"The brother of the Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at US President George W Bush has said that the reporter has been beaten in custody.
Muntadar al-Zaidi has suffered a broken hand, broken ribs and internal bleeding, as well as an eye injury, his older brother, Dargham, told the BBC. "
Article
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Bush's Amazing Reaction Time
"President George W. Bush ducked two shoes thrown at him by a man during a press conference in the Iraqi prime minister’s office to mark the signing of a security agreement.
The shoe-thrower, who was in a group of journalists, was wrestled to the ground and taken away. “This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq."
The shoe-thrower, who was in a group of journalists, was wrestled to the ground and taken away. “This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq."
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Friday, October 31, 2008
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Two Of Their Best Speeches
Here are the two speeches I have selected as the best to present as these campaigns come to a close. Here is how I chose these speeches.
1. Length: I chose speeches that were long, but not too long. Obama had another speech that I would have used instead but it was over 30 minutes.
2. Time: These speeches were given relatively early in these campaigns, so they do not contain anywhere near as many attacks and finger pointing. Though note that McCain's still has a good deal of it (let me also say that at Obama's speech he did not know he would have the nomination or be facing McCain). By looking at these older speeches we can see where these candidates came from and how their campaigns have changed, for better or worse.
3. Message: I chose speeches that had a good general message, and one that the candidate, at least for some time, used as their main argument. I was not looking for specifics, attacks, or the usual stump speeches.
4. Popularity: McCain's speech here was the most viewed, nearly full length speech of his on Youtube. Obama had a couple more popular speech videos but they did not fit the criteria I set out to use.
The quotes I give highlight the lines in the speech that I used to fulfill the criteria.
McCain (Broken up to remove attacks and specifics):
"The decision facing Americans in this election couldn't be more important to the future security and prosperity of American families. This is indeed a change election. No matter who wins this election the direction of this country is going to change dramatically. But the choice is between the right change and the wrong change. Between going forward and going backward. America has seen tough times before, but we have always known how to get through them, and we have always believed that the best days are ahead of us....
......Now you'll hear from my opponent's campaign in every speech, in every interview, every press release that I am running for president Bush's third term. You'll hear every policy of the president is described as the Bush-McCain policy. Why does senator Obama believe it's so important to repeat that idea over and over again? Because he knows it's very difficult to get American's to believe something that they know is false......
........They know I have a long record of bipartisan problem solving. They've seen me put our country before any president, before any party, before any special interest, before my own interest."
Obama:
"We will restore out moral standing in the world, and we will never use 9/11 as a way to scare up votes, because it is not a tactic to win an election, it is a challenge that should unite America and the world against the common threats of the 21st century. Terrorism and nuclear weapons, climate change and poverty, genocide and disease. All of the candidates in this race share these goals. All of the candidates in this race have good ideas. And all are patriots who serve this country honorably. But the reason our campaign has always been different. The reason we began this improbable journey almost a year ago. Is because it's not just about what I will do as president. It is also about what you, the people who love this country, the citizens of the United States of America, can do to change it. That's what this election is all about. That's why tonight belongs to you."
1. Length: I chose speeches that were long, but not too long. Obama had another speech that I would have used instead but it was over 30 minutes.
2. Time: These speeches were given relatively early in these campaigns, so they do not contain anywhere near as many attacks and finger pointing. Though note that McCain's still has a good deal of it (let me also say that at Obama's speech he did not know he would have the nomination or be facing McCain). By looking at these older speeches we can see where these candidates came from and how their campaigns have changed, for better or worse.
3. Message: I chose speeches that had a good general message, and one that the candidate, at least for some time, used as their main argument. I was not looking for specifics, attacks, or the usual stump speeches.
4. Popularity: McCain's speech here was the most viewed, nearly full length speech of his on Youtube. Obama had a couple more popular speech videos but they did not fit the criteria I set out to use.
The quotes I give highlight the lines in the speech that I used to fulfill the criteria.
McCain (Broken up to remove attacks and specifics):
"The decision facing Americans in this election couldn't be more important to the future security and prosperity of American families. This is indeed a change election. No matter who wins this election the direction of this country is going to change dramatically. But the choice is between the right change and the wrong change. Between going forward and going backward. America has seen tough times before, but we have always known how to get through them, and we have always believed that the best days are ahead of us....
......Now you'll hear from my opponent's campaign in every speech, in every interview, every press release that I am running for president Bush's third term. You'll hear every policy of the president is described as the Bush-McCain policy. Why does senator Obama believe it's so important to repeat that idea over and over again? Because he knows it's very difficult to get American's to believe something that they know is false......
........They know I have a long record of bipartisan problem solving. They've seen me put our country before any president, before any party, before any special interest, before my own interest."
Obama:
"We will restore out moral standing in the world, and we will never use 9/11 as a way to scare up votes, because it is not a tactic to win an election, it is a challenge that should unite America and the world against the common threats of the 21st century. Terrorism and nuclear weapons, climate change and poverty, genocide and disease. All of the candidates in this race share these goals. All of the candidates in this race have good ideas. And all are patriots who serve this country honorably. But the reason our campaign has always been different. The reason we began this improbable journey almost a year ago. Is because it's not just about what I will do as president. It is also about what you, the people who love this country, the citizens of the United States of America, can do to change it. That's what this election is all about. That's why tonight belongs to you."
Football and Politics
Fox News (yes I watch it sometimes, just to see what the bias is saying) is reporting that ESPN will be interviewing McCain and Obama and then showing snips of those interviews during Monday night football next week. How great is that?
If nothing else it will be another reminder for people to go vote.
If nothing else it will be another reminder for people to go vote.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Why I Miss Tim Russert
Well, this is just one of many examples.
Let me add that McCaine as on Meet the Press (with Brokaw) again today. I will have it up when I can.
Let me add that McCaine as on Meet the Press (with Brokaw) again today. I will have it up when I can.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Friday, October 24, 2008
Charisma and Character
This is a spam e-mail I got:
I responded with this:
There are plenty of people like this on both sides. The fact of the matter is that for a long time many people have cared more about character than content. I think much of the blame can be attributed to politics itself, not the people. Here are a few reasons why.
1. The 2 party system means people don't need to even pay attention. They can just align themselves to one side and always vote that way.
2. Campaigns are run with an emphasis on character. Look at McCain's VP pick Sarah Palin. She stands for many things that McCain has fought for much of his career, and has little experience in public office, but she was chosen simply for her character. Look at how McCain's campaign is attacking Obama's character. Biden has, rarely, attacked McCain's character too. They run negative campaigns because they are statisticly known to have a bigger impact. Remember Bush's attacks on Kerry's service in Vietnam? That is widely believed to be the reason Bush won in 2004.
3. Television. There are a million reasons why TV has exacerbated the problem. I don't think I need to explain all of them. TV could have been a tool to get the issues out, and it still can be.
4. Promises. Even if we judge the candidates by where they stand on the issues and their promises, we have no reason to believe promises will be kept, and we have no reason to believe these candidates won't ever change on any issues.
So we can't judge a candidate based on their promises, and the majority of messages we get from the campaigns are attacks. Why WOULDN'T people vote on character?
If you think voting on character is something bad, then I would be surprised you are a McCain supporter. For weeks he has done nothing but attack Obama's character. If character is something that doesn't matter to you, then I see no reason why those ads would effect you.
Heres an example of 2 attacks, 1 from McCain, 1 from Obama.
McCain - Obama "pals around with terrorists."
Obama - McCain "has voted with Bush over 90% of the time."
McCain's attack is about character, and is a perfect example of the kind of politics that cause people to focus on character INSTEAD of issues. Obama's attack is about voting record, which is one of the only good ways to make a decision in my opinion.
I do not vote based on charisma or character. Whether those are important things to consider when voting is debatable. My vote is based on the voting record of these two candidates, as well as how they have run their campaigns. McCain is running a negative campaign about Obama's character, and Obama is running a campaign about McCain's voting record.
McCain's record is that he voted with Bush 90% of the time. I do not like Bush's policies at all, so I also would not like 90% of Bush's policies either. Bush gave tax cuts to the rich, reduced funding to science, wire-tapped, went to war without any other country and without UN approval based on false intelligence, allowed that war to last for years, tortured, created Homeland Security, authorized the extensive use of military contractors from private companies instead of actual federal employees and US military, and failed with Katrina.
McCain agreed with all of these things that Bush did with the exception of torture. Obama disagreed with most of them. These are simple facts. These are records. These are not promises or charisma or character arguments.
This short clip of black voters being interviewed in Harlem is clean in content, even though it comes from Howard Stern. It's worth listening to because it's probably a good representation of voters across the US. Most people do not vote on the issues, but on charisma – which is sad for the rest of us who worry about the reality of day to day life and not whether someone is warm and likeable. Please pass this on to others.
http://www.bpmdeejays.com/upload/hs_sal_in_Harlem_100108.mp3
I responded with this:
There are plenty of people like this on both sides. The fact of the matter is that for a long time many people have cared more about character than content. I think much of the blame can be attributed to politics itself, not the people. Here are a few reasons why.
1. The 2 party system means people don't need to even pay attention. They can just align themselves to one side and always vote that way.
2. Campaigns are run with an emphasis on character. Look at McCain's VP pick Sarah Palin. She stands for many things that McCain has fought for much of his career, and has little experience in public office, but she was chosen simply for her character. Look at how McCain's campaign is attacking Obama's character. Biden has, rarely, attacked McCain's character too. They run negative campaigns because they are statisticly known to have a bigger impact. Remember Bush's attacks on Kerry's service in Vietnam? That is widely believed to be the reason Bush won in 2004.
3. Television. There are a million reasons why TV has exacerbated the problem. I don't think I need to explain all of them. TV could have been a tool to get the issues out, and it still can be.
