Voice Recognition Microphones

Question: My consumer has a Compaq computer with Vista and wants to start using the voice activated software and is asking what is the best microphone to use.  Any suggestions?

Answer: The biggest question which you didn’t mention was what are the physical abilities and specific needs of your consumer that you are trying to help?  That will determine what is the most appropriate for their needs. For example, for someone with limited dexterity similar to myself who cannot put a headset based close talk Mic on and take it off by themselves, it becomes a tether tying you to the computer and really reduces your freedom to pull up to the computer start working independently and pull away again when you want to.

As a point of background, I all of my business is done using Dragon, from the website development to writing this e-mail, and of course supporting our customers who use it. Prior to my plane crash, I used to teach software quality test automation and quality verification to a lot of high-tech companies.  I actually put together a Bluetooth package quite a few years ago for Dragon long before it was ever officially supported what I was doing some freelance testing and quality verification for a Bluetooth headset company as an independent consultant before starting Broadened Horizons.  However there are a number of downsides to Bluetooth.  It’s an analog technology which means as you move away from the computer often as little as 5 to 10 feet the signal quality drops off significantly.  There are quite a few steps to getting it set up and making sure everything in Windows is configured properly, which for some users but at least for many of our end-users was a challenge.  Over the years I’ve tested and personally used countless microphones.  Many perform pretty well depending on the circumstances and environment.

We (Broadened Horizons) currently offer a few different fairly inexpensive yet unique USB microphones that I’ve found perform as good or better than much more expensive mic models and offer some neat unique features.  We have a very popular desktop Mic on a long flex arm that can be positioned just in front of the speaker’s mouth yet given the freedom to pull up the computer and pull away again independently.  I only recommend digital USB, not anything analog that plugs into the microphone sound card port available on many computers, which can significantly vary in performance and quality.
http://www.broadenedhorizons.com/usbmicrophone.htm

I replaced the Bluetooth kit of the past with a wireless microphone that uses digital technology which we

del.icio.us Tags: Voice recognition,voice control,Dragon NaturallySpeaking,computer accessibility

call the TalkFar.  What that means is you have a perfect signal out to about 100 feet that travels very well even through brick walls and the like, and when the signal drops off you have no signal at all.  This is an important point for Dragon.  Also you simply plug the base into the computer’s USB port and it sets up everything automatically-no drivers are settings to deal with.  Also, having a Bluetooth headset on your ear is not the ideal position for voice recognition.  The Bluetooth package I used offer I recommended people hang it around their neck just below their chin on this little recharging holstered snapped in two.  With the TalkFar is about the size of an egg and similarly conveniently hangs around your neck somewhat like a pendant.  It also has a headset jack so you can listen to music wirelessly, use it with Skype to talk as you move around your home, and is much easier to take on and off than a headset for someone with limited dexterity.  We even offer a inexpensive software application that gives you complete voice control over all of your media on your computer while you move around your home or office wirelessly.  And most importantly as I mentioned the quality is much better than Bluetooth.
http://www.broadenedhorizons.com/wireless_microphone.htm

We also have aimed less expensive economy USB pencil desktop mic and a new USB headset that comfortably wraps around the back of the headset of over it.
http://www.broadenedhorizons.com/computeraccessibility.htm#microphones_cost_effective_cordless

