It is not hard to say that the American high school educational system is bad. While there are some advantages over its European counterparts, for the most part the students who graduate from American high schools know less and do worse on international tests, getting beaten by almost all other developed nations’ students. While this might be partially attributed to the fact that American high schools give the same education to everyone (even those that are not college bound) and thus has the problem of slowing down its most gifted students.
The solution to this problem is relatively simple: reform the public high school system to mirror the public university system. Though the latter has many problems of its own, its functionality is much better than that of the former. In essence, give individual households yearly cash vouchers good at any high school, private or public, and then simply make the cost of public high schools cheaper. The effect should be to make effective public high schools.
Granted, this plan might seem odd, but it has a high chance of success. At the very least, it allows the United States to maintain its systems benefits (flexibility) while reaping some benefits of better educational systems.
Sunday, August 03, 2008
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Post War Planning and Why its important
When going into Iraq, the United States made one critical error. No post-war planning. In terms of strategy, the great American military crushed the Iraqi military. Yes, we won the war. We decimated the Iraq army. Never again will they pose a threat to Kuwait or Israel. Iraq has lost its ability to wage war. But I didn’t say defend? The problem is that Iraq still has a large amount of weapons stockpiled. Hence, invading into Iraq will serve little more than tying down the military. Aside from the French, it is impossible to fight against a nation with a dedicated militia.
Now go back to World War 2. Why didn’t Germany and Japan continue fighting? They still had people. And I know that Japan at least, were willing to fight down to the very last citizen. The reason is that we occupied Japan for the time being, we built schools and hospitals. We built infrastructure. We offered the Japanese a better life than us being gone. Same goes with Germany. Why is Berlin such a modern city? Because when we were occupying Germany post-war, we built it.
Northern Iraq is relatively safe, because it is occupied mostly by the Kurds. Now, the Kurds haven’t exactly had the greatest time. They’ve been constantly attacked, gassed, bombed, attacked, gassed, bombed, you get the point. However, the American military offers them a better life. They aren’t being attacked. And look at what we have, the Kurds are now one of our strongest allies in the Iraqi region.
The major flaw in fighting in Iraq, is that we have not offered any of them a better life. Quite frankly, we’ve offered them a very convoluted wife. Between the Americans blowing up buildings and shops, the firefights between terrorists and Americans, the general Iraqi had one thing before the Americans came through. Stability. Maybe they had fear, but they were at least stable under Saddam’s rule. Democracy does not provide stability for a nation. Terrorist organizations are able to recruit in Iraq because people see the United States and someone who pretty much came in romping through everything that was important.
Instead of fighting terrorism, we really should be rebuilding infrastructure. We should be providing them food, water, and shelter. Even if terrorist organizations are not convinced, at the very least, there will be people who will give us information. If we give the Iraqi’s a better life, then we have won. This is something that should have been planned beforehand. We should have secured funding for this before the war. Admittedly this would have required much more manpower and non-military personnel, but this is war. And war is never cheap.
Now go back to World War 2. Why didn’t Germany and Japan continue fighting? They still had people. And I know that Japan at least, were willing to fight down to the very last citizen. The reason is that we occupied Japan for the time being, we built schools and hospitals. We built infrastructure. We offered the Japanese a better life than us being gone. Same goes with Germany. Why is Berlin such a modern city? Because when we were occupying Germany post-war, we built it.
Northern Iraq is relatively safe, because it is occupied mostly by the Kurds. Now, the Kurds haven’t exactly had the greatest time. They’ve been constantly attacked, gassed, bombed, attacked, gassed, bombed, you get the point. However, the American military offers them a better life. They aren’t being attacked. And look at what we have, the Kurds are now one of our strongest allies in the Iraqi region.
The major flaw in fighting in Iraq, is that we have not offered any of them a better life. Quite frankly, we’ve offered them a very convoluted wife. Between the Americans blowing up buildings and shops, the firefights between terrorists and Americans, the general Iraqi had one thing before the Americans came through. Stability. Maybe they had fear, but they were at least stable under Saddam’s rule. Democracy does not provide stability for a nation. Terrorist organizations are able to recruit in Iraq because people see the United States and someone who pretty much came in romping through everything that was important.