4. Promises. Even if we judge the candidates by where they stand on the issues and their promises, we have no reason to believe promises will be kept, and we have no reason to believe these candidates won't ever change on any issues.
So we can't judge a candidate based on their promises, and the majority of messages we get from the campaigns are attacks. Why WOULDN'T people vote on character?
If you think voting on character is something bad, then I would be surprised you are a McCain supporter. For weeks he has done nothing but attack Obama's character. If character is something that doesn't matter to you, then I see no reason why those ads would effect you.
Heres an example of 2 attacks, 1 from McCain, 1 from Obama.
McCain - Obama "pals around with terrorists."
Obama - McCain "has voted with Bush over 90% of the time."
McCain's attack is about character, and is a perfect example of the kind of politics that cause people to focus on character INSTEAD of issues. Obama's attack is about voting record, which is one of the only good ways to make a decision in my opinion.
I do not vote based on charisma or character. Whether those are important things to consider when voting is debatable. My vote is based on the voting record of these two candidates, as well as how they have run their campaigns. McCain is running a negative campaign about Obama's character, and Obama is running a campaign about McCain's voting record.
McCain's record is that he voted with Bush 90% of the time. I do not like Bush's policies at all, so I also would not like 90% of Bush's policies either. Bush gave tax cuts to the rich, reduced funding to science, wire-tapped, went to war without any other country and without UN approval based on false intelligence, allowed that war to last for years, tortured, created Homeland Security, authorized the extensive use of military contractors from private companies instead of actual federal employees and US military, and failed with Katrina.
McCain agreed with all of these things that Bush did with the exception of torture. Obama disagreed with most of them. These are simple facts. These are records. These are not promises or charisma or character arguments.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
US Missle Hits Pakistan School
A suspected US missile strike has killed at least eight students at a religious school in north-western Pakistan, witnesses say.
The school, in North Waziristan, is close to the residence of a fugitive Taleban leader, Jalaluddin Haqqani, witnesses told the BBC Urdu Service.
At least two missiles, reportedly fired by pilotless US drones, hit the school early on Thursday.
The Pakistani army is investigating the incident. The US has made no comment.
The attack comes hours after the Pakistani parliament unanimously adopted a resolution calling on the government to defend its sovereignty and expel foreign fighters from the region.
Article at BBC News
Imagine for a moment what would happen if a US school was hit by missiles from a foreign country.
What is the cost we are willing to pay to fight these terrorists? Aren't these Pakistani civilians just as valuable as those lost on 9/11?
You may argue that Pakistan is not doing everything it can to help track these people down, but that should not be an excuse for this.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Lets Have Some Perspective
This presidential campaign is amazing. With all of the latest soundbites, ads, interviews, and debates streaming into our heads, I think it helps to take a step back and admire what a crazy run this is.
It all starts with Bush. George Bush has had a very low approval rating, for various reasons. After such a disparaging run for the republican Bush, many said that a democrat would likely easily win in 2008.
So how did Bush shape the election?
The democrats elected one of the most liberal senator who was willing. Obama can clearly be seen as the opposite of Bush. On the other side the republicans elected McCain, who is very much in the center compared to many of the other possible nominees. The fact that the republicans chose a "maverick" instead of a plat-former speaks volumes about this election. The republicans simply were not confident that a very conservative pick could face the democrats, considering Bush.
So how have these picks played out? Obama is leading in the polls, but this was to be expected. Still, the credit does not all go to Bush's low approval. The fact that this election is still winnable for McCain proves that McCain is still a formidable opponent despite Bush.
This is where things get muddy, and only speculation can follow.
Obama is ahead by about 9% according to many polls. Is this 9% a product of Bush? Did Bush actually move people off their party platforms, or only move some independents? Is the 9% all the work of Obama? Is it the fault of McCain? Or perhaps Obama would have an even greater lead if not for McCain?
These are questions that we may never get the answers to. However, I think it helps to remember where we have been, and how it is affecting our choices today. One thing is clear to me, in my own opinion. McCain was absolutely the best choice the republicans could have made. McCain is definitely a worthy opponent, and perhaps only someone like Obama could ever have a lead this big.
It all starts with Bush. George Bush has had a very low approval rating, for various reasons. After such a disparaging run for the republican Bush, many said that a democrat would likely easily win in 2008.
So how did Bush shape the election?
The democrats elected one of the most liberal senator who was willing. Obama can clearly be seen as the opposite of Bush. On the other side the republicans elected McCain, who is very much in the center compared to many of the other possible nominees. The fact that the republicans chose a "maverick" instead of a plat-former speaks volumes about this election. The republicans simply were not confident that a very conservative pick could face the democrats, considering Bush.
So how have these picks played out? Obama is leading in the polls, but this was to be expected. Still, the credit does not all go to Bush's low approval. The fact that this election is still winnable for McCain proves that McCain is still a formidable opponent despite Bush.
This is where things get muddy, and only speculation can follow.
Obama is ahead by about 9% according to many polls. Is this 9% a product of Bush? Did Bush actually move people off their party platforms, or only move some independents? Is the 9% all the work of Obama? Is it the fault of McCain? Or perhaps Obama would have an even greater lead if not for McCain?
These are questions that we may never get the answers to. However, I think it helps to remember where we have been, and how it is affecting our choices today. One thing is clear to me, in my own opinion. McCain was absolutely the best choice the republicans could have made. McCain is definitely a worthy opponent, and perhaps only someone like Obama could ever have a lead this big.
Fareed Zakaria Endorses Obama
Fareed Zakaria's show is by far my favorite show on CNN. His intelligent focus is something that is sometimes missing in the media these days.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Obama Suspends Campaign
Obama has suspended his campaign stops for Thursday and Friday to visit his grandmother in Hawaii, who is very ill.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Powell Endorses Obama
Colin Powell has endorsed Barack Obama, citing McCain's negative campaign, and Palin, as two of the main reasons.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Alfred E. Smith Dinner
Anyone who has paid attention to the political campaigns for the past few weeks should find both of these speeches hilarious.
McCain went first.
The videos are not split up well, as this is very recent, but you can find the rest of McCain's speech here starting at 5:12.
Then Obama.
You can find the rest of Obama's speech here starting at 4:07.
Edit: Additionally Hulu has half of McCain's and all of Obama's speech in one video here.
McCain went first.
The videos are not split up well, as this is very recent, but you can find the rest of McCain's speech here starting at 5:12.
Then Obama.
You can find the rest of Obama's speech here starting at 4:07.
Edit: Additionally Hulu has half of McCain's and all of Obama's speech in one video here.
The Third And Last Presidential Debate
Watch it on Hulu. Easily the best of the 3 debates, in my own opinion. A much better format.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Monday, October 13, 2008
Palin Booed
Palin was booed at a hockey game. Fox used a different bootleg, low quality camera, who's angle does not show the fans with their thumbs down in the background, and with sound quality so bad that you can barely tell a boo from a cheer.
Here is the original broadcast footage (NOT the Fox footage)
Here is the original broadcast footage (NOT the Fox footage)
Jack on Palin
This clip is weeks old, but I was surprised by how many views it has gotten (over 2 million) and I have great respect for Jack Cafferty.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Second Presidential Debate
Watch it on Hulu if you missed it. Still want more specifics and less mudslinging, but it was more acceptable in those regards than the previous one.
Sean Hannity (Fox) Outdone
Robert Gibbs, a Obama supporter, shows Sean Hannity why guilt by association is ridiculous, using Hannity's own style of accusation against him.
Monday, October 6, 2008
The Keating 5 Scandal
I have mentioned it before, but recently a video was made that will explain it better, for those who don't have the stomach for reading the long wikipedia article.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Palin Reads 'em All!
Palin says she reads every newspaper, but she can't mention the name of a single one.
And her answer, silence, then repeated answer to Rick Davis.
The VP debate is TONIGHT AT 9 PM ET.
And her answer, silence, then repeated answer to Rick Davis.
The VP debate is TONIGHT AT 9 PM ET.
Roe v Wade and........
Palin with Couric again, being asked if she knows of any other Supreme Court case other than Roe v Wade. She can't answer.
Palin Contradiction
Gotcha journalism! Palin was asked by a random citizen in front of cameras about her position on Pakistan, at which point she said nearly an identical statement to what Obama said in the debate, which McCain attacked Obama for, saying "You don't say that out loud." Palin did.
I don't know what "gotcha journalism" is to McCain, but either Palin lied to the face of a voter, or she doesn't know her own ticket's position on this issue, either of which is unacceptable.
I don't know what "gotcha journalism" is to McCain, but either Palin lied to the face of a voter, or she doesn't know her own ticket's position on this issue, either of which is unacceptable.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Spin Spin Spin!
I admit it, and I always have. McCain has more experience than Obama. In this argument McCain wins.
So why would his running mate Palin bash Obama's running mate Biden for his experience? So to McCain experience is a good thing, but for Palin it is not?
McCain and Palin CANNOT be serious, can they? Do they not realize that they are contradicting each other, and in effect belittling their own arguments?
This has just gotten ridiculous.
So why would his running mate Palin bash Obama's running mate Biden for his experience? So to McCain experience is a good thing, but for Palin it is not?
McCain and Palin CANNOT be serious, can they? Do they not realize that they are contradicting each other, and in effect belittling their own arguments?
This has just gotten ridiculous.
The First Debate
In case you haven't seen it. I suggest watching it on Hulu, which is an excellent and free website.
The Vice Presidential debate will be on Thursday.
The Vice Presidential debate will be on Thursday.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
McCain Suspends Campaign
McCain yesterday suspended his campaign, supposedly canceling TV ads, and asking for a rescheduling of the debate on Friday, in order to go to Washington and get his hands in on the bailout bill action. He called for Obama to do the same, and Obama replied that he would do anything asked of him to help push a bill, but he did not see a reason to suspend his campaign. Regarding the possible cancellation of the debate, Obama said that at times like this it is even MORE important to listen to the candidates.