Finally, I’d like to comment for everyone on all of the microphones described as “noise canceling”.  This is kind of a misnomer that has been perpetuated throughout the industry and one that I’m even guilty of simply because everyone’s used to seeing it and use it as a point of comparison.  As a pilot I used to use actual, “real” noise canceling headsets before the plane crash (Full Story).  “Real” noise canceling headsets have sophisticated electronics that look for a repetitive noise signal or sound wave such as from a very noisy airplane engine and propeller, farm equipment, etc. and then input and opposite negative sound wave to cancel the “noise” one out.  Voices and other non-repetitive sounds are not canceled out.  Those headsets and/or the electronics associated with them often cost upwards of $600-$800 minimum.  Also it is important that noise canceling must have a very repetitive noise to be able to effectively cancel it.  There is nothing that will cancel out another speaker’s voice in the room as the microphone would have no way to determine between the primary speaker and another or even a TV for that matter.  Microphones come in a few typical varieties.  Omnidirectional and unidirectional.  Unidirectional tend to “focus” their attention in one direction which may help to ignore extraneous sounds coming from other areas or directions, but often not significantly and they will still pick up other sounds.  A close talk headset simply hasbeen very low gain on the microphone so it tends to only hear the person talking whose mouth is very close to it.  The idea is it won’t pick up many of the other sounds farther away unless they are fairly loud.  So they somewhat help ignore other sounds but don’t really cancel them out by any means.

I hope that helps provide additional insights on microphones to those who are interested in the subject.  Of course there are many other people far more knowledgeable than I who actually design the microphones themselves and I’m sure will could probably tell you much more….

Mark Felling
President, Broadened Horizons GimpGear
Quadriplegic Engineer, Inventor, MBA

del.icio.us Tags: Voice Recognition,Voice Activation,Dragon NaturallySpeaking,Computer Accessibility

Economic Bailout – you can’t simply bandage and gangrene filled wound!

I’ve been speaking out against the bank bailouts since I heard the first media coverage and now with even more fervor against the bailout of the auto industry.  Where will it stop?

Sure the numbers sounds scary.  But who’s can pay the salaries when the products don’t sell?  As Perry Marshall asks below, what follows, a law that requires us to buy automobiles from American carmakers now funded by us the taxpayers through the government?

An inefficient business is doomed to failure.  All of those workers are very well-trained and have excellent skills.  Smarter, more efficient entrepreneurs will buy up the pieces and start producing the new automobiles of the future, employing those highly skilled American auto workers in new businesses that have excellent, viable products to sell!  Sure it will hurt really bad in the short term but it will be a heck of a lot better in the long term!  No matter how many times you bandage a wound filled with gangrene, it’s better to lose the toe now than the whole leg or even your life if you wait too long! This is the fundamental essence of the American economy what has driven/allowed it to be the world’s strongest.  Not government bailouts!

Perry Marshall is a far more eloquent writer than myself.  He is an expert and consultant to small and medium businesses, entrepreneurs, the movers and shakers of our economy!  I loved his comments in a recent message to his e-mail list subscribers.

——————
The US auto industry is gasping for breath, General Motors is
wheezing like a dying animal, and there’s a line of companies
in Washington attempting to lay their hands on that tasty
$700 billion.

Everybody’s a capitalist until it’s time to eliminate the losers,
eh? Then suddenly our elected officials alarm us with dire
warnings about what will happen if we let these companies
fail.

Karl Marx is back with us once again.

What’s next? A law that requires us to buy all cars from
General Motors, Ford and Chrysler? Hey… maybe we can be
like Russia and have a single, state-run car company that provides
everyone with a secure job, based on 5-year economic growth
plans from the Kremlin and a controlled economy.

(The cars will be horribly unreliable but you’ll still be able to buy
spare parts on the black market…)

Those of us who start businesses and risk everything and
stare down our fear and make sacrifices don’t find the
prospect of failure to be particularly alarming. If we have to
deal with it every single day (yawn), why shouldn’t they deal
with it too, at least every now and then?

But ‘they’ are not used to failure. So when THEIR lives get
risky, they start calling and writing their congressmen.
You and me though?

We know we just have to go out and sell something.
A cool thing happened at my church this morning. Ian, the
guy who was speaking today, said, “I want everyone in the
room who is in sales or marketing or who owns a business
to stand up.” Various people including me and Laura stand up
and he says, “We’re gonna pray for all of you. For rain in a
time of drought.”

