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?
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Fox News
Most fairly educated people that watch the news even occasionally, and watch more than one channel, know that Fox News is biased. Very biased. While there are so many good examples that we have (in fact there is a good documentary, Outfoxed) every once in a while Fox will do something drastic that will make us wonder how they are still getting away with these things.
This morning Fox & Friends was talking about some New York Times writers who wrote an article about Fox's declining ratings. They photo shopped the two men's images to make them look drastically uglier, and never mentioned a word about the fact that they images were altered. Now there has always been tension between the liberal New York Times and the conservative Fox News, but this is tasteless.
Fox New's message for you: Never question Fox News,even if your just reporting the truth.
This morning Fox & Friends was talking about some New York Times writers who wrote an article about Fox's declining ratings. They photo shopped the two men's images to make them look drastically uglier, and never mentioned a word about the fact that they images were altered. Now there has always been tension between the liberal New York Times and the conservative Fox News, but this is tasteless.
Fox New's message for you: Never question Fox News,even if your just reporting the truth.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Nukes Part 4
"North Korea has demolished the cooling tower at its Yongbyon nuclear reactor, in a symbol of its commitment to talks on ending its nuclear programme."
Article
Article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)