Later in the day yesterday, Bush invited both of the candidates to come to Washington to speak with him. It looked like a political move to reinforce McCain's decision, but as I type this Obama, McCain, Bush, and congressmen are meeting and drafting a new bailout bill.
Last night McCain was supposed to appear on the Late Show, but he called and canceled at the last minute, saying it was urgent that he fly to Washington immediately. David Letterman, while still taping his show (without McCain), soon found out that McCain was not flying to Washington, but at that moment was preparing for an appearance on CBS. Here is the humorous antics from last night's Late Show.
Later in the day yesterday, Bush invited both of the candidates to come to Washington to speak with him. It looked like a political move to reinforce McCain's decision, but as I type this Obama, McCain, Bush, and congressmen are meeting and drafting a new bailout bill.
Last night McCain was supposed to appear on the Late Show, but he called and canceled at the last minute, saying it was urgent that he fly to Washington immediately. David Letterman, while still taping his show (without McCain), soon found out that McCain was not flying to Washington, but at that moment was preparing for an appearance on CBS. Here is the humorous antics from last night's Late Show.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Palin's Pastor
I am not one to discriminate against someone due to religion, and it is definitely not something I base my vote on.
However Obama had a lot of negative coverage because of his pastor, but what is not getting very much media coverage at all is Palin's pastor, a man who got where he is today by chasing a woman out of a town in Africa and accusing her of witchcraft.
Why two different standards? Good question. But here is my attempt to expose the pastor that isn't getting anywhere near as much coverage as Obama's was.
Olbermann, one of the few who is actually covering this story.
Actual footage of Palin being blessed.
However Obama had a lot of negative coverage because of his pastor, but what is not getting very much media coverage at all is Palin's pastor, a man who got where he is today by chasing a woman out of a town in Africa and accusing her of witchcraft.
Why two different standards? Good question. But here is my attempt to expose the pastor that isn't getting anywhere near as much coverage as Obama's was.
Olbermann, one of the few who is actually covering this story.
Actual footage of Palin being blessed.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Campbell Brown on Sexism, Again
Campbell Brown is kind of contradicting herself from her previous shrill comment, but she went the right direction in my opinion.
Palin didn't really talk much substance with the foreign leaders. The bigger news of the day was President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaking in front of the UN, taking questions from press, and undergoing an interview with Larry King. More on that later.
Palin didn't really talk much substance with the foreign leaders. The bigger news of the day was President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaking in front of the UN, taking questions from press, and undergoing an interview with Larry King. More on that later.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Sometimes It Takes A Tragedy
It is sad but true. Pakistan learned the hard way when a car bomb killed 53 and wounded 266. They are now vowing to take action against militants.
Hopefully they will do what I have hoped they would for so long, and share intelligence in order to take out the threat once and for all.
The United States cannot win the "War on Terror" (whatever that may actually be, but that's for another day) alone.
Article at BBC News: Pakistan to target rebel hotspots
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Biden's Speech in Wooster, Ohio
I didn't know Biden could spin a good yarn nearly as well as Obama.
Of course this speech doesn't have much specifics, but these days in politics, if it isn't an attack on the opponent, it is worth listening to.
There is a debate on CNN this coming Friday. It's the first real debate between Obama and McCain. Hopefully we can get specifics from both sides then.
Of course this speech doesn't have much specifics, but these days in politics, if it isn't an attack on the opponent, it is worth listening to.
There is a debate on CNN this coming Friday. It's the first real debate between Obama and McCain. Hopefully we can get specifics from both sides then.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
What is a Lie?
When I began to really pay attention to politics, I was surprised by how much lying was going back and forth. Or at least they appeared to be lies in my eyes.
However, apparently lies are assessed and treated differently in politics. Is "stretching the truth" a lie? Seemingly not so in politics, such as when Sarah Palin claims she sold a jet on Ebay. It actually never sold while it was on Ebay. Is quoting something out of context a lie? Apparently not.
This isn't even the biggest problem. There are also real, indisputable classic lies out there too. For example, the spam e-mails about Obama being a muslim. This is an absolute lie, yet many people in America still believe it. McCain claims Obama will raise taxes for everybody, and he will reduce them for everybody. These are both lies. Obama "plans" to drop taxes for the middle class, and only raise them among the rich. McCain "plans" to renew and possibly extend the "Bush tax cuts" which only apply to the wealthy.
But how do we respond to these lies? Dedicated sources will often dig up the truth for us, but must we rely on this? And what about those of us who don't research enough to be able to filter through the lies?
It seems in politics, you can lie about nearly anything you want. There are apparently almost no negative reprocussions. While a dedicated news network may debunk your lie, others may support it. If you say the lie in a highly televised way (like a debate or a campaign ad) the odds are good that the lie will reach so many people that there is a very low probability that all of those people will learn that the statement was a lie.
For example if I said that Obama was actually Indian, not African American during a campaign commercial, I may get 10 million viewers who see that. Now lets assume half of them are already dedicated Obama supporters and know better, but I still told a lie that 5 million people had no reason to doubt. The next day the ad is a main topic on CNN and MSNBC, and they both debunk the lie. However, not everyone in the US who watches primetime standard channels (where an ad is likely) also watch 24 hour news networks. Lets be generous and say 3 million people who would have believed the lie see it debunked. That still leaves 2 million people who believe a lie.
But what can we do about it? I think alot of people just check it off as one of those annoying things about politics, and if both sides do it then who really cares? The reason it is important is because we tend to hold our elected officials up to a higher moral standard than usual. Just ask Bill Clinton about that. If we allow them to use dirty and immoral tricks to get elected, and just pass that off as a "political standard," what does that say about us?
If we truely believed that lies were a regular part of politics, why would we ever believe anything that came out of a candidate's mouth? That is why it is so important that candidates are truthful, but just as important that we research for ourselves everything they say.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Nukes Part 8
The UN nuclear watchdog has said that there are "no credible assurances" that Iran is only using it's nuclear program for civilian purposes.
I have in the past been reluctant to criticize Iran. In my eyes they simply wanted civilian nuclear power like the rest of us, and from my experience treating someone like an enemy can do nothing but create that enemy. However as I have said before, I don't think Iran would be hurting itself at all by allowing full disclosure, especially if this is indeed just a civilian operation.
The US is considering tightening sanctions.
UN nuclear agency criticizes Iran
Today In Foreign Policy 9/15
NATO has reiterated it's efforts to allow Georgia to become a member. It recently sent all of its representatives to Georgia as a form of support. Russia remember, is highly opposed, and may see it as a threat to it's security, especially considering the planned defense system, and the oil pipeline running through Georgia.
Article at BBC "Nato restates backing for Georgia"
It has become common knowledge that "terrorists" fighting in Afghanistan are hiding out just across the border in Pakistan. The US accuses Pakistan of not doing enough to track them down, and US troops are beginning to follow the "terrorists" across the border, with no permission from Pakistan. Recently Pakistani troops fired into the air as a warning to US troops to respect Pakistan's border.
Article at BBC "Pakistan soldiers 'confront US'"
So to sum it up, we are taking Georgia's side in the Georgia-Russia conflict, despite the fact that evidence is mounting that Georgia did indeed start the conflict (but Russia did over-react, "just like the US did after 9/11"). Not only that but we are seeking to piss off Russia more by bringing Georgia into NATO (though admittedly this was planned even before the conflict).
AND we are not respecting the territorial integrity of yet another Middle Eastern country.
Does Pakistan really need step it up though? If they can fire into the air at US troops, maybe they can try firing elsewhere, right? But that is what terrorist warfare is about. They are easily concealed because they don't wear uniforms or move in big groups. And if we define a terrorist simply as someone with a weapon, then I would keep an eye on your neighbor.
The US troops know who the enemy is because they are being shot at. The Pakistani troops are not. There has to be a collaboration among the US and Pakistani troops. A sharing of intelligence. Simply barging into Pakistan territory, or assuming that the Pakistani military knows exactly what is happening across the border in Afghanistan is poor judgment.
Article at BBC "Nato restates backing for Georgia"
It has become common knowledge that "terrorists" fighting in Afghanistan are hiding out just across the border in Pakistan. The US accuses Pakistan of not doing enough to track them down, and US troops are beginning to follow the "terrorists" across the border, with no permission from Pakistan. Recently Pakistani troops fired into the air as a warning to US troops to respect Pakistan's border.
Article at BBC "Pakistan soldiers 'confront US'"
So to sum it up, we are taking Georgia's side in the Georgia-Russia conflict, despite the fact that evidence is mounting that Georgia did indeed start the conflict (but Russia did over-react, "just like the US did after 9/11"). Not only that but we are seeking to piss off Russia more by bringing Georgia into NATO (though admittedly this was planned even before the conflict).
AND we are not respecting the territorial integrity of yet another Middle Eastern country.
Does Pakistan really need step it up though? If they can fire into the air at US troops, maybe they can try firing elsewhere, right? But that is what terrorist warfare is about. They are easily concealed because they don't wear uniforms or move in big groups. And if we define a terrorist simply as someone with a weapon, then I would keep an eye on your neighbor.
The US troops know who the enemy is because they are being shot at. The Pakistani troops are not. There has to be a collaboration among the US and Pakistani troops. A sharing of intelligence. Simply barging into Pakistan territory, or assuming that the Pakistani military knows exactly what is happening across the border in Afghanistan is poor judgment.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Credits
I like to give credit where it is due. The opinions are my own but the information comes from all over the place.
Google (of course)
BBC News
CNN
Friends (you know who you are)
Youtube
It is easy to comment and criticize, it is another thing to find and report the information itself.