Instead of fighting terrorism, we really should be rebuilding infrastructure. We should be providing them food, water, and shelter. Even if terrorist organizations are not convinced, at the very least, there will be people who will give us information. If we give the Iraqi’s a better life, then we have won. This is something that should have been planned beforehand. We should have secured funding for this before the war. Admittedly this would have required much more manpower and non-military personnel, but this is war. And war is never cheap.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Why global warming no longer matters
Despite whatever Brian Wynne says about how Global Warming is just a lie that Al Gore has created (such as the Internet) there comes a point that we must understand that global warming does not matter. Why you might ask? Because the scientific community has already accepted it. This poses a few problems to those who do not believe in global warming. If clean energy is the next boom in science, you might as well go with it. This is similar to saying that it is impossible to connect everyone to the Internet when everyone is hooking into it. The debate for global warming is over. Clean energy is now.
The final push towards renewable energy is of course, the oil crisis. We know that there is still oil. We also know that we can use coal. However, natural resources will always run out. Remember, that a seemingly limitless amount of energy gives us the ability to advance as a society. As such, renewable energy should still give us the ability to advance in the future. This is a problem that should have been fixed back at the last oil shock, and is now being fixed now.
Now in my personal opinion, I believe that limiting greenhouse gasses is merely a secondary effect. I believe that cheap energy is more important, and it would appear that all renewable energy sources are green.
Hence, we must note that those who say that Global Warming is just a hoax are doing more than just harming the environment, but they're holding back the next scientific boom.
Now when we look at the last big scientific boom (computers), our economy shot upwards. New jobs were created. We were able to land on the moon. A new industry opened around making computers games. Or even Microsoft Excel for that matter. Those against global warming are only caught up in what they think is untrue, rather than what the future may entail.
Industry has been shifting towards Green Energy. Not merely because of the global consequences, but also the economic growth that will follow afterwards.
Felon disenfranchisement
America has many unique phenomenon, some of which seem strange to outsiders. After all, the American love of baseball, basketball, and its own form of football and ice hockey over association football can be seen as a curiosity for strangers from other parts of the world. Most of these differences seem harmless to people not used to American eccentricities. However, at least one of these phenomenons, felony disenfranchisement carries serious implications for American democracy, not only because of its implicit restrictions on universal suffrage, but also because of the lack of justification for it.
The only supposed reason to prevent former criminals from voting is the fact that they were criminals at one point. However, in a democratic society, this is not a justifiable reason. Though it could be argued that their violation of the state’s laws justifies punishment, that punishment was given out in the form of the restriction of their freedoms, either through mandatory service or jail time. As a result, to further restrict their freedoms in a manner unrelated to their crimes is unnecessary and an infringement of rights. Unless the criminal committed electoral fraud, restricting his right to vote is arbitrary because the punishment in that format doesn’t fit the crime that the criminal has committed.
Indeed, these days the only reason to restrict the right to vote is a sense of disgust at criminal behavior: such a feeling cannot be the sole basis for restricting suffrage. Furthermore, it just doesn’t feel right: restricting a person’s right to vote based on a crime they committed 10, 20, or even 50 years ago seems to fall under the definition of cruel and unusual punishment forbidden by the 8th Amendment to the Constitution. As a result, the answer is clear: remove ban on voting due to a felony record for crimes other than electoral fraud and related violations. It’s the democratic thing to do.
The only supposed reason to prevent former criminals from voting is the fact that they were criminals at one point. However, in a democratic society, this is not a justifiable reason. Though it could be argued that their violation of the state’s laws justifies punishment, that punishment was given out in the form of the restriction of their freedoms, either through mandatory service or jail time. As a result, to further restrict their freedoms in a manner unrelated to their crimes is unnecessary and an infringement of rights. Unless the criminal committed electoral fraud, restricting his right to vote is arbitrary because the punishment in that format doesn’t fit the crime that the criminal has committed.
Indeed, these days the only reason to restrict the right to vote is a sense of disgust at criminal behavior: such a feeling cannot be the sole basis for restricting suffrage. Furthermore, it just doesn’t feel right: restricting a person’s right to vote based on a crime they committed 10, 20, or even 50 years ago seems to fall under the definition of cruel and unusual punishment forbidden by the 8th Amendment to the Constitution. As a result, the answer is clear: remove ban on voting due to a felony record for crimes other than electoral fraud and related violations. It’s the democratic thing to do.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Nationhood as a concept
The need for nation states must be legitimately questioned in today’s day and age. Though in past centuries it was well established that nationhood was not only a legitimate institution, but a right of all peoples, today the necessity of the nation-state has come under attack from new institutions, including international organizations such as the United Nations, the European Union, and other groups, such as NGO’s and corporations. Thus, for the first time in history, it is possible to ask the question: is the nation-state still necessary?
