Just a quick posting announcing that I won't have a chance to research any new postings for the rest of the week. I'm taking my GRE on Wednesday for admittance to graduate school and have been devoting my time exclusively to studying for that for the past week, not to mention the past four months of my life.
There are a couple of articles I've read recently I might post a link to in the meantime, but look for a posting towards the tail end of this week.
Brian
Monday, November 26, 2007
Monday, November 19, 2007
A common sense solution: avoiding war with Iran
What I'm about to suggest has no doubt been said many times before, so logical and exact that all but a politician would understand. The key to avoiding war with Iran does not lie in the disarmament of their nuclear program. It begins with the disarmament of all nuclear stockpiles and the creation of a consistent set of rules for all nations to operate equally by. It is irrational and self centered to expect developing nations to heed to a set of rules that the already dominate ruling nations will not follow themselves, which allow them to push a developing nation like Iran around with the threat of a nuclear attack should they refuse a command. The proliferation of nuclear development has been solely in response to the threat that our country poses to the rest of the world, in particular to the countries who do not wish to accept our burdening economic policies and materialistic values. Like it or not, it is not our right to dictate the ways that other countries rule themselves by, and this is exactly what we are threatening Iran with.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has publicly stated that Iran will cease with their nuclear program once dominate powers like the United States cease with theirs. At the moment there is only proof that Iran is using its Nuclear program for the creation of nuclear power to fill energy needs. It would be fair to allow them the same advantages of nuclear power we allow ourselves, and quite unfair to expect them to operate under a differing set of standards and freedoms that intentionally restrain development.
Some would argue the threat of a nuclear attack a country like Iran would pose, should they ever come in possession of nuclear weapons, is reason enough to attack them before being attacked. This is the same mentality that led us into Iraq with the phantom weapons of mass destruction, and the exact argument that our leaders in Washington are currently making for war with Iran. I say this is unfathomably morbid, that in this day and age a country supposedly as civilized as our own operates in such a barbaric, murderous, self righteous fashion. I'm not for any country possessing nuclear warfare technology, in particular my own. History records that it is our country that is the only one ever to use a nuclear bomb in wartime, and two for that matter in our darkest defining moment killing millions of innocent Japanese civilians. And it is our country who is the aggressor of the early 21st century who continues to terrorize the middle east both militarily and economically, fully capable of doing something real stupid. It is high time we hold our leaders accountable for their undemocratic international practices and recognize how nonsensical the case being made for war with Iran is. Everything that matters today will cease to matter the moment the next world war begins, which is exactly what would come about should we preemptively strike Iran. Russia has already vowed that an attack on Iran would be the same as an attack on Russia, and you can bet that Venezuela and Cuba would join in as well, for good reason too, right in our own backyard. There would be others as well, and massive world wide destruction and death, likely permanently radiating large areas of precious, scarce land beyond habitability. It would be only a matter of time before the fighting spread to our land. We need top become responsible and forward thinking in our policies. There is only one answer: complete global nuclear disarmament. But that wouldn't be nearly as profitable.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has publicly stated that Iran will cease with their nuclear program once dominate powers like the United States cease with theirs. At the moment there is only proof that Iran is using its Nuclear program for the creation of nuclear power to fill energy needs. It would be fair to allow them the same advantages of nuclear power we allow ourselves, and quite unfair to expect them to operate under a differing set of standards and freedoms that intentionally restrain development.
