ron Paul once. You can say they only did the top tier candidates, but McCain looks like he doesn’t have a chance. Ron Paul is considered the most friendly of nominees that the tech industry likes.

In full disclosure – though not the basis of this post – I’m a Ron Paul Supporter – that being said let’s move on because that’s not why I’m writing this piece.

Reagan was heavily distrustful of career politicians. He ran out of urging of the people nothing more. When he was first on the republican ticket as a favorite son, then later when he tried to get the nomination he did so at others urging. He realized it was the voice of the people that wanted him. He believed that it was the people who chose a man whether they wanted the position or not.

The Romney family in comparison is a long line of career politicians. While we hold families like the Kennedy’s in high esteem because they are essentially royalty, the American people need to learn that we can not trust elected official who were never in the trenches with the common man. The silver spoon electorates that more or less have a destiny in public office at birth need to be stopped. We need more common men that have successfully lived the American dream before we they can fully understand the needs of the people they govern.

Mitt Romney may not be a bad guy. He may not have bad ideals – but essentially we are opening the door to his children and grandchildren to enter public office. The American people once stood up and faced against a monarchy, we can not allow these pseudo monarchies full of lords and barons that essentially own their feudal lands in which they reside .

I can say that if Mitt Romney wins the nomination I don’t care if it’s Hillary or Obama that wins the democrat nomination – I will vote democrat. Living in Ohio I can say my vote counts for something since we are not a hard blue or red state – we are pinkish though.

We need to follow the ideals of our forefathers and reject these monarchies as they arise. These people are taught early on to say things we want to hear and appear to be good even if they are not. They have learned well from the teachings of Machiavelli. Anyone coming from a long lined political family should be immediately treated with more scrutiny then the other canidates.

Reagan coerced and persuaded people into office that didn’t want to be there. He was always extremely suspect of people that did. We especially don’t need another president that is trying to finish everything their father failed to do.