It would be difficult to answer yes. After all, it would appear that many of the vital functions of the state could be provided by institutions outside of the current national apparatus, with a variety of differing options. State defense and peacekeeping forces could be provided by what are currently now supranational organizations, or they could be provided by private corporations and groups. Almost every service feasible on this planet could be provided by some combination of private industry.
However, private industry is not always preferable. Most corporate services are much higher priced than those of governments, because corporations must maintain a profit margin. Additionally, corporations tend to offer less in their services in their attempts to avoid servicing relatively unprofitable markets and their push for growth. Hence, although a private mailing service is possible, it would be prohibitively expensive to places such as rural counties or more unsettled locations.
Thus, the trend of the world must continue. Though the nation-state might be obsolete, the world must move towards larger organizations. Institutions like the EU represent the most likely future of what are currently the nations of the world, and their super reach might discourage racism, xenophobia, and war. If that should happen, it will truly be a day to celebrate.
It would be difficult to answer yes. After all, it would appear that many of the vital functions of the state could be provided by institutions outside of the current national apparatus, with a variety of differing options. State defense and peacekeeping forces could be provided by what are currently now supranational organizations, or they could be provided by private corporations and groups. Almost every service feasible on this planet could be provided by some combination of private industry.
However, private industry is not always preferable. Most corporate services are much higher priced than those of governments, because corporations must maintain a profit margin. Additionally, corporations tend to offer less in their services in their attempts to avoid servicing relatively unprofitable markets and their push for growth. Hence, although a private mailing service is possible, it would be prohibitively expensive to places such as rural counties or more unsettled locations.
Thus, the trend of the world must continue. Though the nation-state might be obsolete, the world must move towards larger organizations. Institutions like the EU represent the most likely future of what are currently the nations of the world, and their super reach might discourage racism, xenophobia, and war. If that should happen, it will truly be a day to celebrate.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Taiwan-China Relations
When they say that Taiwan will fight until American's last soldier, that's a little inaccurate. Try America and Japan, which are the obvious. Try Hong Kong being rather unhappy. And then try Britain, Russia, France, Germany, Australia, Philippines, South Korea, Singapore. Any country that has any sort of trade to port cities in China will be very unhappy if China ever invades Taiwan.
Despite what anyone says about Taiwan not being its own nation, one must realize that the waters between Taiwan and China are international waters. Meaning that ships can pass through them freely. No tolls. The Taiwan straits is in fact a major trade artery that deals with most of Asia. That said, if China does ever take military actions towards Taiwan, trade to China will suddenly explode in cost. Given China's action in the World Trade Organization, you can be assured that the economic burden on the rest of the world will be grave.
And China's will be graver.
If China does ever invade Taiwan, massive trade barriers will be placed against China. Due to the fact that China is based mostly on imports/exports, the economic ramifications of such an action will devastate China. Also looking into China's history of revolutions, it will be very bloody. I predict that China will then split up into several nations, the Dali Lama will be allowed to come back to his, "own," nation, and East China will be similar to Japan without the neuroticism. In either case, the overbearing oh crap force of China will be broken. East China might actually be a democracy. And the rest of China will probably go to hell at this point.
So what can China do? To be honest, I won't say that it's impossible for China to join Taiwan. I don't believe it is a wise move. I don't like China. But I won't throw it out due to the recent Taiwan elections. On that note, the unification of Taiwan to China will have to come politically rather than militarily. In which case, the rest of the world will be unhappy, but there will be no excuse to attack China. The WTO will probably take a much harder step, but the same fact remains, China remains intact. That being said, the unification of Taiwan and China will not be based by China, but Taiwan.
Yes, there are people who disagree that Taiwan is an actual country. But one major fact remains, that the Taiwan straits have and will remain as international waters. That and National Geographic are enough to qualify Taiwan as a country. Perhaps not a major country, but still a country. Other countries may not recognize Taiwan, but every country recognizes money.
Despite what anyone says about Taiwan not being its own nation, one must realize that the waters between Taiwan and China are international waters. Meaning that ships can pass through them freely. No tolls. The Taiwan straits is in fact a major trade artery that deals with most of Asia. That said, if China does ever take military actions towards Taiwan, trade to China will suddenly explode in cost. Given China's action in the World Trade Organization, you can be assured that the economic burden on the rest of the world will be grave.