It sure is nice to be part of a community that appreciates and
supports the important things that we do. Ian knows that everyone
else ultimately relies on the sales people and the entrepreneurs
to feed the food chain so everyone has what they need, to take
care of ourselves and others.

del.icio.us Tags: Politics,economics,business,economic bailout,General Motors bailout,Perry Marshall

McCain Economics

Over the weekend, John McCain’s top adviser announced their plan to
stop engaging in a debate over the economy and “turn the page” to more
direct, personal attacks on Barack Obama.

In the middle of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression,
they want to change the subject from the central question of this
election. Perhaps because the policies McCain supported these past
eight years and wants to continue are pretty hard to defend.

But it’s not just McCain’s role in the current crisis that they’re
avoiding. The backward economic philosophy and culture of corruption
that helped create the current crisis are looking more and more like
the other major financial crisis of our time.

During the savings and loan crisis of the late ’80s and early ’90s,
McCain’s political favors and aggressive support for deregulation put
him at the center of the fall of Lincoln Savings and Loan, one of the
largest in the country. More than 23,000 investors lost their savings.
Overall, the savings and loan crisis required the federal government
to bail out the savings of hundreds of thousands of families and
ultimately cost American taxpayers $124 billion.

Sound familiar?

In that crisis, John McCain and his political patron, Charles Keating,
played central roles that ultimately landed Keating in jail for fraud
and McCain in front of the Senate Ethics Committee. The McCain
campaign has tried to avoid talking about the scandal, but with so
many parallels to the current crisis, McCain’s Keating history is
relevant and voters deserve to know the facts — and see for
themselves the pattern of poor judgment by John McCain.

So at noon Eastern on Monday, October 6th, we’re releasing a 13-minute
documentary about the scandal called “Keating Economics: John McCain
and the Making of a Financial Crisis” — it will be available at
KeatingEconomics.com, along with background information that every
voter should know.

Watch a preview right now and share it with your friends.

The point of the film and the web site is that John McCain still
hasn’t learned his lesson.

And this time, McCain’s bankrupt economic philosophy has put our
economy at the brink of collapse and put millions of Americans at risk
of losing their homes.

Watch the video to see why John McCain’s failed philosophy and poor
judgment is a recipe for deepening the crisis:

http://my.barackobama.com/keatingvideo

It’s no wonder John McCain would rather spend the last month of this
election smearing Barack’s character instead of talking about the top
priority issue for voters.

But if we work together, we can make sure the focus stays on the
economy — and how to fix it.

Please forward this email to everyone you know.

Thanks,

David

David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America

Need to Create GimpSquad

I was just speaking to another new customer today about the VoiceIR Environmental Voice Control System for controlling his TV, TiVo, stereo, etc. He lives in a nursing home in Washington DC – is almost identical in function to myself as a C4/C5 Quad.  He unneccessarily paid Best Buy Geek Squad $500 to help him set it up!  On two different trips the Geek didn’t want to take the time - instead they just billed him $250/hr and left.  Nothing against the Best Buy Geeks, but they just are not equipped over at the houses in Moscow your point is here either as ever as long as soon as you know I feel it is like you think is like a physical rejection of the you I think the past is that this is a stretch in the you know this is compressing it up with.

I told him he needs to get his own apartment. He agreed and went on to say because of finding my website is now decided to go back to college for his bachelors in rehabilitation engineering / adaptive technology.  It was just a statement of fact, nothing more, which to me was more significant. But as they say, mimicking or copying is the ultimate form of flattery and that one choked me up a bit.  I am facetious when people say I am inspirational for little other reason than being why have always been even though they mean it as a nice complement.  Motivating this young man to go back to school is something I’m very proud to have apparently inspired.  Actions and results always have more impact than words.

So if you’re a “Gimp Geek” with the communications skills, patience, and motivation to be resource to increased independence by helping other disabled individuals in your local area setup and learn to use their new  adaptive technology for a reasonable fee, let us know so we can add you to a list and refer those in need of assistance to you. Join Broadened Horizons’ GimpSquad!

