Hypography Science Forums: JOEBIALEK - Viewing Profile - Hypography Science Forums

On this 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, I would like to share my views on the issue of abortion.

Life begins at the point of conception. No one can deny that after a human being is conceived it will develop into the very same being as those debating this issue. What astounds me is that those who favor abortion went through an identical development stage as the being they are condemning to death. Would these very same people agree that a similiar choice should have been made about their own existence? Abortion today is used primarily as a birth control of convenience because people are too self-centered to take precautions. They prefer their own pleasurable self-indulgence over the care and sanctity of the life they created. What ever happened to taking responsibility for one's actions in this country? Is it too much to ask a woman who has conceived to place the child into adoption? Nine months of discomfort is nothing compared to life in prison for voluntary manslaughter! Does the father of the child have a say in this? And what about the constitution of the United States? Are not all people conceived in this country deserving of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? I believe abortion is a crime against humanity and should be outlawed. We need to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision and get back to cherishing life in this country. For a country that murders it's children cannot be far from self destruction.

Until recently I was an underwriter for a sub-prime mortgage company that is about to close. It seems that most media outlets and government officials fain ignorance about the real underlying cause of the problem. There is either a tendency to blame the borrower or act as though no one in the industry {or outside of it} saw this coming. They fail to mention that those who gained the most financially got off scot free while leaving the mess behind for everyone else to clean up. In my former company, the sales managers and loan officers "held the keys to the safe" while deciding which guidelines to ignore sometimes going so far as to bribe fellow underwriters to "look the other way". Sales managers often overrode an underwriter's decision they did not agree with. Other times fellow underwriters would be threatened with their job for "impeding company growth and progress" just because they refused to go along with the flagrant disregard of guidelines . I complained to the sales managers about the bribing but all I got was a formal write-up for making "inappropriate comments".


There was absolutely no support from the owner of the company all the way to the human resource representative. This company is as corrupt as they come. I can't tell you the number of sexual affairs that occurred between married and unmarried people; primarily among the management staff {at the workplace itself}. Promotions were strictly political thus moving people "up the ladder" who never proved themselves worthy or were on a final written warning to be terminated {for poor performance}. As a result of the corrupt management of this company, I and several hundred others were laid off. I believe the federal government needs to investigate this company and bring to trial those corrupt individuals who broke the law. This would set an example for the rest of the mortgage industry that absolute corruption corrupts absolutely.

According to Wikipedia {the free encyclopedia} "recycling is the reprocessing of materials into new products. Recycling generally prevents the waste of potentially useful materials, reduces the consumption of raw materials and reduces energy usage, and hence greenhouse gas emissions, compared to virgin production." The recent discussion concerning global warming has focused primarily on alternative sources of fuel for the purpose of transportation. However, another very important pro-environment tool is recycling. The effort needs to involve more than the consumer and the government. It needs to involve those who sell {and profit} from those products that can be recycled. For example, the manufactures of bottles and cans along with the producers of what's sold inside them as well as the grocery stores that distribute them must take on a greater economic role in the process of recycling. The voluntary "blue bag at the curb" approach is a good start but it relies primarily on the altruism of the consumer.

The question is: does the consumer bear sole responsibility for what happens to a can or bottle that contains the product used? or should some of that responsibility be borne by those who profit from its' use? Are these responsibilities being borne already and are they equitable? Some time ago bottlers would charge a five-cent "deposit" on a bottle to be "refunded" when the consumer returned the bottle. It would seem that this concept could be reoperationalized for a whole host of products. The consumer could clean the bottle or can, return it to the grocery story for a "refund" and the grocery store would return it to the producer then to the manufacturer etcetera each receiving a "refund" along the way. When all parties involved have an economic incentive to participate, recycling will make a much larger contribution towards preserving the environment.

Birthright is defined as a right, privilege, or possession, such as property, to which one is entitled by birth. In his article "Taking Luck Seriously" Matt Miller suggests that birthright results in the "inherited package of wealth, health, genes, looks, brains, talents and family." Approximately two-thirds {or more} of all wealth in the United States is inherited by birthright. In a recent study conducted at Ohio State University's Center for Human Resource Research, author Jay Zagorsky stated "Intelligence is not a factor for explaining wealth." Therefore, one may draw the conclusion that most business and political leaders are not intelligent. They did not earn their way into powerful positions but rather were manipulated into them because of birthright. This further begs the question: then why are they in charge? Why is it that our country is not run by the best and brightest? Does the merit system stop when one graduates from school? While intelligence is certainly not the only factor in determining who is most fit to lead our society, it is certainly a better measure than birthright. In over two hundred years the United States has failed at overcoming one of the biggest barriers to a just society. We refuse to find a way to limit the benefits of birthright and therefore make for a fairer {and better managed} society.

"A Decade of Executive Excess,'' the sixth annual survey of executive compensation by the Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy, finds the ratio of top executive to factory worker pay has exploded this decade from 42 to 1 in 1980 to 419 to 1 last year. Why are we paying these people so much more if they don't have the intelligence and will to act in our best interest? What tangible proof is there that top executives contribute that much more to the successful attainment of corporate goals? Why aren't these executives {Enron} given longer prison terms than car thieves? If intelligence determined corporate leadership rather than birthright, the compensation ratio would be much lower because smart leaders would recognize it as the right thing to do whereas those that are there by birthright simply don't know any better {or care}. It is this ignorance perpetuated by birthright that is leading this country to collapse. Perhaps someday our society will be lead by intelligent people who see their own best interest as having promoted society's best interest.

In response to the article appearing in most major newspapers across the country concerning the $8.4 billion profit reported by Exxon. Concern over profits by this oil company has brought about accusations of gouging the American consumer. According to the article, "CEOs from Exxon and its industry peers have already appeared twice at Senate hearings and were asked to justify their profits shortly after reporting them to shareholders." This has to be an American first. I have never heard of a company being called to justify it's profits. One wonders if an extension of this idea could be made to other companies in other industries as well.

Per the article, "Lawmakers believe the profits are made on the backs of consumers who are paying a national average of $2.91 a gallon - 68 cents more than last year. Exxon says a strong commodities market combined with fortuitous planning and prudent management are producing record numbers." This should make Americans ask the fundamental question: what is the difference between what a public non-profit utility company provides and what a private for-profit oil company provides? Afterall, they both sell energy to all United States citizens. The difference is that natural gas and electricity are sold in the form of a public good whereas oil is sold in the form of a private good. Accordingly, on the grounds of promoting national security, the United States Congress should convert all oil companies to utility companies. This would eliminate the windfall profits and force the oil industry to earn just enough income to cover operating expenses just as natural gas and electric utility companies are required to do. The resulting drop in gasoline prices would further stimulate the economy and lighten the energy stranglehold upon the United States by the Middle East. It would also eliminate the influence of the oil lobby. In this case, desperate times call for deliberate measures.