And China's will be graver.
If China does ever invade Taiwan, massive trade barriers will be placed against China. Due to the fact that China is based mostly on imports/exports, the economic ramifications of such an action will devastate China. Also looking into China's history of revolutions, it will be very bloody. I predict that China will then split up into several nations, the Dali Lama will be allowed to come back to his, "own," nation, and East China will be similar to Japan without the neuroticism. In either case, the overbearing oh crap force of China will be broken. East China might actually be a democracy. And the rest of China will probably go to hell at this point.
So what can China do? To be honest, I won't say that it's impossible for China to join Taiwan. I don't believe it is a wise move. I don't like China. But I won't throw it out due to the recent Taiwan elections. On that note, the unification of Taiwan to China will have to come politically rather than militarily. In which case, the rest of the world will be unhappy, but there will be no excuse to attack China. The WTO will probably take a much harder step, but the same fact remains, China remains intact. That being said, the unification of Taiwan and China will not be based by China, but Taiwan.
Yes, there are people who disagree that Taiwan is an actual country. But one major fact remains, that the Taiwan straits have and will remain as international waters. That and National Geographic are enough to qualify Taiwan as a country. Perhaps not a major country, but still a country. Other countries may not recognize Taiwan, but every country recognizes money.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
US Iran Relations
As you know, the US has sent an envoy to Iran to promote peace talks. As you know, Iran has become more aggressive in terms of their military, indicated by their use of Photoshop. And to be honest, I think that we’re going the wrong way with talks. We may try to negotiate with arms and trade, but this is ultimately useless.
It’s not like Iran has a real problem with America. To them, we’re just an overly aggressive nation with a taste of oil and war. Not the image I think America should have, but it’s not the worst. On the other hand, what Iran DOES know is that America and Israel are connected at the hips. And that Iran views Israel as an aggressive nation who can walk to Iran with tanks and guns. As seen in the actions of Israel during the decade, Israel hasn’t been the world’s most happy nation. Instead of America sending an envoy, rather, America should drag an envoy from Israel to Iran. Then talks can begin.
Much of America’s image has been tarnished by Israel. While America has treated Iraq in a very poor fashion, Israel treats the entire Middle East in the same fashion. Let’s look at it in terms of an Equation.
Israel = America
Hate = Israel
Hate = America
Q.E.D. What harms the relation of America and the Middle East is because of Israel.
Now, I’m not against the state of Israel. Heavens no, Israel has been a state long enough where you really can’t say it isn’t a state. What I am against is Israel’s lack of accountability. Because Israel and America are on such, “To the death,” terms, America will never try to control Israel. Israel is free to do whatever they wish because America will always support them. Hence, the reason why Iran is talking to America is because they know that if Israel invades Iran, so will America.
I’m not even talking about feasibility here. I’m just trying to improve American-Middle East relations, that of which must start from Israel. So what is it that I propose?
Israel is a very powerful military nation. No country in the right mind will bring the fight to Israel. So aside from the missiles, Israel is in fact fairly safe. Though on the missile part, if Israel stops acting like Israel, chances are that the missiles will stop. Israel needs to start talking to Middle East nation on trade, relations, and so on. Israel needs to stop attacking other nations.
And America?
We have two choices. Either abandon Israel and let them pick their own course. This makes it so that we are no longer accountable for Israel’s actions. And this puts the major powers of the Middle East on relatively equal grounds with Israel.
Or
We continue aid with Israel, but if Israel does something we don’t like, we default to the first choice. If Israel seriously believes that they need our backing, then they should listen to what we think. Much of what Israel does in the Middle East is counterproductive to our relations with the Middle East.
Our talk with Iran is nothing more than show. It is just us ignoring where the problems really lie. Make Israel accountable for their actions, and our relations with the Middle East will dramatically increase.
It’s not like Iran has a real problem with America. To them, we’re just an overly aggressive nation with a taste of oil and war. Not the image I think America should have, but it’s not the worst. On the other hand, what Iran DOES know is that America and Israel are connected at the hips. And that Iran views Israel as an aggressive nation who can walk to Iran with tanks and guns. As seen in the actions of Israel during the decade, Israel hasn’t been the world’s most happy nation. Instead of America sending an envoy, rather, America should drag an envoy from Israel to Iran. Then talks can begin.