Mark Felling

Target Website Accessibility $6 million Settlement

E-commerce for the blind: Target Website Accessibility $6 million Settlement

 

It’s good business — and it’s the law — for companies to make their websites fully accessible to the visually impaired.

August 30, 2008

 

The Americans with Disabilities Act requires "public accommodations"

http://www.ada.gov/pubs/ada.htm  to be accessible to the disabled as well as the able-bodied. That’s why stores, government buildings and churches have elevators and ramps, not just stairs. But when the National Federation of the Blind urged retail giant Target Corp. three years ago to modify its website to aid the visually impaired, Target balked. The disabilities act applied to its brick-and-mortar stores, not its branch in cyberspace, Target’s lawyers argued.

 

And so began a legal battle that ended Wednesday, when Target announced that it would pay $6 million to settle http://www.dralegal.org/downloads/cases/target/Final-Agreement.pdf   a class-action lawsuit by blind shoppers who’d struggled to use its website.

Target also has agreed to change the site in ways suggested by the federation, making Target.com fully accessible to the blind by the beginning of March 2009. Most significantly, perhaps, a federal judge’s pretrial rulings http://www.out-law.com/default.aspx?page=8539 in the case held that the disabilities act and California law did apply to the online counterparts of physical stores and services.

 

As is so often true, Target will end up spending a lot more to modify its site than it would have spent to design it to be accessible from Day One.

There’s plenty of help online http://www.w3.org/WAI/ for companies trying meet the needs of the disabled. The World Wide Web Consortium, a group that develops voluntary standards for the Web, has been publishing accessibility guidelines http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WAI-WEBCONTENT-19990505/ for almost a decade, including to help designers make their sites work with the specialized equipment used by the disabled. The blind rely on expensive software that reads aloud the contents of each Web page, so images and forms on the pages must include some identifying text. They also can’t navigate with a mouse — try using one with your eyes closed — so pages need to be designed for navigating with a keyboard. That’s not much to ask.

 

The problem is that, like Target, too many companies didn’t focus on accessibility when they made the leap into e-commerce. If they had, they would have found an underserved audience of disabled shoppers. A website can be a far more inviting place for a blind person than a crowded mall, if the site is designed the right way. And the number of vision-impaired Americans (at least 1.3 million  http://www.afb.org/Section.asp?SectionID=15%23num

are legally blind) is expected to grow as the population ages and the incidence of diabetes http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditions/06/25/diabetes.rates.ap/index.htm

l  climbs. With more commerce and services moving to the Internet, it’s increasingly important that companies make accessibility a part of everything they do online. If that’s not clear in federal law, it should be.

And although Target may have needed a push to embrace the disabled, at least it’s showing the rest of the retail world how it’s done.

Republicans help the rich, Democrats help the rest of us! Proven using census data post WW2

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html?em
Economic View
Is History Siding With Obama’s Economic Plan?
By ALAN S. BLINDER
Published: August 30, 2008

 

Alan S. Blinder is a professor of economics and public affairs at
Princeton and former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve. He has
advised many Democratic politicians.

CLEARLY, there are major differences between the economic policies of
Senators Barack Obama and John McCain. Mr. McCain wants more tax cuts
for the rich; Mr. Obama wants tax cuts for the poor and middle class.
The two men also disagree on health care, energy and many other
topics.
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
David G. Klein

Such differences are hardly surprising. Democrats and Republicans have
followed different approaches to the economy for as long as there have
been Democrats and Republicans. Longer, actually. Remember Hamilton
versus Jefferson?

Many Americans know that there are characteristic policy differences
between the two parties. But few are aware of two important facts
about the post-World War II era, both of which are brilliantly
delineated in a new book, "Unequal Democracy," by Larry M. Bartels, a
professor of political science at Princeton. Understanding them might
help voters see what could be at stake, economically speaking, in
November.

I call the first fact the Great Partisan Growth Divide. Simply put,
the United States economy has grown faster, on average, under
Democratic presidents than under Republicans.

