http://www.thelunchbreakblog.com/news-commentary/en-USSquarespace Site Server v5.11.81 (http://www.squarespace.com/)Lady GodivaTue, 22 May 2012 14:55:27 +0000http://www.thelunchbreakblog.com/news-commentary/2012/5/15/jpmorgan-loss-shows-wall-street-remains-unreformed.html#comments359926:5520508:comment/18186077
Our country's priorities are so out of whack we might as well become used to being perpetual dependents on a god-forsaken Congress that cares only about itself and HOPE in the meantime we get some bread and spare change.

But hey, at least we can marry within the same-sex. That's the important thing.]]>James DuganTue, 15 May 2012 23:58:36 +0000http://www.thelunchbreakblog.com/news-commentary/2012/5/15/jpmorgan-loss-shows-wall-street-remains-unreformed.html#comments359926:5520508:comment/18103491
Good piece on the dsyfunction -- and the cycle of mismanagement and corruption through government and Wall Street. Time for the Occupiers to come back.

How could they say it was just their profits? What does that even mean? Did you hear about Yahoo's 4 CEO in 5 years? Put all your money in Facebook. The Government will bail them out too.]]>Nick CarrawayFri, 11 May 2012 06:21:50 +0000http://www.thelunchbreakblog.com/news-commentary/2012/5/10/the-politics-of-the-gay-marriage-issue.html#comments359926:5520508:comment/18059977
But in practical terms, what is the result of the Obama administration's well-coordinated PR campaign? The president is only now articulating a view that he likely has had for a long time judging by his positions on DOMA and Don't Ask, Don't Tell. He just waited until an election year to announce it, but will he push for any laws to be introduced to protect gay marriage? Will a constitutional amendment be passed? The answer is no.

This whole issue is just to fire up the bases of each party, but words do not equate into action. When you look beyond the words of the two candidates, they both seem intent on the same course of action. Obama says his personal position on gay marriage has evolved, but he won't make repealing DOMA a part of his platform. The Republican candidate intends to do pretty much the same thing, but spins his words differently. Romney argues for full equality for gays and lesbians, but he doesn't want to call civil unions marriages. So other than semantics, what's the difference in policy? Neither Obama or Romney seem prepared to actually advocate for change.

I like how you referenced the founding fathers and the federalist debate, because this age old battle between government power and individual rights continues to play out in the present day. Call me cynical, but I don't think that any of the presidential candidates really care about broadening civil rights for gay and lesbian couples, or vice versa defending traditional marriage. I think they are primarily concerned with attaining more power for themselves. The aspiring tyrants in our government love playing this game of pretending that it is they who grant some people rights, and deny them to others. This is not only false, but it creates enough division to distract citizens from seeing government's actual failings. Obama and his ilk know that if we really looked into what the government was doing (Operation Fast and Furious just to name one), they would get thrown out of office real quick. In reality, all rights come from a higher power as outlined by our founding fathers, and any government who pretends to want to impose this divine will on the masses likely has the ulterior motive of manipulating the debate consolidating power for themselves.

Finally, let's not dance around the underlying issue here: religion. How can two presidential candidates both claiming to be Christians come down on opposite sides of this issue when historically Christianity has opposed gay marriage? Oh wait, it's because different people can interpret the same religion in different ways. Compare Joseph Smith vs. Jeremiah Wright. Should one man's religious interpretation be sanctioned by government while the others is not? Clearly no. Well, can't we have the religious majority impose their view on the minority? Also no. The protection of the rights of the political minority was clearly precious to our founding father's based on our system of checks and balances.

So what's the answer: Government stay out of it! Let grown men and women choose what they want to do with their lives as long as they aren't negatively impacting others. Whether they choose good or evil, paper or plastic, side salad or fries, let them reap the natural consequences of their actions. How about Obama and Romney focus on paying off the $15 trillion in debt owed by the taxpayers or at least fix some potholes instead of exalting themselves in the illusion of their power to grant rights that were never theirs to give.

Anyway, that's my rant. Thanks for the post and the perspective.]]>James DuganThu, 10 May 2012 20:50:05 +0000http://www.thelunchbreakblog.com/news-commentary/2012/5/10/the-politics-of-the-gay-marriage-issue.html#comments359926:5520508:comment/18058167
"I was distressed that the granting and protecting of rights should become such a trigger point for the people of our country. I was distressed when allowing people to move freely through difficult and sometimes painful lives becomes a point of contention."

This was a strong line that unfolds your argument like a dinner napkin. When did we stop thinking that individuals should have control over their personal and community decisions. When North Carolina speaks, the individuals of North Carolina are disbanded for uniform voice. Their legislature looks tyrranical and insensitive and all we can do is shake our heads in disbelief that educated people, born in a country set on freedoms, would deny action that has nothing to do with safety or public good.

When the President said this will not stand, he speaks for all of us who believes that individual's well being and happiness is not an impediment to good government, but a compass to guide our government's decisions. We should always be looking at giving the American people more freedoms and not limiting our relationships.

Whether you believe in gay marriage or not, it is not for state, country, or neighbor to decide for you. I am glad you made this point evident.

Thanks for the lunch and welcome.]]>Patrick EdmondsThu, 10 May 2012 01:00:45 +0000http://www.thelunchbreakblog.com/news-commentary/2012/5/8/courting-disaster-the-weak-impact-fee-leaves-pa-vulnerable-t.html#comments359926:5520508:comment/18054079Nick CarrawayWed, 09 May 2012 07:07:27 +0000http://www.thelunchbreakblog.com/news-commentary/2012/5/8/courting-disaster-the-weak-impact-fee-leaves-pa-vulnerable-t.html#comments359926:5520508:comment/18049983
I agree that all levels of government need to be engaged to promote environmental responsibility, but it's not like careless, disaster-inducing work is in the best interest of the energy companies. I would think that with the big money invested in new technology, ExxonMobil and others are heavily invested in avoiding another public disaster when there's a lucrative new energy source involved. Maybe this is naive, but it's no more speculation than the wild premonitions of disaster you propose above. In short, let's base our predictions in fact, not fear.]]>Patrick EdmondsFri, 20 Apr 2012 02:18:13 +0000http://www.thelunchbreakblog.com/news-commentary/2012/4/18/harvard-for-free-the-internet-siren-strikes-again.html#comments359926:5520508:comment/17736447Nick CarrawayThu, 19 Apr 2012 06:24:22 +0000http://www.thelunchbreakblog.com/news-commentary/2012/4/18/harvard-for-free-the-internet-siren-strikes-again.html#comments359926:5520508:comment/17665309Nick CarrawayFri, 13 Apr 2012 04:12:04 +0000http://www.thelunchbreakblog.com/news-commentary/2012/4/12/top-5-ways-to-promote-a-new-business.html#comments359926:5520508:comment/17595193James DuganFri, 13 Apr 2012 00:57:52 +0000http://www.thelunchbreakblog.com/news-commentary/2012/4/12/top-5-ways-to-promote-a-new-business.html#comments359926:5520508:comment/17594378
Loans allow for advertisers but these ideas you present are low cost and effective ways to promote your business to a level where you may have confidence to expand. I feel more and more people are trying to set up their own business and with the platform of the personal computer and social networking, more and more people are being successful.

Good post and discussion for lunch.]]>