Much of America’s image has been tarnished by Israel. While America has treated Iraq in a very poor fashion, Israel treats the entire Middle East in the same fashion. Let’s look at it in terms of an Equation.
Israel = America
Hate = Israel
Hate = America
Q.E.D. What harms the relation of America and the Middle East is because of Israel.
Now, I’m not against the state of Israel. Heavens no, Israel has been a state long enough where you really can’t say it isn’t a state. What I am against is Israel’s lack of accountability. Because Israel and America are on such, “To the death,” terms, America will never try to control Israel. Israel is free to do whatever they wish because America will always support them. Hence, the reason why Iran is talking to America is because they know that if Israel invades Iran, so will America.
I’m not even talking about feasibility here. I’m just trying to improve American-Middle East relations, that of which must start from Israel. So what is it that I propose?
Israel is a very powerful military nation. No country in the right mind will bring the fight to Israel. So aside from the missiles, Israel is in fact fairly safe. Though on the missile part, if Israel stops acting like Israel, chances are that the missiles will stop. Israel needs to start talking to Middle East nation on trade, relations, and so on. Israel needs to stop attacking other nations.
And America?
We have two choices. Either abandon Israel and let them pick their own course. This makes it so that we are no longer accountable for Israel’s actions. And this puts the major powers of the Middle East on relatively equal grounds with Israel.
Or
We continue aid with Israel, but if Israel does something we don’t like, we default to the first choice. If Israel seriously believes that they need our backing, then they should listen to what we think. Much of what Israel does in the Middle East is counterproductive to our relations with the Middle East.
Our talk with Iran is nothing more than show. It is just us ignoring where the problems really lie. Make Israel accountable for their actions, and our relations with the Middle East will dramatically increase.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
The New G8
The strength of countries wax and wane. Once powerful nations lose their standing, and countries that were originally vassals to stronger powers begin to assert themselves. Economically, luck and the ingenuity of the citizenry make the changes in GDP standings obvious. Today the modern G8 does not necessarily represent the strongest economies in the world. To do that, a new G8 should be formed with the following countries:
Countries
1. United States - Obvious. This country has the world’s strongest economy.
2. Japan - This country has the world’s 2nd strongest economy by nominal GDP and has been this way for a while. It is also 3rd by purchasing power parity.
3. China - This country is not only already 4th by nominal GDP, it is 2nd by purchasing power parity and is likely to continue high (that is, double digit) economic growth well into the future.
4. Germany - This country is 3rd in nominal GDP and 5th in purchasing power parity, and has also historically been an economic power in Europe.
5. United Kingdom - A financial capital of the world, this country is also 5th in nominal GDP and 6th in purchasing power parity.
6. France - Despite recent stagnation, France is still 6th and 8th in nominal and purchasing power parity GDP measures, respectively. It, along with Germany and the UK have been the traditional European economic powerhouses.
7. Brazil - Though plagued by problems and only 10th in nominal GDP (and 9th in purchasing power parity), Brazil is the only South and Central American country in both of the top 10 rankings.
8. India - An abysmal 12th in nominal GDP is offset by a ranking of 4th in purchasing power parity and a strong growth rate of 9% that is likely to be maintained.
In essence, this version of the G8 would include India, China and Brazil as official members and would exclude Italy, Russia and Canada, countries that while still strong economically are unlikely to grow quite as quickly as the former 3. Of course, all of these countries are already included in G8 talks, but changes in the group would still be welcome.
Countries
1. United States - Obvious. This country has the world’s strongest economy.
2. Japan - This country has the world’s 2nd strongest economy by nominal GDP and has been this way for a while. It is also 3rd by purchasing power parity.
3. China - This country is not only already 4th by nominal GDP, it is 2nd by purchasing power parity and is likely to continue high (that is, double digit) economic growth well into the future.
4. Germany - This country is 3rd in nominal GDP and 5th in purchasing power parity, and has also historically been an economic power in Europe.
5. United Kingdom - A financial capital of the world, this country is also 5th in nominal GDP and 6th in purchasing power parity.
6. France - Despite recent stagnation, France is still 6th and 8th in nominal and purchasing power parity GDP measures, respectively. It, along with Germany and the UK have been the traditional European economic powerhouses.