Google (of course)
BBC News
CNN
Friends (you know who you are)
Youtube
It is easy to comment and criticize, it is another thing to find and report the information itself.
Russia Out of Georgia
There is an undeniable bias in the US media regarding the Russia-Georgia conflict. A good example of this was when Fox News cut a little girl from South Ossetia short after she claimed they were bombed by Georgian troops, not Russian.
The international community is still unsure about who truly started the conflict, and I think most of us can agree that Russia went over the line by invading into uncontested Georgia. However, Russian has since called Georgia's actions "Our September 11th" and points at the US actions after 9/11 (Afghanistan and Iraq) as a similar act.
Russia is pulling out of Georgia, and that is the difference here. The US still occupies Afghanistan and Iraq and has done so for years and years.
Imagine, if you will, that part of Mexico contained a lot of US citizens, so much so that this part of Mexico wants to succeed from Mexico, and possibly even join the US. Now imagine that the Mexican government tried to quell these beliefs, and perhaps began to treat people in there areas a little unfairly. Suppose the US responds by sending "Peace Keepers" to this part of Mexico, but soon violence breaks out. This is analogous to the Russia-Georgia conflict.
Russia Pulls out of Georgia Port.
The international community is still unsure about who truly started the conflict, and I think most of us can agree that Russia went over the line by invading into uncontested Georgia. However, Russian has since called Georgia's actions "Our September 11th" and points at the US actions after 9/11 (Afghanistan and Iraq) as a similar act.
Russia is pulling out of Georgia, and that is the difference here. The US still occupies Afghanistan and Iraq and has done so for years and years.
Imagine, if you will, that part of Mexico contained a lot of US citizens, so much so that this part of Mexico wants to succeed from Mexico, and possibly even join the US. Now imagine that the Mexican government tried to quell these beliefs, and perhaps began to treat people in there areas a little unfairly. Suppose the US responds by sending "Peace Keepers" to this part of Mexico, but soon violence breaks out. This is analogous to the Russia-Georgia conflict.
Russia Pulls out of Georgia Port.
Friday, September 12, 2008
First Palin Interview PART 2
Still waiting on an all-inclusive video. There are even more clips on Nightline's website, and they will air more of it tonight on Nightline, 10 PM ET on ABC.
More clips on Nightline website HERE and HERE.
See First Palin Interview for part one.
Ron Paul
I am just going to say it: I am a Ron Paul fan. He has a perspective that most politicians do not. He can truly step out of the box and see how the actions of the US are seen through the eyes of the rest of the world. He keeps telling the truth, even when nobody will agree, which in politics usually is a no-no. Ron Paul is truly "change I can believe in."
Here some examples for you.
Ron Paul predicting the Russia-Georgia conflict 6 years ago.
Ron Paul at a hearing about the Russia-Georgia conflict.
Here some examples for you.
Ron Paul predicting the Russia-Georgia conflict 6 years ago.
Ron Paul at a hearing about the Russia-Georgia conflict.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
First Palin Interview
Being as non-bias as I can here, I still want to draw attention to a few things.
She did not answer questions directly, but gave rehearsed talking points. Not something new to politics, but something that should be "changed" about "Washington."
Her statement that most Vice President's had not met with heads of state before running was false, according to CNN.
Palin, and many other people's assertions that the attack on Georgia by Russia was unprovoked is completely and utterly false. Research the subject yourself. American media has been bias on this point. I suggest BBC news. Here is a good Q and A article.
On a related note, here is Matt Damon's opinions of Palin. Almost 600,000 views on that video so far, wow.
Thomas Barnett
Thomas Barnett is a brilliant man who presents the arguement for a new branch of the military who's role is to repair and rebuild. At tonights CNN Forum Obama mentioned similar ideas that reminded me of Barnett's lecture.
Well, I can't present it anywhere near as well as he can, so here is the man himself.
(Warning: long video - 25 minutes)
If you haven't seen these TED videos, I recommend them highly.
Well, I can't present it anywhere near as well as he can, so here is the man himself.
(Warning: long video - 25 minutes)
If you haven't seen these TED videos, I recommend them highly.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
RNC 9/11 Video
When I saw this video live at the Republican National Convention, I was speechless. I myself found it to be completely horrible. People like Rudy Giuliani have been using the events of 9/11 as a talking point for years, and while with Giuliani it did get old, I did not hold any real resentment towards his use of it. He was there after all, and I guess he has the right to include that in his list of experiences.
While Giuliani's use of 9/11 might be tasteless to some, it is nothing compared to this video. I was horrified to see 9/11 used in this fashion. It really seemed like the Republicans were trying to scare viewers. I was especially horrified when the narrator said:
We remember buildings burning, bodies falling.
I was so angered by the blatant political use of this sacred day that I did not want to give it a second glance. However, it was recently announced that Keith Olbermann, who you see responding to the video with the similar attitude that I had, has lost his spot as anchor, and most are saying this comment was the main reason.
I myself think Olbermann simply told the truth, and was 100% correct. He even apologized for airing the video! I support you Keith. The rest of you can decide for yourself.
Why Do We Do What We Do?
A visual compilation of human priority.
Nasa's budget this year: 17.318 Billion Dollars.
More than 852 million people -- about 13 percent of the world population -- do not have enough food each day to sustain a healthy life, according to the Rome-based Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO).
The war in Iraq costs over 12 Million Dollars per HOUR.
Iraqi boys playing "Execution." I am not bullshitting, that is what they call it.
On any given day 800,000 people are homeless in the United States, including 200,000 children in homeless families.
Oil companies made record profits so far this year, each at over 10 Billion Dollars in pure profit.
One and one-half acres of rainforest are lost every second with tragic consequences for both developing and industrial countries.
Cost of the Manhattan Project (through August 1945): $20,000,000,000
Total number of nuclear missiles built in the US, 1951-present: 67,500
Richest person in the world, Warren Buffet - 62 Billion Dollars.
Only 45% of Americans are satisfied with their job.
Total spent on the war on drugs in the US so far this year - 34.8 Billion Dollars.
Estimated price of Mexico-US border fence - 49 Billion Dollars.
State-Level lobbying annual cost (all states) - 570 Million Dollars (2 Billion Dollars for National Government lobbying).
Large Hadron Collider to study particles - 9 Billion Dollars.
People killed by Malaria each year in Africa - 1 to 3 Million (usually young children, 1 death every 30 seconds) Total cases per year - 350-500 Million.
Cost of anti-malarial drugs per person - between $0.25 and $2.40 per dose. (in 2002)
Economic adviser Jeffrey Sachs estimates that malaria can be controlled for US$3 billion in aid per year.
Money currently spent per year on Malaria by the US government - 2.5 Million (to WHO only).
Nasa's budget this year: 17.318 Billion Dollars.
More than 852 million people -- about 13 percent of the world population -- do not have enough food each day to sustain a healthy life, according to the Rome-based Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO).
The war in Iraq costs over 12 Million Dollars per HOUR.
Iraqi boys playing "Execution." I am not bullshitting, that is what they call it.
On any given day 800,000 people are homeless in the United States, including 200,000 children in homeless families.
Oil companies made record profits so far this year, each at over 10 Billion Dollars in pure profit.
One and one-half acres of rainforest are lost every second with tragic consequences for both developing and industrial countries.
Cost of the Manhattan Project (through August 1945): $20,000,000,000
Total number of nuclear missiles built in the US, 1951-present: 67,500
Richest person in the world, Warren Buffet - 62 Billion Dollars.
Only 45% of Americans are satisfied with their job.
Total spent on the war on drugs in the US so far this year - 34.8 Billion Dollars.
Estimated price of Mexico-US border fence - 49 Billion Dollars.
State-Level lobbying annual cost (all states) - 570 Million Dollars (2 Billion Dollars for National Government lobbying).
Large Hadron Collider to study particles - 9 Billion Dollars.
People killed by Malaria each year in Africa - 1 to 3 Million (usually young children, 1 death every 30 seconds) Total cases per year - 350-500 Million.
Cost of anti-malarial drugs per person - between $0.25 and $2.40 per dose. (in 2002)
Economic adviser Jeffrey Sachs estimates that malaria can be controlled for US$3 billion in aid per year.
Money currently spent per year on Malaria by the US government - 2.5 Million (to WHO only).
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Which McCain?
I know at least one person whom I respect greatly who is leaning McCain. His eyes haven't been glued to all the recent political news, however he is old enough to remember the "maverick" McCain of the past. Whatever you say about the McCain of today, with the exception of the Keating Five scandal (which is a big issue don't get me wrong) McCain really was a maverick in many ways. However, when push came to shove, he would depart from his maverick ways. That's how politics is. When he was a maverick, he would get less support from Republicans, more support from Independents, but still not much support from Democrats. It would add up to less votes, and when your up for re-election a lot, like senators are, they often spend much of their time pandering to voters.
Here is one example where McCain turned on his own beliefs to pander to his voters. In 2000, a confederate flag was being hung in South Carolina and it was angering many residents. When asked what the best course of action would be, McCain initially said they should take it down because it is racist. There was an uproar among Republicans, and 3 days later McCain gave a press statement saying "Personally, I see the flag as a symbol of heritage."
Today when asked, he will simply say that it was the states decision, and will not give his own opinion about it. What happened to the old McCain? Now many of us might believe that the maverick McCain is still somewhere inside him, and that if he can only win this election, maybe his maverick side will come back. But is that a gamble we want to take, with the country in the state that it is in now? And even if that is a possibility, do we still respect a man who will lie and pander to get where he wants to be? I cannot guarantee this is fact, though it has been repeated so much by many in the media that I think it must have at least some shread of truth, but McCain supposedly did not want to choose Palin, but wanted Romney or Lieberman instead. Maybe he changed his mind at the last second, or maybe he isn't in control anymore.