The stark contrast between the whiz-bang Clinton years and the dreary
Bush years is familiar because it is so recent. But while it is
extreme, it is not atypical. Data for the whole period from 1948 to
2007, during which Republicans occupied the White House for 34 years
and Democrats for 26, show average annual growth of real gross
national product of 1.64 percent per capita under Republican
presidents versus 2.78 percent under Democrats.

That 1.14-point difference, if maintained for eight years, would yield
9.33 percent more income per person, which is a lot more than almost
anyone can expect from a tax cut.

Such a large historical gap in economic performance between the two
parties is rather surprising, because presidents have limited leverage
over the nation’s economy. Most economists will tell you that Federal
Reserve policy and oil prices, to name just two influences, are far
more powerful than fiscal policy. Furthermore, as those mutual fund
prospectuses constantly warn us, past results are no guarantee of
future performance. But statistical regularities, like facts, are
stubborn things. You bet against them at your peril.

The second big historical fact, which might be called the Great
Partisan Inequality Divide, is the focus of Professor Bartels’s work.

It is well known that income inequality in the United States has been
on the rise for about 30 years now — an unsettling development that
has finally touched the public consciousness. But Professor Bartels
unearths a stunning statistical regularity: Over the entire 60-year
period, income inequality trended substantially upward under
Republican presidents but slightly downward under Democrats, thus
accounting for the widening income gaps over all. And the bad news for
America’s poor is that Republicans have won five of the seven
elections going back to 1980.

The Great Partisan Inequality Divide is not limited to the poor. To
get a more granular look, Professor Bartels studied the postwar
history of income gains at five different places in the income
distribution.

The 20th percentile is the income level at which 20 percent of all
families have less income and 80 percent have more. It is thus a
plausible dividing line between the poor and the nonpoor. Similarly,
the 40th percentile is the income level at which 40 percent of the
families are poorer and 60 percent are richer. And similarly for the
60th, 80th, and 95th percentiles. The 95th percentile is the best
dividing line between the rich and the nonrich that the data permitted
Professor Bartels to study. (That dividing line, by the way, is well
below the $5 million threshold John McCain has jokingly used for
defining the rich. It’s closer to $180,000.)

The accompanying table, which is adapted from the book, tells a
remarkably consistent story. It shows that when Democrats were in the
White House, lower-income families experienced slightly faster income
growth than higher-income families — which means that incomes were
equalizing. In stark contrast, it also shows much faster income growth
for the better-off when Republicans were in the White House — thus
widening the gap in income.

The table also shows that families at the 95th percentile fared almost
as well under Republican presidents as under Democrats (1.90 percent
growth per year, versus 2.12 percent), giving them little stake,
economically, in election outcomes. But the stakes were enormous for
the less well-to-do. Families at the 20th percentile fared much worse
under Republicans than under Democrats (0.43 percent versus 2.64
percent). Eight years of growth at an annual rate of 0.43 percent
increases a family’s income by just 3.5 percent, while eight years of
growth at 2.64 percent raises it by 23.2 percent.

The sources of such large differences make for a slightly complicated
story. In the early part of the period — say, the pre-Reagan years —
the Great Partisan Growth Divide accounted for most of the Great
Partisan Inequality divide, because the poor do relatively better in a
high-growth economy.

Beginning with the Reagan presidency, however, growth differences are
smaller and tax and transfer policies have played a larger role. We
know, for example, that Republicans have typically favored large tax
cuts for upper-income groups while Democrats have opposed them. In
addition, Democrats have been more willing to raise the minimum wage,
and Republicans have been more hostile toward unions.

The two Great Partisan Divides combine to suggest that, if history is
a guide, an Obama victory in November would lead to faster economic
growth with less inequality, while a McCain victory would lead to
slower economic growth with more inequality. Which part of the Obama
menu don’t you like?