7. Brazil - Though plagued by problems and only 10th in nominal GDP (and 9th in purchasing power parity), Brazil is the only South and Central American country in both of the top 10 rankings.
8. India - An abysmal 12th in nominal GDP is offset by a ranking of 4th in purchasing power parity and a strong growth rate of 9% that is likely to be maintained.
In essence, this version of the G8 would include India, China and Brazil as official members and would exclude Italy, Russia and Canada, countries that while still strong economically are unlikely to grow quite as quickly as the former 3. Of course, all of these countries are already included in G8 talks, but changes in the group would still be welcome.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Much ado about Iran
Iran has not been known as a country that has been satisfied with the status quo in the 20th and 21st centuries. In the last 100 year period, the country has going through phases where it has overthrown its shah, established a radical Islamic republic, and taken on one of the world’s superpowers in a hostage crisis. In this century, Iran began to exploit its oil wealth, despite an embargo by the United States and others, and started a nuclear program. It has uranium enrichment facilities, and despite a report by the CIA that indicates the Iranians stopped trying to produce nuclear weapons in 2003 released earlier this year, the prospect for future developments in the nuclear department are enough to send oil prices soaring and regional tensions flaring. Iran’s recent test firings of 9 missiles in response to Israeli and American war games shows that the Iranians aren’t yet ready to settle into a peaceful state.
The goals of both sides are obvious and similar: intimidation. Israel hopes to make it clear that it could strike at an Iranian nuclear reactor with ease. America seeks to demonstrate that no country can cut off its oil supply. Iran wants to show that neither Israel nor America will be able to do what it wants in the region without a fight. This obviously raises the potential for war, but not seriously.
Yes, it seems like war is possible now, but there are several limiting factors. America is unlikely to engage in any more full scale wars for a long while after the Iraqi one ends. Israel’s military is not designed to be able to take on long term operations. Iran, meanwhile, is not strong enough to take on either of two of the world’s most advanced militaries. All sides realize that they are incapable of serious sustained military action.
So the most likely result of these shows of strength would be a setback in negotiations. Diplomacy might be sidetracked a bit, and oil prices might rise, but otherwise no serious long term harm is likely to result from this episode. It is, after all, one that has been repeated many times over.
The goals of both sides are obvious and similar: intimidation. Israel hopes to make it clear that it could strike at an Iranian nuclear reactor with ease. America seeks to demonstrate that no country can cut off its oil supply. Iran wants to show that neither Israel nor America will be able to do what it wants in the region without a fight. This obviously raises the potential for war, but not seriously.
Yes, it seems like war is possible now, but there are several limiting factors. America is unlikely to engage in any more full scale wars for a long while after the Iraqi one ends. Israel’s military is not designed to be able to take on long term operations. Iran, meanwhile, is not strong enough to take on either of two of the world’s most advanced militaries. All sides realize that they are incapable of serious sustained military action.
So the most likely result of these shows of strength would be a setback in negotiations. Diplomacy might be sidetracked a bit, and oil prices might rise, but otherwise no serious long term harm is likely to result from this episode. It is, after all, one that has been repeated many times over.
Obama and FISA
Voters are a contradictory bunch. They want their leaders to be principled, but at the same time they also want them to be able to solve the majority of the problems plaguing the world. However, as people know, these two wants are almost always fundamentally irreconcilable. After all, many solutions require compromise in order to get anything done, but a principled politician will rarely compromise on issues, which would otherwise make him appear to be unprincipled. And yet when forced with the most difficult decision of his Senate career, Barack Obama made the pragmatically sound decision, but the politically wrong one.
When it came time to vote on a bill to renew the passage of FISA, an important government document regulating wiretaps by the federal government, Obama voted for the bill. This was really a lose-lose situation for him. There was no way that he could have gotten out of the measure without losing standing in the political community. The bill itself did offer new regulations on the wiretapping of American citizens, but it also greatly expanded the powers of the federal government in its monitoring capabilities. Most controversially, it gave retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that had complied with illegal wiretaps for the government. Obviously such a measure was unacceptable to Obama, and he did vote for an amendment that would have stripped out immunity. However, the bill passed anyway, and Obama was one of the 62 votes in favor.
Looking at it from a political perspective, Obama should have voted against the bill. The difference between his voting for it and not voting for it in terms of the number of votes the bill had was negligible: had he voted “No”, the bill still would have been veto proof. But Obama feared being viewed as weak on national security. The problem is that no matter what he does, he will always be viewed as the weaker candidate on that issue: it is nearly impossible to beat a Republican war hero on national defense credentials.