Some would argue the threat of a nuclear attack a country like Iran would pose, should they ever come in possession of nuclear weapons, is reason enough to attack them before being attacked. This is the same mentality that led us into Iraq with the phantom weapons of mass destruction, and the exact argument that our leaders in Washington are currently making for war with Iran. I say this is unfathomably morbid, that in this day and age a country supposedly as civilized as our own operates in such a barbaric, murderous, self righteous fashion. I'm not for any country possessing nuclear warfare technology, in particular my own. History records that it is our country that is the only one ever to use a nuclear bomb in wartime, and two for that matter in our darkest defining moment killing millions of innocent Japanese civilians. And it is our country who is the aggressor of the early 21st century who continues to terrorize the middle east both militarily and economically, fully capable of doing something real stupid. It is high time we hold our leaders accountable for their undemocratic international practices and recognize how nonsensical the case being made for war with Iran is. Everything that matters today will cease to matter the moment the next world war begins, which is exactly what would come about should we preemptively strike Iran. Russia has already vowed that an attack on Iran would be the same as an attack on Russia, and you can bet that Venezuela and Cuba would join in as well, for good reason too, right in our own backyard. There would be others as well, and massive world wide destruction and death, likely permanently radiating large areas of precious, scarce land beyond habitability. It would be only a matter of time before the fighting spread to our land. We need top become responsible and forward thinking in our policies. There is only one answer: complete global nuclear disarmament. But that wouldn't be nearly as profitable.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Rhetoric in action: presidential deception
It is downright scary how long president Bush has kept up his self righteous stance. Despite all the evidence against what he says, in light of the fact he's a proven manipulator and liar, he continues to defy reality and sticks to dangerous rhetoric full of falsehood and deceit, insisting he is winning in Iraq when the whole world knows otherwise.
A reporter recently asked president Bush this three part question during a press conference that he and French President Nicholas Sarkozy were holding on television:
"Can France, for instance, help to get out of the Iraqi quagmire? And President Bush, where do you stand on Iraq and your domestic debate on Iraq? Do you have a timetable for withdrawing troops?"
president Bush responded by saying:
"You know quagmire is an interesting word. If you lived in Iraq and had lived under a tyranny, you’d be saying: God, I love freedom, because that’s what’s happened."
"And there are killers and radicals and murderers who kill the innocent to stop the advance of freedom. But freedom’s happening in Iraq. And we’re making progress."
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/07/bush-iraq-freedom/
Bush's response is a perfect example of rhetoric in action. He doesn't answer questions. He speaks like a politician, and what I mean by that is someone who is directing their speech so as not to expose themselves to any harm, to serve in their best political interests. Instead of taking on a question which holds a valid concern that Bush would rather evade, he sidesteps off into some rambling venture, incoherent beyond any sense. Look at how straightforward the reporter's questions are:
- Can France help to get out of the Iraq quagmire?
- Where do you stand on the domestic debate on Iraq?
- Do you have a timetable for withdrawing troops?
Bush's responses:
- That's an interesting word.
- Iraqi's love freedom, because that's what happened.
- Radicals and murderers kill to stop the advance of freedom. And we're making progress.
Bush is completely defying reality, ignoring legitimate concerns and moving on with his agenda, at the expense of untold deaths of Iraqi civilians and those in the Iraqi and American forces. Go to the link above and watch the actual footage. You can observe Bush struggling to figure out how he is going to get out of this one. He calls the word quagmire interesting. That's what I find interesting, the fact that he finds it interesting. It's humorous but it's not really. Real people are dying and none of the individuals who have deceived us into this mess are being held accountable for their actions, and Bush continues on fabricating this story. Congress is equally accountable as the president, but it's the system that is the underlying fault. Our system of checks and balances needs to be rewritten so that our leaders are held accountable for their actions, and responsible for their words.
A reporter recently asked president Bush this three part question during a press conference that he and French President Nicholas Sarkozy were holding on television:
"Can France, for instance, help to get out of the Iraqi quagmire? And President Bush, where do you stand on Iraq and your domestic debate on Iraq? Do you have a timetable for withdrawing troops?"
president Bush responded by saying:
"You know quagmire is an interesting word. If you lived in Iraq and had lived under a tyranny, you’d be saying: God, I love freedom, because that’s what’s happened."
"And there are killers and radicals and murderers who kill the innocent to stop the advance of freedom. But freedom’s happening in Iraq. And we’re making progress."
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/07/bush-iraq-freedom/
Bush's response is a perfect example of rhetoric in action. He doesn't answer questions. He speaks like a politician, and what I mean by that is someone who is directing their speech so as not to expose themselves to any harm, to serve in their best political interests. Instead of taking on a question which holds a valid concern that Bush would rather evade, he sidesteps off into some rambling venture, incoherent beyond any sense. Look at how straightforward the reporter's questions are:
- Can France help to get out of the Iraq quagmire?