Speculation aside, The Daily Show had a piece last night, where they poked fun at McCain's introduction video by making their own, and I think the video has many true examples of what I have been discussing.
More proof of my point from The Daily Show, comparing McCain and Bush's speeches.
Here is one example where McCain turned on his own beliefs to pander to his voters. In 2000, a confederate flag was being hung in South Carolina and it was angering many residents. When asked what the best course of action would be, McCain initially said they should take it down because it is racist. There was an uproar among Republicans, and 3 days later McCain gave a press statement saying "Personally, I see the flag as a symbol of heritage."
Today when asked, he will simply say that it was the states decision, and will not give his own opinion about it. What happened to the old McCain? Now many of us might believe that the maverick McCain is still somewhere inside him, and that if he can only win this election, maybe his maverick side will come back. But is that a gamble we want to take, with the country in the state that it is in now? And even if that is a possibility, do we still respect a man who will lie and pander to get where he wants to be? I cannot guarantee this is fact, though it has been repeated so much by many in the media that I think it must have at least some shread of truth, but McCain supposedly did not want to choose Palin, but wanted Romney or Lieberman instead. Maybe he changed his mind at the last second, or maybe he isn't in control anymore.
Speculation aside, The Daily Show had a piece last night, where they poked fun at McCain's introduction video by making their own, and I think the video has many true examples of what I have been discussing.
More proof of my point from The Daily Show, comparing McCain and Bush's speeches.
Friday, September 5, 2008
How They Handle the Protesters
I, like most of us, like to think that my opinions are the right ones. However, unlike many I know that I can be wrong, and that the opinion of others should have just as much priority as mine.
Being humble, and listening to the opinion of others, is very important to me. So many people close their ears and minds to the other side, because they believe they are right and there is no alternative. To only listen to only one side is to condemn yourself to blissful ignorance. Only someone who hears both sides can truly make a good decision. I was careful to watch both the DNC and the RNC these past 2 weeks. Now these conventions are not a very good way to judge these candidates, because they are mostly showmanship, but even when I am beginning to prefer a candidate, it is important to me to listen to both sides.
Humbleness is something I want in my candidate, and the way protesters are treated during Obama and McCain speeches is a big clue to me as to who is willing to make informed decisions with both sides in mind, and who would rather live in blissful ignorance.
How Obama Handles Protesters
My personal favorite among these clips is this first one, where a group of black men were shouting at Obama during a speech he was giving. He promised them that there would be a Q and A session afterwards, and he would address them and let them voice their opinion then. And he did, as you see here.
How he handled abortion protesters.
Sadly those are the only two I can find. Let me know if you have more videos. Now to McCain.
How McCain Handles Protesters
The most recent example is the two protesters at the RNC during McCain's acceptance speech. The first one is an Iraq war veteran, who is protesting against the war, and against McCain's lack of attention to war veterans.
The second protester was a very important one to me, because of the response from McCain, who says "My dear friends please, please don't be diverted by the ground noise and the static," as the protester is pulled out.
Protesters in Chicago, ignored by McCain (as far as the video can tell us anyway).
Several different protesters during a single speech.
"There you go again."
(ends at 0:30, unless you want to hear an old speech).
This one was actually handled better. It is a little old though.
Another older one that was handled a little better than his current norm. What happened to McCain?
There are a few more McCain ones but I think you get the idea. I very much prefer McCain's last two, however he never addresses the protesters themselves, just the crowd after the protesters are already led out.
Being humble, and listening to the opinion of others, is very important to me. So many people close their ears and minds to the other side, because they believe they are right and there is no alternative. To only listen to only one side is to condemn yourself to blissful ignorance. Only someone who hears both sides can truly make a good decision. I was careful to watch both the DNC and the RNC these past 2 weeks. Now these conventions are not a very good way to judge these candidates, because they are mostly showmanship, but even when I am beginning to prefer a candidate, it is important to me to listen to both sides.
Humbleness is something I want in my candidate, and the way protesters are treated during Obama and McCain speeches is a big clue to me as to who is willing to make informed decisions with both sides in mind, and who would rather live in blissful ignorance.
How Obama Handles Protesters
My personal favorite among these clips is this first one, where a group of black men were shouting at Obama during a speech he was giving. He promised them that there would be a Q and A session afterwards, and he would address them and let them voice their opinion then. And he did, as you see here.
How he handled abortion protesters.
Sadly those are the only two I can find. Let me know if you have more videos. Now to McCain.
How McCain Handles Protesters
The most recent example is the two protesters at the RNC during McCain's acceptance speech. The first one is an Iraq war veteran, who is protesting against the war, and against McCain's lack of attention to war veterans.
The second protester was a very important one to me, because of the response from McCain, who says "My dear friends please, please don't be diverted by the ground noise and the static," as the protester is pulled out.
Protesters in Chicago, ignored by McCain (as far as the video can tell us anyway).
Several different protesters during a single speech.
"There you go again."
(ends at 0:30, unless you want to hear an old speech).
This one was actually handled better. It is a little old though.
Another older one that was handled a little better than his current norm. What happened to McCain?
There are a few more McCain ones but I think you get the idea. I very much prefer McCain's last two, however he never addresses the protesters themselves, just the crowd after the protesters are already led out.
Community Organizers
Two nights ago Giuliani and Palin both bashed community organizers in their speeches, which came as a shock to many commentators, and had community organizers (republican and democrat) offended.
The Daily Show touched on this last night, with some more hypocrisy thrown in there.
Also in this episode, people attending the RNC were asked about Palin's qualifications after her speech. The answer to "Tell me about her qualifications" were the following, from several different people.
-"One, she's a beautiful lady."
-"She hunts and fishes, and is not afraid to get her hands dirty."
-"She's only that far (holds up fingers for a distance of a few inches) from Russia, from those eyes of Putin."
-"One of the things that I really respect about Sarah Palin is that she makes Americans feel like anyone can be President."
And when people were asked about the pregnancy controversy, one woman said.
-"Politics should stay out of people's business."
And yet Republicans want to take your choice away.....hypocritical? Yes.
The Daily Show touched on this last night, with some more hypocrisy thrown in there.
Also in this episode, people attending the RNC were asked about Palin's qualifications after her speech. The answer to "Tell me about her qualifications" were the following, from several different people.
-"One, she's a beautiful lady."
-"She hunts and fishes, and is not afraid to get her hands dirty."
-"She's only that far (holds up fingers for a distance of a few inches) from Russia, from those eyes of Putin."
-"One of the things that I really respect about Sarah Palin is that she makes Americans feel like anyone can be President."
And when people were asked about the pregnancy controversy, one woman said.
-"Politics should stay out of people's business."
And yet Republicans want to take your choice away.....hypocritical? Yes.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
More Hypocrisy UPDATE 2
I have so much respect for Jon Stewart. It is amazing to see a comedy news show delivering us better content than a 24 hour news network.
Last night The Daily Show did a segment on hypocrisy concerning Republican Vice Presidential nominee Palin.
Notice some things are mentioned that I have already discuessed myself in More Hypocrisy and More Hypocrisy UPDATE. Note how it ends with a surprisingly good line from Palin, and how well that correlates with the "shrill" argument I mentioned earlier.
In addition, during an interview later in the show (with Newt Gingrich), Jon Stewart said this:
EDIT:Youtube took down the video, but it is available on The Daily Show's website HERE.
Last night The Daily Show did a segment on hypocrisy concerning Republican Vice Presidential nominee Palin.
Notice some things are mentioned that I have already discuessed myself in More Hypocrisy and More Hypocrisy UPDATE. Note how it ends with a surprisingly good line from Palin, and how well that correlates with the "shrill" argument I mentioned earlier.
In addition, during an interview later in the show (with Newt Gingrich), Jon Stewart said this:
"One serious issue that I do want to address that is sort of close to my heart; the issue of the teen pregnancy. They have said this was Bristol's decision and we should honor that. I have a daughter. The reason why I think it's fair game is; Sarah Palin is on record as saying she would veto abortions for women even in the event of being raped. So what she is in essence saying; respect my family's ability to make this decision, and elect me so that I can keep your family from having the same opportunity. That strikes me as hypocrisy."
"She said it was Bristol's decision, that was their press release. It was Bristol's decision. That is another word for choice. I'm just saying, if she was president, that choice would be removed from the family and the government would make it, and that's why I think it's a legitimate issue."
EDIT:Youtube took down the video, but it is available on The Daily Show's website HERE.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Shrill
After watching Palin's speech tonight, I continued watching CNN for the commentary, and heard a message from Senator Reid, who was attacked tonight at the RNC. He said Palin's speech was "shrill" among other things. After hearing this, most of the female commentators on CNN seemed to immediately take offense, claiming that shrill is not a word that would be used to describe a man. They did not go as far as to call it sexist right-out (not initially anyway) but they did make a big deal of the word.
Some women out there are waiting for a woman vice president, or even president. They see it as some kind of step forward. However, how significant is that step if they can't be a woman in the process?
Do we have to treat Palin like a man in order to not be sexist? And if so, what does that really say about women in politics? Do we truely accept them? If we do accept them, what is wrong with describing Palin as "shrill?" I cannot think of a comparable word for a man (gruff perhaps?), but would anyone call it sexist if that comparable word was used on a man? I don't think so. The idea that a woman would find being treated like a woman sexist is simply absurd.
Did women really fight for equal rights in order to be treated just like men in every aspect of their lives? Is that truely what their goal was? Or did they simply want just as much respect as men, while still maintaining their feminism? If I was persecuted for wearing a hat, I would seek to be respected even while wearing that hat, not simply take it off and conform.
If women find being feminin sexist.......I am just lost for words. And I also wonder what the reaction would have been if another woman (Hillary for example) called Palin shrill instead of a man. Sometimes the people who think everything is sexist, are actually the ones who are being sexist.
