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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)