- Where do you stand on the domestic debate on Iraq?
- Do you have a timetable for withdrawing troops?
Bush's responses:
- That's an interesting word.
- Iraqi's love freedom, because that's what happened.
- Radicals and murderers kill to stop the advance of freedom. And we're making progress.
Bush is completely defying reality, ignoring legitimate concerns and moving on with his agenda, at the expense of untold deaths of Iraqi civilians and those in the Iraqi and American forces. Go to the link above and watch the actual footage. You can observe Bush struggling to figure out how he is going to get out of this one. He calls the word quagmire interesting. That's what I find interesting, the fact that he finds it interesting. It's humorous but it's not really. Real people are dying and none of the individuals who have deceived us into this mess are being held accountable for their actions, and Bush continues on fabricating this story. Congress is equally accountable as the president, but it's the system that is the underlying fault. Our system of checks and balances needs to be rewritten so that our leaders are held accountable for their actions, and responsible for their words.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
The reality behind the alternative minimum tax
Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed an $80 billion bill which would prevent the alternative minimum tax from impacting the middle class next year. To make up for the lost tax revenue as part of the bill, democrats have proposed eliminating a loophole which provides tax breaks for wealthy entities such as for hedge funds and private equity funds. The President meanwhile has vowed to veto the bill should it make it to his desk, which still has to make it through the senate. Here is why this matters.
The alternative minimum tax (AMT) was created in 1969 to prevent certain wealthy entities from enjoying unfair tax breaks and perks. However, it was not indexed for inflation, so as the wealth of the middle class has grown since that time, middle class tax payers have worked themselves into this tax bracket, despite lacking the wealth of the equivalent tax class in 1969. In short, the people who would be taxed by this tax in 2008 would not be the intended target as the tax was intended. Despite this, the president feels it would be unfair to shift the burden of this tax onto the rich, implying the middle class should undertake the burden, despite the fact that the AMT was intended to go after these very wealthy individuals. Such flawed rhetoric is too commonplace today. Should no agreement come about between congress and the president, middle class tax payers could pay as much as double their current taxes next year.
There are too many tax loopholes in place for the wealthy in this country, and closing one of these loopholes would be a major step in the right direction towards restoring some sense of balance of wealth in this country, as wealth translates directly to power. Tax breaks are given to the rich under the misunderstanding that concentrating more wealth at the top is essential for economic growth. The argument is that when the rich have more money to invest, they are able ignite the economy be initiating new business ventures via a greater amount of investment capital, which comes via greater tax breaks. This is known as trickle down economics, which truly serves as a front to further divide the economic classes and reward the elite disproportionately. This is the problem with the power structure in this country. Wealthy individuals are determining the rules for wealthy individuals, put into office by further wealthy individuals via campaign finance donations. Furthermore, by the very nature of economic class, our leaders are in a conflict of interest. I know for a fact that if the AMT had the same economic impact on the members of congress as it would have on the middle class, there would be no debate to this bill. As usual though, the rich have found a way to sponge off the rest.
The alternative minimum tax (AMT) was created in 1969 to prevent certain wealthy entities from enjoying unfair tax breaks and perks. However, it was not indexed for inflation, so as the wealth of the middle class has grown since that time, middle class tax payers have worked themselves into this tax bracket, despite lacking the wealth of the equivalent tax class in 1969. In short, the people who would be taxed by this tax in 2008 would not be the intended target as the tax was intended. Despite this, the president feels it would be unfair to shift the burden of this tax onto the rich, implying the middle class should undertake the burden, despite the fact that the AMT was intended to go after these very wealthy individuals. Such flawed rhetoric is too commonplace today. Should no agreement come about between congress and the president, middle class tax payers could pay as much as double their current taxes next year.