If treating a woman differently than a man is sexist, I don't know anyone who ISN'T sexist.
The video is just the start of the commentary. As I post this, it only happened about 20-30 minutes ago so I am surprised to see even this video up. If a longer one comes up I will edit it in.
Some women out there are waiting for a woman vice president, or even president. They see it as some kind of step forward. However, how significant is that step if they can't be a woman in the process?
Do we have to treat Palin like a man in order to not be sexist? And if so, what does that really say about women in politics? Do we truely accept them? If we do accept them, what is wrong with describing Palin as "shrill?" I cannot think of a comparable word for a man (gruff perhaps?), but would anyone call it sexist if that comparable word was used on a man? I don't think so. The idea that a woman would find being treated like a woman sexist is simply absurd.
Did women really fight for equal rights in order to be treated just like men in every aspect of their lives? Is that truely what their goal was? Or did they simply want just as much respect as men, while still maintaining their feminism? If I was persecuted for wearing a hat, I would seek to be respected even while wearing that hat, not simply take it off and conform.
If women find being feminin sexist.......I am just lost for words. And I also wonder what the reaction would have been if another woman (Hillary for example) called Palin shrill instead of a man. Sometimes the people who think everything is sexist, are actually the ones who are being sexist.
If treating a woman differently than a man is sexist, I don't know anyone who ISN'T sexist.
The video is just the start of the commentary. As I post this, it only happened about 20-30 minutes ago so I am surprised to see even this video up. If a longer one comes up I will edit it in.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
America Does a Good Job! UPDATE
Sayed Pervez Kambaksh, the 24 year old who was thrown in jail and sentenced to murder for downloading an article about woman's rights.
He finally recieved help, and after much pressure, the President of Afghanistan Hamid Karzai has finally stepped forward and promised a more fair trial, and started by reducing the original sentence from penalty of death to life in prison (gee thanks Prez). Now with a lawyer, Pervez is in his second appeal. Hopefully he will get a trial longer than 4 minutes now (ya correction, it was 4 minutes not 5, sorry.)
Special thanks to over 100,000 people signing a petition for his release (and thats just on one website), David Miliband the British Foreign Secretary, and the long overdue attention of Condoleezza Rice.
There are rumours that Pervez has secretly gotten a passport, enabling him to flee the country if he is ever freed.
More Hypocrisy UPDATE
Campbell Brown of CNN apparently agrees with my claim of flat-out hypocrisy on the McCain side.
After having an interview with a McCain campaign spokesman, Tucker Bounds, in which she pointed out this hypocrisy and asked about Palin's foreign policy experience (which according to Fox, Palin has, because "Alaska is right next to Russia." By that arguement, everyone in any border state has foreign policy experience.). The McCain campaign was so upset by how poorly the interview went, that they asked CNN to pull it off the air.
Luckily, CNN isn't backing down to the bully, and thanks to Youtube we can all see this interview, pulled off CNN or not. The fact that this video has had over 200,000 views in just a little over a day gives me much pride in my fellow Americans. I am glad to see how much many of us care.
America Does a Good Job!
"A 23-year-old student is still on death row in Afghanistan, nine months after being found guilty of blasphemy for downloading an article on women and Islam."
BBC Video
How ridiculous is that? According to the video, he was tortured during an interrogation, and his trial only lasted 5 minutes, with no lawyer.
"He has deviated from his religion, and Islam orders that he must be executed."
So what, if anything, has the U.S. military done in Afghanistan, other than kill and be killed, and unstablize the country?
Well I guess we did get some "Al-qaeda." I suppose the rest doesn't matter hu?
BBC Video
How ridiculous is that? According to the video, he was tortured during an interrogation, and his trial only lasted 5 minutes, with no lawyer.
"He has deviated from his religion, and Islam orders that he must be executed."
So what, if anything, has the U.S. military done in Afghanistan, other than kill and be killed, and unstablize the country?
Well I guess we did get some "Al-qaeda." I suppose the rest doesn't matter hu?
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Friday, August 29, 2008
Vote for Change?
Can we do one thing? PLEASE stop saying the word change. There will be at least SOME change no matter who is elected. It all just depends on how much and what kind of change you want. Lets not forget the most important thing - VOTE ON THE ISSUES. Do some research. Do not vote for McCain because he is an old white man with the most experience, or because he has a woman VP now, or because he is a Republican. Don't vote for Obama because he is young, black, a good speaker, or a Democrat. Vote for what truely matters. Things like the Economy, the Global Warming crisis, the Healthcare crisis, the NATIONAL DEBT crisis, the WAR in Iraq, and the list goes on and on. To forget these things is to forget what truely matters, because the truth is that anyone can be the president. What is important is that these problems are dealt with in the best way possible, and in a way that the majority of America can agree with.
I suggest that you imagine you just became president. Make a list of what you would do, then compare it to what McCain and Obama claim they will do. It seems simple, but it might surprise you. Stop underestimating yourself. Stop believing that you don't know enough about the issues. Stop voting for someone just because you think they know better than you do. Your convictions should be just as strong as theirs. McCain and Obama are normal human beings like you and me. McCain and Obama differ on very simple things, and you do not need to be an Economist, or an Engineer, or a General to know about these issues, and McCain and Obama aren't those things either. If you care about this country, then make sure a part of you is being elected this year, make sure your view on the issues is being heard. Don't vote for "the guy I would like to have a beer with." Instead vote for the one that will do what YOU would do.
McCain and Obama each only get 1 vote, just like everyone else in America. They are no different than you and I. Don't throw your vote away, because your vote is just as powerful as anyone else's.
More Hypocrisy
Now I really do my best not to let my own personal political view run too rampant on this blog, because if you really wanted a rant about how bad this candidate is or how good this one is, you can find that just about anywhere. However when I see hypocrisy from either side it pisses me off.
McCain for a long time now has argued that Obama is simply to inexperienced to run the White House. Today McCain announced Sarah Palin as his running mate. This woman is younger than Obama, and has barely spent time as the Governer of Alaska. How does McCain reconcile this? Answer: He can't. He is a hypocrit and that is that. No excuse here, no spin-doctoring.
Now some will say, as some said about Obama, that not having much (or ANY in the case of Palin) experience in Washington politics is actually a good thing to have in a candidate for this election. Many believe "Washington is broken" and only an outsider can fix it. If this is the angle Palin wants to take, then all the power to her, but for McCain to mention his vast amount of experience and her lack of it in one breath, that is hypocritical.
In my opinion it seems McCain is trying a "please everyone" ticket. But honestly, he would have needed a Democrat VP, or an Independent. Palin is just as Republican as McCain, if not slightly more. She is anti-abortion, anti-gay, "loves hunting," is a member of the NRA, and her husband works for an oil company. You can't get any more Republican than that. She was even involved in a little scandal where one of her employees was told to fire Palin's sister's ex-husband (a police officer in Alaska) who was in a custody battle for the children. Jerry, Jerry, Jerry! Or maybe Judge Judy. Anyway, Palin is still under investigation for abusing her power. She claims she never ordered her subordinate to do it.
Nothing makes me madder than Hypocrisy.
McCain for a long time now has argued that Obama is simply to inexperienced to run the White House. Today McCain announced Sarah Palin as his running mate. This woman is younger than Obama, and has barely spent time as the Governer of Alaska. How does McCain reconcile this? Answer: He can't. He is a hypocrit and that is that. No excuse here, no spin-doctoring.
Now some will say, as some said about Obama, that not having much (or ANY in the case of Palin) experience in Washington politics is actually a good thing to have in a candidate for this election. Many believe "Washington is broken" and only an outsider can fix it. If this is the angle Palin wants to take, then all the power to her, but for McCain to mention his vast amount of experience and her lack of it in one breath, that is hypocritical.
In my opinion it seems McCain is trying a "please everyone" ticket. But honestly, he would have needed a Democrat VP, or an Independent. Palin is just as Republican as McCain, if not slightly more. She is anti-abortion, anti-gay, "loves hunting," is a member of the NRA, and her husband works for an oil company. You can't get any more Republican than that. She was even involved in a little scandal where one of her employees was told to fire Palin's sister's ex-husband (a police officer in Alaska) who was in a custody battle for the children. Jerry, Jerry, Jerry! Or maybe Judge Judy. Anyway, Palin is still under investigation for abusing her power. She claims she never ordered her subordinate to do it.
Nothing makes me madder than Hypocrisy.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Nukes Part 7
If you haven't been up to date with the news, MSNBC recently got an exclusive interview with the president of Iran, and it is one very interesting thing to watch.
Link
If you want a brief synopsis, basically he was reluctant to talk about Iran's current situation until the end, when he gave a broad answer. In the last question, he reiterated that Iran was not making nuclear weapons, but energy. He then goes into an argument about nuclear proliferation, and the role of nuclear weapons in the present day. I am paraphrasing here obviously, but Ahmadinejad pointed out how hypocritical Israel and the US are being when it comes to nuclear proliferation, and suggested that a country that does not want to see nuclear weapons built should first take care of their own stockpiles. He continues by claiming it would be irrational to build nuclear weapons in the present day. Ahmadinejad claimed that nuclear weapons were a product of the 20th century and only had their uses there. He lists the US war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the fighting between Israel and Lebbonon, and points out that nuclear weapons had no place in those conflicts, and indeed he claimed they were flat-out useless.
Ahmadinejad discussed many other topics that I found very interesting. He spoke about materialism, the importance of culture, but also the importance of not imposing one's culture on another . He also spoke of oil, and claimed that the current prices are not being set by the economy (which is how they should be set, in his opinion) but instead they are being set artificially by someone. I think a point that really hit hard was a statement he made towards the end. He said something along the lines of (paraphrasing here).