Instead, Obama angered his base for no reason. His attempts to become a centrist are undermining the very support that won him the nomination in the first place. His only distinguishing factor between him and older politicians is the way that he has garnered support. The policies he are advocating as part of his move towards the center will lose him that difference, and lose him the election. Hopefully Obama will realize that before it’s too late.
When it came time to vote on a bill to renew the passage of FISA, an important government document regulating wiretaps by the federal government, Obama voted for the bill. This was really a lose-lose situation for him. There was no way that he could have gotten out of the measure without losing standing in the political community. The bill itself did offer new regulations on the wiretapping of American citizens, but it also greatly expanded the powers of the federal government in its monitoring capabilities. Most controversially, it gave retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that had complied with illegal wiretaps for the government. Obviously such a measure was unacceptable to Obama, and he did vote for an amendment that would have stripped out immunity. However, the bill passed anyway, and Obama was one of the 62 votes in favor.
Looking at it from a political perspective, Obama should have voted against the bill. The difference between his voting for it and not voting for it in terms of the number of votes the bill had was negligible: had he voted “No”, the bill still would have been veto proof. But Obama feared being viewed as weak on national security. The problem is that no matter what he does, he will always be viewed as the weaker candidate on that issue: it is nearly impossible to beat a Republican war hero on national defense credentials.
Instead, Obama angered his base for no reason. His attempts to become a centrist are undermining the very support that won him the nomination in the first place. His only distinguishing factor between him and older politicians is the way that he has garnered support. The policies he are advocating as part of his move towards the center will lose him that difference, and lose him the election. Hopefully Obama will realize that before it’s too late.
Friday, July 11, 2008
What about the League of Democracies?
The UN was an organization founded over 60 years ago by the biggest victors of the last major World War. While throughout the Cold War it was able to serve as a relatively functional method of assuring world peace (mainly through the group’s split along Communist and Western lines), the end of the Soviet Union has exposed weaknesses in the current system. Though China and the United States remain globally relevant (and the inclusion of the People’s Republic of China only came about during the 1970’s), Russia, Great Britain, and France no longer hold the power they used to. It is likely time to either expand the services of the UN or go an entirely different route by supporting the League of Democracies championed by John McCain. Would either idea be worth it?
Expanding the UN’s Permanent Security council seems like the more obvious idea. After all, the UN is still a very much functional organization, but it lacks some important voices. Most notably, no major country from South or Central America (Brazil, Argentina, or Mexico), Africa, and several other countries such as Germany, Japan and India are excluded. Some of these current exclusions are bizarre given global realities. Germany is one of the world’s strongest economies and a critical member of Europe. Japan is 2nd in the world in terms of GDP. South and Central America having no representatives excludes somewhere on the scale of 400 million people in the world. Africa, despite being one of the continents in which the UN must complete many of its most pressing functions, has no voice. Expansion would be the obvious solution were it not for regional complaints about potential members (notably Brazil, Germany, India, Japan and an African country) and the reservations of the current permanent members. One possible compromise would be to make permanent members without veto powers, an idea that would likely garner hostility by potential permanent Security Council members. The most likely and viable solution would be to make new permanent members have half of a veto, thereby ensuring that if two countries united their interests, then a veto would be assured. This would also allow countries to be later upgraded to a full veto pending evaluation.
The League of Democracies seems like the sounder idea. After all, democratic countries would tend to be more likely to see eye to eye on issues and be more willing to tackle problems of global human rights and relief efforts. Yet simply being democracies doesn’t make countries more likely to work together: many democracies opposed the Iraq War. Further, what constitutes a democracy would be hard to define: technically, almost every country in the world runs in a democratic format.
Ultimately, the best solution would be to simply reform the UN. A new League of Democracies would be difficult, if not impossible, to formulate, and would only be seen as a group of like minded individuals setting up another talking-shop. After all, if an organization wants to address problems (for example, democratic regimes wanting to end the Sudanese genocide), not including groups critical to the solution (like the government of Sudan) would lead to almost certain failure.