There are too many tax loopholes in place for the wealthy in this country, and closing one of these loopholes would be a major step in the right direction towards restoring some sense of balance of wealth in this country, as wealth translates directly to power. Tax breaks are given to the rich under the misunderstanding that concentrating more wealth at the top is essential for economic growth. The argument is that when the rich have more money to invest, they are able ignite the economy be initiating new business ventures via a greater amount of investment capital, which comes via greater tax breaks. This is known as trickle down economics, which truly serves as a front to further divide the economic classes and reward the elite disproportionately. This is the problem with the power structure in this country. Wealthy individuals are determining the rules for wealthy individuals, put into office by further wealthy individuals via campaign finance donations. Furthermore, by the very nature of economic class, our leaders are in a conflict of interest. I know for a fact that if the AMT had the same economic impact on the members of congress as it would have on the middle class, there would be no debate to this bill. As usual though, the rich have found a way to sponge off the rest.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
The free market and the health of our diet
The more I examine the unregulated capitalism our country practices, the more I realize it has far greater downside than upside. It is the fuel driving the wars in the middle east, and has been in other wars for quite some time. It is the reason that little is being done to respond to the warming of our planet, as such a response is costly and unprofitable. And it is, among other failings, the reason that there are so much poor on this planet, starving when the means to feed do exist.
I digress though, into another harmful bi-product of capitalism, and want to focus on one of the main arguments in favor of the unregulated market. Capitalists argue that because of the unregulated market, there is a great deal of variety available to consumers, and that it's capitalism that has flavored the market. But there is a very real pun intended in that statement. Because of capitalism, the quality of the product is often shoddy. Profit has that funny effect, as costs are kept low to make the most money. Consider the fast food industry, and with that all processed foods. Consider this report.
http://www.newstarget.com/022194.html
The western diet is one laden with heart disease and cancer, which should be no surprise considering the artificial ingredients and chemicals added to processed foods in the fast food industry. But why are they added? Well, one could argue flavor, but most would agree that a fresh patty cooked at home on a grill is better tasting than any burger that could be bought at McDonald's, Burger King or Wendy's. Plus there were ingredients used in fertilizers and unapproved for feline consumption mentioned in that article used in these foods. Fast food chains add these ingredients to make up for the poor quality of meat used in the burger. Beef is expensive. It requires vast amounts of land for cattle grazing, which leads to it's own form of environmental degradation, and large amounts of resources to raise a cow from birth to slaughter. Beef is the single most expensive product in the typical hamburger, so by lowering that expense by adding cheaper artificial ingredients, the fast food chains are able to harvest larger profits at the expense of the health of the consumer by selling something resembling food which still tastes good. And because fast food chains are able to keep their costs so low, they are able to sell products that are relatively affordable. Furthermore, since fast food chains are so prevalent and appeal to our lazy consumerist culture, westerners remain unaware of or unconcerned with the harm they are ingesting, desensitized to the seriousness of the situation.
See competition isn't always good. Many times the bar is lowered rather than raised through the production of goods. Because of the unregulated market, fast food franchises are inclined to make every attempt to maximize profit. Concessions are made for the sake of our economy, and as a result, the masses are mass fed a diet which is intended for profit, despite the fact that healthier, less profitable alternatives exist. If the focus were shifted away from the end all be all importance of profit, higher quality products would be created as there would be no incentive to cut corners. This would come if there wasn't as high of a concentration of wealth in our ruling class, who cut these corners to feed their greed. It is revulsive what occurs in the name of profit in this country. Our economic system just isn't working and we're now more than ever in dire need of a change. We should demand more for ourselves when the means do exist. It's simply immoral to sell such low quality, unhealthy foods which lead to disease and obesity on such a wide scale basis. This is the capitalism our leaders won't speak of, and the reason the system can't work.
digg it!
http://digg.com/political_opinion/The_free_market_and_the_health_of_our_diet/who
I digress though, into another harmful bi-product of capitalism, and want to focus on one of the main arguments in favor of the unregulated market. Capitalists argue that because of the unregulated market, there is a great deal of variety available to consumers, and that it's capitalism that has flavored the market. But there is a very real pun intended in that statement. Because of capitalism, the quality of the product is often shoddy. Profit has that funny effect, as costs are kept low to make the most money. Consider the fast food industry, and with that all processed foods. Consider this report.