 

 

Flawless Moral Character- at 44 McCain left his wife to marry a 26-year-old really rich gal

Mom, I know you’d be interested in reading this one…

 

“When John McCain left his first wife in 1980 to marry the wealthy and glamorous Cindy Hensley, he used his newfound riches to provide his discarded bride a life of relative comfort. Carol McCain, who has not remarried, continues to cheer on her former husband from afar.”

http://www.citypages.com/2008-09-03/news/tim-pawlenty-jilted-for-sarah-palin/

 

That means 28 years ago when McCain was 44 he left his wife Carol who faithfully waited for him for years while he was in a prison camp, and married a 26-year-old really rich gal almost half his age. (who could help fund his campaign’s maybe?)  The article discusses how McCain did the same to Governor Palenty with Palin as he did to his first wife, but without a big check to live on.

 

Now there’s typical celebrity of flawless moral character.  Far better than the 50% black family man with an African immigrant father who has spent most of his granted much shorter political career working to help the working class people in southern Chicago.

 

     

 

RE: The future versus the past, fear, and Mark Warner’s speech

Mom,

 

Before today I had not made a decision except to defeat what I felt were fears of the unknown.  So to hold true to my own emphasis on researching anything sufficiently to obtain something closer to the truth, I spent the afternoon watching what our presidential candidates had to say about themselves, America, the economy, health care, our military, and each other.  I no longer have many questions remaining in my mind.  However, don’t take my word for anything.  I’m nobody – just a staunchly independent man.  Please, research and make up your own mind.  Here’s a brief curriculum to speed you along although there will be plenty of diversions along the way.

—————————

First a piece of history…  The truth about what was said

Barrac Obama, 2004 Democratic National Convention, Keynote Address

http://media.libsyn.com/media/barackobama/obama_2004_dnc_med.wmv

 

Next, an introduction to reality, our current state of affairs.

Mark Warner, 2008 Democratic National Convention, Keynote Address

http://www.markwarner2008.com/pages/watch-the-speech

 

But don’t make any decision without getting V. complete story, without looking at both sides of any debate or argument!  If there is one fundamental rule I live by it is this.

John McCain’s website campaign videos
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/MultiMedia/Default.aspx

 

When I went to his website, I truly had much more hope for John McCain.  He’s a great man, a brave man with courage and military experience, and I believe would truly be a great Commander-In-Chief  of the military.  However America needs much more than military leader, much more than borrowing $10 billion to fund operations in Iraq every month when the Iraqi government has a $79 billion surplus!  We need a plan, to answers to hard questions rather than “Yes I believe in [fill in the blank]”!  We need much more of a military leader – there is a reason generals have earned their stars.  I think we are safe and deferring to their better judgment and an elected leader who will represent recognizes that, rather than depending on someone who thinks they know better.  We’ve had enough experience with that.  We require more than bravery and courage in oneself, we require the bravery and courage to guide and lead – to trust in others.  We require someone who recognizes an election is not about them, but about everyone casting ballots!

Presidential Nomination Acceptance Speech
 http://www.barackobama.com/tv/

 

We are all rightfully afraid of the unknown.  Its program within us from the time of our birth.  There is nothing like the fear of change that holds people back yet there is nothing like the promise of change that gives us hope and immeasurable drive to bring it about!  However, fueling fear has results in little measurable success other than maintaining power over the fearful.  We live in a world full of dangers, dangers that must be addressed, but if crippled by our fear we will never succeed or move forward! 

 

Any sound decision requires truth.  Obtain it for yourself from multiple sources!  Don’t believe hearsay or simply what someone tells you.  Don’t believe me.  Every mother tell their child “Actions Speak Louder Than Words!”  Without more information I don’t know whether these items define truth or response, but I do respect that they have not been returned!

http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/christian

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fightthesmearshome

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/behindthesmears

 

We are a society that has been built on the industrious motivation and backs of our immigrant ancestors.  My great x5 grandfather settled in central Minnesota and traded with, prospered in collaboration with, and was respected by, local Native Americans when others nearby feared them.  Uncontrolled immigration is not helpful, but neither is a month or separated from her infant child, or people working under unfit conditions because the alternative is far worse.  In a positive manner, let us once more return to being the land of the free, home of the brave, were all men are created equal and have the opportunity of the pursuit of happiness while contributing to that of their neighbor.  Let us throw off the burden of fear and with courage embrace the change, possibility, opportunities that come with each.