"If every nation had 1,000 nuclear power plants, would the price of oil be as high as it is now? I don't think so."
Several times during the interview he reminds us how relatively clean nuclear energy is. I find it very interesting to hear the president of an oil-rich country endorsing an alternative fuel source, and it really raises more questions than answers. Is it really cheaper for Iran to use nuclear fuel, when the oil is under their feet? Do they have a sincere concern for the environment? After all Ahmadinejad really did reinterate how clean nuclear fuel is. Or is this simply a guise, as some believe, so that Iran can build nuclear weapons?
Today Iran gave the same answer that it gave weeks ago. "We are not going to retreat one iota." France had sent the president of Syria to talk to Iran, and finally someone asked a logical question. The Syrian president asked Iran to prove that it was only using it's nuclear program for energy, and not weapons. Finally, someone did something logical, as opposed to "We think we know what your doing, so stop now or face our wrath."
Does anybody else find it funny that this country is building a nuclear program, and the only thing we have done is isolate them as much as we can? Sure it can hurt they economically but I fail to see how that truly helps the situation. We didn't trade with our enemies in WWI or WWII but they still fought us. Not that I want to start calling Iran an enemy yet.....
One last thing to note. During the interview, it was mentioned that during talks that occurred 2 weeks ago, an informal deadline was set for Iran's answer. It was set to be today. However when this was brought up during the interview, Ahmadinejad claimed he did not know of this deadline, and yet he gave an answer today. This presents several possibilities.
1. Iran knew of the deadline the entire time, but Ahmadinejad simply lied about it during the interview to appear as if he is not willing to be pushed around. Yet when today came he buckled.
2. Iran truly didn't know until the interview. (Unlikely in my opinion.)
3. Iran didn't know, and didn't believe it from the interview, but was pushed by the Syrian president's visit to give an answer, so they did. It just happened to be the deadline date.
4. Iran knew full well that there was a deadline, but tried to play ignorant to it during the interview, and possibly did not plan on keeping the deadline, until the Syrian president pulled it out of Iran.
1 and 4 seem the most likely scenarios. If 1 is true, that means Iran is indeed affected by, and scared of, more sanctions. Unfortunately, because the Syrian president was involved in today's answer, we cannot rule out the 4th scenario. I believe 2 and 3 are unlikely, because I believe Iran did know about the deadline.
Article concerning today's answer.
Link
If you want a brief synopsis, basically he was reluctant to talk about Iran's current situation until the end, when he gave a broad answer. In the last question, he reiterated that Iran was not making nuclear weapons, but energy. He then goes into an argument about nuclear proliferation, and the role of nuclear weapons in the present day. I am paraphrasing here obviously, but Ahmadinejad pointed out how hypocritical Israel and the US are being when it comes to nuclear proliferation, and suggested that a country that does not want to see nuclear weapons built should first take care of their own stockpiles. He continues by claiming it would be irrational to build nuclear weapons in the present day. Ahmadinejad claimed that nuclear weapons were a product of the 20th century and only had their uses there. He lists the US war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the fighting between Israel and Lebbonon, and points out that nuclear weapons had no place in those conflicts, and indeed he claimed they were flat-out useless.
Ahmadinejad discussed many other topics that I found very interesting. He spoke about materialism, the importance of culture, but also the importance of not imposing one's culture on another . He also spoke of oil, and claimed that the current prices are not being set by the economy (which is how they should be set, in his opinion) but instead they are being set artificially by someone. I think a point that really hit hard was a statement he made towards the end. He said something along the lines of (paraphrasing here).
"If every nation had 1,000 nuclear power plants, would the price of oil be as high as it is now? I don't think so."
Several times during the interview he reminds us how relatively clean nuclear energy is. I find it very interesting to hear the president of an oil-rich country endorsing an alternative fuel source, and it really raises more questions than answers. Is it really cheaper for Iran to use nuclear fuel, when the oil is under their feet? Do they have a sincere concern for the environment? After all Ahmadinejad really did reinterate how clean nuclear fuel is. Or is this simply a guise, as some believe, so that Iran can build nuclear weapons?
Today Iran gave the same answer that it gave weeks ago. "We are not going to retreat one iota." France had sent the president of Syria to talk to Iran, and finally someone asked a logical question. The Syrian president asked Iran to prove that it was only using it's nuclear program for energy, and not weapons. Finally, someone did something logical, as opposed to "We think we know what your doing, so stop now or face our wrath."
Does anybody else find it funny that this country is building a nuclear program, and the only thing we have done is isolate them as much as we can? Sure it can hurt they economically but I fail to see how that truly helps the situation. We didn't trade with our enemies in WWI or WWII but they still fought us. Not that I want to start calling Iran an enemy yet.....
One last thing to note. During the interview, it was mentioned that during talks that occurred 2 weeks ago, an informal deadline was set for Iran's answer. It was set to be today. However when this was brought up during the interview, Ahmadinejad claimed he did not know of this deadline, and yet he gave an answer today. This presents several possibilities.
1. Iran knew of the deadline the entire time, but Ahmadinejad simply lied about it during the interview to appear as if he is not willing to be pushed around. Yet when today came he buckled.
2. Iran truly didn't know until the interview. (Unlikely in my opinion.)
3. Iran didn't know, and didn't believe it from the interview, but was pushed by the Syrian president's visit to give an answer, so they did. It just happened to be the deadline date.
4. Iran knew full well that there was a deadline, but tried to play ignorant to it during the interview, and possibly did not plan on keeping the deadline, until the Syrian president pulled it out of Iran.
1 and 4 seem the most likely scenarios. If 1 is true, that means Iran is indeed affected by, and scared of, more sanctions. Unfortunately, because the Syrian president was involved in today's answer, we cannot rule out the 4th scenario. I believe 2 and 3 are unlikely, because I believe Iran did know about the deadline.
Article concerning today's answer.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Fuel
We are all being hit by these high gas prices. People like McCain and Bush want to drill for more oil, even though it would take years for that oil to even get on the market. It is clear to me that alternative fuels are the answer, but there are so many variables involved here, and I will mention a few that you may not have considered.
Natural Gas:
I have heard that Natural Gas burns cleaner, but isn't it still harmful? And the biggest problem with it: Non-renewable. It is just another fossil fuel that isn't avaliable everywhere, and will eventually be depleted.
Bio-fuels (Ethanol, etc.):
Ethanol from corn sounded good at first, but from what I have heard it has nearly been trashed as a real solution. The problem is that it takes a LOT of corn to make a little fuel, and there are an enormous amount of food products that contain corn products. We do not want a fuel that will raise our food prices, or cause a shortage (which is beginning to happen in many countries anyway). Also, it may be good for us Americans, that grow a lot of corn, but it is not as readily avaliable to other countries, and if oil were to eventually dip below ethanol for them (ex. middle east oil might become less than ethanol simply due to shipping costs) then they have no incentive to stay with ethanol.
The most important topic I want to cover is Nitrogen fixation. Nitrogen, in its most abundant form, exists as N2 (Nitrogen gas) in the air. Nitrogen is vital for all living things (it is a necessary building-block of amino-acids) . However, only the smallest of living things (bacteria and other single-celled organisms) can actually convert Nitrogen from it's natural, un-usable gaseous form into an organic form. We cannot simply breathe in N2 and absorb it. The N-N bond is pretty hard to break. Therfore, up until 1910, all of the Nitrogen in every living thing was, at some point, converted by bacteria.
In 1910, Carl Bosch succesfully commercialized a Nitrogen fixation process that could be performed in a lab, without the use of any bacteria, and was mass produceable. The process was first patented by Fritz Haber, and is now known as the Haber-Bosch process. This was such an important find, that the two of them each won a Nobel Prize.
Why is it so important? Using this process, we can create fertilizer. Plants normally get their Nitrogen from the bacteria in the soil, and lack of Nitrogen from these bacteria would stunt their growth, but with fertilizer that is no longer neccesary, and we can pump our plants full of all the Nitrogen they need, getting maximum yield. 100 million tons of Nitrogen fertilizer is produced each year, and this fertilizer is directly responsible for 1/3 of the world population's food.
The catch is that this process requires natural gas. 3-5% of natural gas production goes into this process, and while that may not seem like much now, if we were to ever run out of natural gas, we would have no fertilizer, and 1/3 of the world's population would starve to death. It might not even take total depletion. Just an increase in demand of natural gas (if we used it to fuel our vehicles, or started using even more for fertilizer to grow bio-fuels) could raise the price of fertilizer to the point where many places in the world simply would not be able to afford it anymore.
And that is really just the tip of the iceberg. Do some research yourself, and you will likely be amazed by the many uses of fossil-fuels. From making plastics to creating electricity, fossil fuels have many important uses, and the depletion of fossil fuels would have a permanent impact on humanity, and would likely go down as one of the biggest most drastic thing to happen to the earth since the extinction of the dinosaurs.
It is clear to me that what we have to do is conserve our fossil fuels as much as possible. We must replace as many of it's current uses with alternatives wherever possible, reserving the fuel for only those processes that strictly require them. We also have no idea what kind of uses for fossil fuels we will find in the distant, or perhaps near, future.
It is like burning money to keep warm, when it could be used for so many other things, like buying wood....or simply saving it for colder days.
Natural Gas:
I have heard that Natural Gas burns cleaner, but isn't it still harmful? And the biggest problem with it: Non-renewable. It is just another fossil fuel that isn't avaliable everywhere, and will eventually be depleted.
Bio-fuels (Ethanol, etc.):
Ethanol from corn sounded good at first, but from what I have heard it has nearly been trashed as a real solution. The problem is that it takes a LOT of corn to make a little fuel, and there are an enormous amount of food products that contain corn products. We do not want a fuel that will raise our food prices, or cause a shortage (which is beginning to happen in many countries anyway). Also, it may be good for us Americans, that grow a lot of corn, but it is not as readily avaliable to other countries, and if oil were to eventually dip below ethanol for them (ex. middle east oil might become less than ethanol simply due to shipping costs) then they have no incentive to stay with ethanol.