http://www.newstarget.com/022194.html
The western diet is one laden with heart disease and cancer, which should be no surprise considering the artificial ingredients and chemicals added to processed foods in the fast food industry. But why are they added? Well, one could argue flavor, but most would agree that a fresh patty cooked at home on a grill is better tasting than any burger that could be bought at McDonald's, Burger King or Wendy's. Plus there were ingredients used in fertilizers and unapproved for feline consumption mentioned in that article used in these foods. Fast food chains add these ingredients to make up for the poor quality of meat used in the burger. Beef is expensive. It requires vast amounts of land for cattle grazing, which leads to it's own form of environmental degradation, and large amounts of resources to raise a cow from birth to slaughter. Beef is the single most expensive product in the typical hamburger, so by lowering that expense by adding cheaper artificial ingredients, the fast food chains are able to harvest larger profits at the expense of the health of the consumer by selling something resembling food which still tastes good. And because fast food chains are able to keep their costs so low, they are able to sell products that are relatively affordable. Furthermore, since fast food chains are so prevalent and appeal to our lazy consumerist culture, westerners remain unaware of or unconcerned with the harm they are ingesting, desensitized to the seriousness of the situation.
See competition isn't always good. Many times the bar is lowered rather than raised through the production of goods. Because of the unregulated market, fast food franchises are inclined to make every attempt to maximize profit. Concessions are made for the sake of our economy, and as a result, the masses are mass fed a diet which is intended for profit, despite the fact that healthier, less profitable alternatives exist. If the focus were shifted away from the end all be all importance of profit, higher quality products would be created as there would be no incentive to cut corners. This would come if there wasn't as high of a concentration of wealth in our ruling class, who cut these corners to feed their greed. It is revulsive what occurs in the name of profit in this country. Our economic system just isn't working and we're now more than ever in dire need of a change. We should demand more for ourselves when the means do exist. It's simply immoral to sell such low quality, unhealthy foods which lead to disease and obesity on such a wide scale basis. This is the capitalism our leaders won't speak of, and the reason the system can't work.
digg it!
http://digg.com/political_opinion/The_free_market_and_the_health_of_our_diet/who
Thursday, November 1, 2007
What do our diplomats think of this war?
This past Wednesday October, 31, the State Department announced it would be filling 48 vacant positions at the United States Embassy in Iraq out of a potential list of 250 suitable candidates. The chosen diplomats will be given the option of accepting or rejecting the one year assignment once selected, but could risk their jobs by refusing the position. The forced assignment comes due to a lack of volunteers willing to enter Baghdad's Green Zone, a constant place of violence and destruction. The announcement was met with great objection this past Wednesday, with American diplomats revolting against the decision. What does this say when the President's own team of spokespersons speak out against putting their lives on the line for this war?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/02/wgulf302.xml
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/iraq/2003986769_iraq01.html?syndication=rss
I don't find fault with the opposition being put up by these American diplomats. The fact that one of them referred to the assignment as "... a potential death sentence" really should quell the spirits of anyone still left with any pro-war sentiment. These are the individuals who are representing this country to the leaders of the rest of the world, and if they don't believe in the war, who can be expected to believe? If they are not willing to die for this country, why should our soldiers? The reality of war changes when one's own life is put at risk. It really calls into question the necessity for such destruction. If President Bush's own life were at risk on the battlefield, perhaps he would hold more reservation when initiating the shedding of blood. Now if only congress were threatened to be sent to the front lines...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/02/wgulf302.xml
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/iraq/2003986769_iraq01.html?syndication=rss
I don't find fault with the opposition being put up by these American diplomats. The fact that one of them referred to the assignment as "... a potential death sentence" really should quell the spirits of anyone still left with any pro-war sentiment. These are the individuals who are representing this country to the leaders of the rest of the world, and if they don't believe in the war, who can be expected to believe? If they are not willing to die for this country, why should our soldiers? The reality of war changes when one's own life is put at risk. It really calls into question the necessity for such destruction. If President Bush's own life were at risk on the battlefield, perhaps he would hold more reservation when initiating the shedding of blood. Now if only congress were threatened to be sent to the front lines...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)