Your loving son, with as you know and sometimes criticized with affection, far too much of a mind of his own,

Mark Felling
Quadriplegic Engineer, Inventor, MBA

 

PS:  For anyone who dares declare me insufficiently supportive of our military and the far too young men and women serving within it, I challenge you to talk to a few of my customers who have given and lost more of their physical abilities than many people believe they would be able to endure – including myself at one time.  I challenge you to spend even one day “walking” in our shoes.

 

 

 

From: Mark Felling [mailto:Mark@Felling.US]
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2008 1:21 PM
To: ‘Darlene Felling’
Cc: mfelling.blog@blogger.com; Jim Felling (jim.felling@gmail.com); Greg Felling (gregfelling22@yahoo.com); bluehu12@hotmail.com; Ben Felling (bigbenfelling@hotmail.com); Bill Dennis (bjdennis.2@juno.com); rpeltier1@juno.com; eggert_scott@hotmail.com; Cory Spanier (cmspanier@yahoo.com)
Subject: The future versus the past, fear, and Mark Warner’s speech

 

Mom,

 

Yesterday we briefly discussed a bit of politics. I wasn’t quite sure how to articulate my thoughts in a way you wouldn’t find contradictory or emblazoned against. I want to emphasize to you to not let fear of the unknown sway your judgment.  That is of course how Bush led us into Iraq.  Convincing everyone of ”weapons of mass destruction” which simply did not exist except in his his own mind.  By implementing the terror threat index that never gets below orange.  It led to denying hope for new technologies and healthcare involving stem cell research and other areas out of fear of the unknown.  Teaching/Preaching fear is characteristic of dictators to maintain power through it. 

 

Fear of change has often been cited as the greatest force and restriction on people’s freedom.  It touches all levels from restricting your thinking to actions.  People have demonstrated they will even choose to stick with a horrible government like The Soviet Socialist Republic, Stalin, the hardliners of Iran, the current North Korean government, and even the Nazis and other various dictators through history out of fear of the unknown.  Somehow people always believe it could be worse and it’s safer to stick with what is known – to stick with the past.  You really need to watch this speech.  It is one of the best I’ve seen or heard in a long time.

 

http://www.markwarner2008.com/pages/watch-the-speech

 

Mark Warner does a great job of breaking things down to the fundamentals.  The future versus the past, moving forward versus being stuck in the mud, fear of the past versus hope for the future.  Understanding the new dynamics of the global economy in which social change is inevitable as people are able to move about the world far more freely.

 

I haven’t made up my decision yet, but I’m listening and reading.  I’m about ideas and the people who lead by them, not parties, not hype reported by self-identified experts. I’m not asking for a decision one way or the other, only to open your mind, listen to what is said with an open mind not limited by fear, and consider all the possibilities before making a decision that doesn’t need to be made for some time!

 

 

The future versus the past, fear, and Mark Warner’s speech

Mom,

 

Yesterday we briefly discussed a bit of politics. I wasn’t quite sure how to articulate my thoughts in a way you wouldn’t find contradictory or emblazoned against. I want to emphasize to you to not let fear of the unknown sway your judgment.  That is of course how Bush led us into Iraq.  Convincing everyone of ”weapons of mass destruction” which simply did not exist except in his his own mind.  By implementing the terror threat index that never gets below orange.  It led to denying hope for new technologies and healthcare involving stem cell research and other areas out of fear of the unknown.  Teaching/Preaching fear is characteristic of dictators to maintain power through it. 