The most important topic I want to cover is Nitrogen fixation. Nitrogen, in its most abundant form, exists as N2 (Nitrogen gas) in the air. Nitrogen is vital for all living things (it is a necessary building-block of amino-acids) . However, only the smallest of living things (bacteria and other single-celled organisms) can actually convert Nitrogen from it's natural, un-usable gaseous form into an organic form. We cannot simply breathe in N2 and absorb it. The N-N bond is pretty hard to break. Therfore, up until 1910, all of the Nitrogen in every living thing was, at some point, converted by bacteria.
In 1910, Carl Bosch succesfully commercialized a Nitrogen fixation process that could be performed in a lab, without the use of any bacteria, and was mass produceable. The process was first patented by Fritz Haber, and is now known as the Haber-Bosch process. This was such an important find, that the two of them each won a Nobel Prize.
Why is it so important? Using this process, we can create fertilizer. Plants normally get their Nitrogen from the bacteria in the soil, and lack of Nitrogen from these bacteria would stunt their growth, but with fertilizer that is no longer neccesary, and we can pump our plants full of all the Nitrogen they need, getting maximum yield. 100 million tons of Nitrogen fertilizer is produced each year, and this fertilizer is directly responsible for 1/3 of the world population's food.
The catch is that this process requires natural gas. 3-5% of natural gas production goes into this process, and while that may not seem like much now, if we were to ever run out of natural gas, we would have no fertilizer, and 1/3 of the world's population would starve to death. It might not even take total depletion. Just an increase in demand of natural gas (if we used it to fuel our vehicles, or started using even more for fertilizer to grow bio-fuels) could raise the price of fertilizer to the point where many places in the world simply would not be able to afford it anymore.
And that is really just the tip of the iceberg. Do some research yourself, and you will likely be amazed by the many uses of fossil-fuels. From making plastics to creating electricity, fossil fuels have many important uses, and the depletion of fossil fuels would have a permanent impact on humanity, and would likely go down as one of the biggest most drastic thing to happen to the earth since the extinction of the dinosaurs.
It is clear to me that what we have to do is conserve our fossil fuels as much as possible. We must replace as many of it's current uses with alternatives wherever possible, reserving the fuel for only those processes that strictly require them. We also have no idea what kind of uses for fossil fuels we will find in the distant, or perhaps near, future.
It is like burning money to keep warm, when it could be used for so many other things, like buying wood....or simply saving it for colder days.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Nukes Part 6
Iran has praised the United States' participation in talks as a "positive step forward," but also claimed that it would not halt it's enrichment activities in any way. With sanctions already in place, and possibly more to come, it is becoming increasingly obvious to me that whether Iran is seeking weapons or only power, this has become much more a political game than an economic or military one.
This was Iran's first public answer since talks started, and is not a good sign for those that seek to halt Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Article
This was Iran's first public answer since talks started, and is not a good sign for those that seek to halt Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Article
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Social Contract Theory
The idea behind social contract theory is fairly simple. The theory suggests that we have things such as moral code and ethics because of the societies we live in. This helps explain why moral values can be different in different cultures (a fact that is not as easily explained by other theories). The idea is that humans living in a society that is just forming all must figuratively sign a contract to live in that society. They decide to give up certain liberties (such as the ability to kill someone else) for rights and protection (such as the right not to be killed). Social contract theory suggests that without a society, there would be no moral code.
While I am not sure everyone would agree that it is a strict proponent of social contract theory, there is another idea pertaining to it. The idea that some sort of central governing body is required to uphold the contract. Whether it be an elected body, a dictator, or a village elder, as long as it is a body that commands respect and upholds the contract. If you did not have such a body, some would argue that it would be impossible the know if anyone else will uphold the contract, and therefore you have no reason to do so yourself.
I think it is possible to have some belief in the social contract theory without any kind of governing body. I am in college, and last year I had 5 roommates whom I had previously never met before. Suppose that I somehow knew that I could steal or break their belongings, and nobody would find out. No governing body to worry about at all, because I was guaranteed not to be caught. I could take this guy's food, or blow out this other person's speakers because he has his bass turned up too loud at night sometimes. Why wouldn't I do those things?
In this case there is no reason for me to be afraid of any governing body. Yet I am reluctant to steal from my roommates. Assuming it is not because I am some sort of moral saint, (another topic of discussion entirely) there is good reason for me not to steal. The idea is that there seem to be certain lines set up, and once you cross that line, the whole society or group you are living in changes. If I stole from a roommate, that may open the door for stealing among us. So if I did steal, that would in theory increase the chances of being the victim of theft myself. If you believe this to be the case, then there must have been some kind of unwritten contract among myself and my roommates. Something along the lines of "By living here, I accept the responsibility of treating your property with respect." I think most of us would agree that that is a contract most of us live by, and it is the simple act of living together, not the fear of being arrested for theft, that keeps us from stealing from each other.
Hollywood gives us a good example. In a scene many of us have seen too many times to count, several men all have guns pointing at one another, but nobody is shooting. There is plenty of yelling and dialog, but no shooting. However, once the first man pulls the trigger, everything goes to hell and everyone starts shooting. That first man crossed the line, and in this case it can probably be assumed that the only authority these men currently fear is the other man's gun. Whether these instances actually occur in real life is something I have wondered for years, but it is a pretty good example of social contract theory as I see it.
To be continued.
While I am not sure everyone would agree that it is a strict proponent of social contract theory, there is another idea pertaining to it. The idea that some sort of central governing body is required to uphold the contract. Whether it be an elected body, a dictator, or a village elder, as long as it is a body that commands respect and upholds the contract. If you did not have such a body, some would argue that it would be impossible the know if anyone else will uphold the contract, and therefore you have no reason to do so yourself.
I think it is possible to have some belief in the social contract theory without any kind of governing body. I am in college, and last year I had 5 roommates whom I had previously never met before. Suppose that I somehow knew that I could steal or break their belongings, and nobody would find out. No governing body to worry about at all, because I was guaranteed not to be caught. I could take this guy's food, or blow out this other person's speakers because he has his bass turned up too loud at night sometimes. Why wouldn't I do those things?
In this case there is no reason for me to be afraid of any governing body. Yet I am reluctant to steal from my roommates. Assuming it is not because I am some sort of moral saint, (another topic of discussion entirely) there is good reason for me not to steal. The idea is that there seem to be certain lines set up, and once you cross that line, the whole society or group you are living in changes. If I stole from a roommate, that may open the door for stealing among us. So if I did steal, that would in theory increase the chances of being the victim of theft myself. If you believe this to be the case, then there must have been some kind of unwritten contract among myself and my roommates. Something along the lines of "By living here, I accept the responsibility of treating your property with respect." I think most of us would agree that that is a contract most of us live by, and it is the simple act of living together, not the fear of being arrested for theft, that keeps us from stealing from each other.
Hollywood gives us a good example. In a scene many of us have seen too many times to count, several men all have guns pointing at one another, but nobody is shooting. There is plenty of yelling and dialog, but no shooting. However, once the first man pulls the trigger, everything goes to hell and everyone starts shooting. That first man crossed the line, and in this case it can probably be assumed that the only authority these men currently fear is the other man's gun. Whether these instances actually occur in real life is something I have wondered for years, but it is a pretty good example of social contract theory as I see it.
To be continued.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Nukes Part 5
Iran has recently test-fired 9 more missiles. These are a little different, as they have a big enough range to hit Israel.
Article
Article
Brig Gen Hoseyn Salami, commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards' air force, said: "Our missiles are ready for shooting at any place and any time, quickly and with accuracy.
"The enemy must not repeat its mistakes. The enemy targets are under surveillance."
Secretary Rice claims that this just helps the United States' case for building a missile defense system in eastern Europe. This comes just a few days after Russia claimed (again) they would take military action to keep the system from being built.
I stood by Iran. I truly believed, and maybe still believe, that they are using nuclear technology for civilian purposes only. However, actions such as these do not help their case, and they cannot be naive enough to think that they can do missile tests without anyone connecting that to their nuclear program.
Regardless, it has long been apparent that Israel has many enemies in the middle east, and Iran is just one of them. Looking at Israel's extensive nuclear program and their threats on Iran and other countries, it is really not surprising that Iran would fight back.
A lot of us "westerners" seem to have a hard time understanding the idea of provocation. Especially the U.S., as the arguably leading (but possibly waning?) world power sometimes does not seem to understand basic principles such as defense until is pertains only to itself. Iran tests less than a dozen missiles in response to the U.S. and Israel's hostile language (McCain: "Bomb bomb Iran.") and suddenly this is an awful thing for Iran to do, and is considered a hostile action. Yet the U.S. thinks that it's missile defense system would not be hostile, and that it would be justified even though the threat is not anywhere near as imminent as the one on Iran (see Nukes Part 2). See the double standard?
I am not suggesting that because we have missiles, they should be allowed missiles. Nuclear proliferation for anything other than civilian use is dangerous, and unjustified in my opinion. What I am saying is that we are just as guilty as them, and to suggest that they are more "evil" or "hostile" because they do the same thing that many other countries have done is just ridiculous.
It is clear that the real problem here is not Iran's nuclear program or it's missile testing. Look back to Nukes for a list of countries that have nuclear programs. Even more countries test missiles all the time. The real issue here is Iran's tense relationship with Israel, and by association (to my dismay) the United States, and this existed before Iran's nuclear program was discovered and especially before these latest missile testings. If the relationship is the real problem, then how can we expect harsh talk, or even dare I say military action (knock on wood) to ever fix this true issue?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)