 

Fear of change has often been cited as the greatest force and restriction on people’s freedom.  It touches all levels from restricting your thinking to actions.  People have demonstrated they will even choose to stick with a horrible government like The Soviet Socialist Republic, Stalin, the hardliners of Iran, the current North Korean government, and even the Nazis and other various dictators through history out of fear of the unknown.  Somehow people always believe it could be worse and it’s safer to stick with what is known – to stick with the past.  You really need to watch this speech.  It is one of the best I’ve seen or heard in a long time.

 

http://www.markwarner2008.com/pages/watch-the-speech

 

Mark Warner does a great job of breaking things down to the fundamentals.  The future versus the past, moving forward versus being stuck in the mud, fear of the past versus hope for the future.  Understanding the new dynamics of the global economy in which social change is inevitable as people are able to move about the world far more freely.

 

I haven’t made up my decision yet, but I’m listening and reading.  I’m about ideas and the people who lead by them, not parties, not hype reported by self-identified experts. I’m not asking for a decision one way or the other, only to open your mind, listen to what is said with an open mind not limited by fear, and consider all the possibilities before making a decision that doesn’t need to be made for some time!

 

 

Making Little Better Place: Proposed Constitutional Amendment to Presidential Qualifications

 

I call for Mr. George W. Bush to step down or be immediately impeached for non-democratic dictatorial actions unbecoming of an American President and failing to represent the interests of the people.  Furthermore for utilizing the United States military and the lives and well-being of thousands of young men and women to pursue his personal ideals of world order; for subverting the US economy to the benefit of foreign national powers and non-national business colleagues; and for subverting the United States Constitution and the rights guaranteed to every citizen through the Bill of Rights. With impeachment any policies/procedures/precedences established by Bush Administration to subvert constitutionally mandated checks and balances of the three divisions of government must be immediately repealed.

 

To make the world a better place, I would pass a new amendment to the Constitution effective immediately.

 

Modernized Presidential Qualifications

Summary: Any new president must be truly "of the people" and "self-made". 

·                     The candidate must have a Masters degree and have demonstrated a minimum "proficiency" in Financial Management and International Relations included as part of these studies or separately.

·                     They must have put themselves through University having received no more than 30% scholarship/public grants.  The 30% benchmark maybe reviewed every 10 years but can never exceed two times the national average of scholarship/public grants received by US citizen students. 
[this clause takes away the silver spoon and motivates increased investment in the education of our youth]

·                     If the candidate’s family assets of any kind exceed of 10 times the national average:

·                     The candidate may never have accepted or received from family, friends, or any other beneficiary including trusts, goods, services, gifts, cash, or anything else of tradable value, a living allowance before the age of 18 of total average value of 33.3% per month of the average national poverty line, and 100% per month of the national poverty average after 18

[again this clause ensures candidates have not grown up experiencing a free ride without responsibility.  It also ensures a serious look at bringing up standards of living for the entire population, at least for politically aspiring youth coming from wealth. Candidates will have understood what it means to hold a job, and work for their money.]

·                     Candidates must have spent a minimum of 6 months living on no more than three times (3x) the local average income in 3 of following world’s regions: South America, Europe, Africa, Middle East, or Asia.
[This ensures candidates with political aspirations or who are developed through sponsors receive experiences that develop a world view while living a relatively middle-class level within those world regions]

·                     Their "resume" highlighting special skills, education, experience, and accomplishments must be posted for review within each polling location and each polling booth but must not to exceed 3 standard letter pages.
[This clause helps educate voters of the factual skills and experience of candidates before they cast their vote without the bias glitzy media campaigns]

·                     Presidential & Congress Campaign Funds: The top two candidates from each major political party are only allowed to utilize an equal financial budget to work from for primary campaigning.  The party can provide campaign funds for primary campaigning.  The top three funded parties can put up a national candidate.  These top three candidates must have equal campaign budgets also.  How this is equated or accomplished must be determined.