Expanding the UN’s Permanent Security council seems like the more obvious idea. After all, the UN is still a very much functional organization, but it lacks some important voices. Most notably, no major country from South or Central America (Brazil, Argentina, or Mexico), Africa, and several other countries such as Germany, Japan and India are excluded. Some of these current exclusions are bizarre given global realities. Germany is one of the world’s strongest economies and a critical member of Europe. Japan is 2nd in the world in terms of GDP. South and Central America having no representatives excludes somewhere on the scale of 400 million people in the world. Africa, despite being one of the continents in which the UN must complete many of its most pressing functions, has no voice. Expansion would be the obvious solution were it not for regional complaints about potential members (notably Brazil, Germany, India, Japan and an African country) and the reservations of the current permanent members. One possible compromise would be to make permanent members without veto powers, an idea that would likely garner hostility by potential permanent Security Council members. The most likely and viable solution would be to make new permanent members have half of a veto, thereby ensuring that if two countries united their interests, then a veto would be assured. This would also allow countries to be later upgraded to a full veto pending evaluation.
The League of Democracies seems like the sounder idea. After all, democratic countries would tend to be more likely to see eye to eye on issues and be more willing to tackle problems of global human rights and relief efforts. Yet simply being democracies doesn’t make countries more likely to work together: many democracies opposed the Iraq War. Further, what constitutes a democracy would be hard to define: technically, almost every country in the world runs in a democratic format.
Ultimately, the best solution would be to simply reform the UN. A new League of Democracies would be difficult, if not impossible, to formulate, and would only be seen as a group of like minded individuals setting up another talking-shop. After all, if an organization wants to address problems (for example, democratic regimes wanting to end the Sudanese genocide), not including groups critical to the solution (like the government of Sudan) would lead to almost certain failure.
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
Drinking and the what the hell?
During the break, I've turned 18. Eighteen. I prepare for college. I'm allowed to vote (though I choose not to). I'm allowed to smoke (something like that, it might be 19). I'm allowed to join the military. But wait, I can't drink?
For the lack of better terms, what the fuck is with this shit? (I'm not angry)
America has had a strange relationship with Alcohol. For one, we had the prohibition. And for another, I'm still allowed to bar tend. But what I realize the most is that America has yet to step out of the prohibition state. As we know, America has the drinking age at 21. Yet at the same time, teenagers are still allowed to drink willy nilly. For example, Randolph High School's great senior Vermont trip was busted for alcohol. However, this bust wasn't exactly what you would consider a,"bust." If under age drinking was truly illegal, every police jail cell from Vermont to Randolph should have been filled. Instead, it was merely a price tag and a class.
Note: No one pays attention during health class.
While the price tag was truely heafty, this is merely a slap on the wrist. I guarantee you that more than those busted at Vermont has consumed alcohol at one point of his/her life. This loosely enforced laws does nothing but......increases underage alcohol consumption?
When someone tells you to do something over and over and over again, there comes a point where you do something to spite something else. On the note of Alcohol, we've been told not to drink alcohol for such a long time that at one point or another, we wonder, what exactly is wrong with it?
Do not confuse this with crack, cocaine, or heroin. Consumption = Death.
But Alcohol? The problem with Alcohol, is that parents consume it and tells their kids not to. This makes little sense considering consumption still occurs. Rather than telling kids not to drink alcohol, the most important thing is to do is to preach responsible drinking habits. For example, when drinking, drink in moderation. When drinking, always have a designated driver. These are easily enforced, considering most parents do the same. These make sense.
Ironically enough, those who consume alcohol with their parents have a much lower rate of binge drinking than those who don't. Let the evidence speak for itself.
For the lack of better terms, what the fuck is with this shit? (I'm not angry)
America has had a strange relationship with Alcohol. For one, we had the prohibition. And for another, I'm still allowed to bar tend. But what I realize the most is that America has yet to step out of the prohibition state. As we know, America has the drinking age at 21. Yet at the same time, teenagers are still allowed to drink willy nilly. For example, Randolph High School's great senior Vermont trip was busted for alcohol. However, this bust wasn't exactly what you would consider a,"bust." If under age drinking was truly illegal, every police jail cell from Vermont to Randolph should have been filled. Instead, it was merely a price tag and a class.
Note: No one pays attention during health class.
While the price tag was truely heafty, this is merely a slap on the wrist. I guarantee you that more than those busted at Vermont has consumed alcohol at one point of his/her life. This loosely enforced laws does nothing but......increases underage alcohol consumption?
When someone tells you to do something over and over and over again, there comes a point where you do something to spite something else. On the note of Alcohol, we've been told not to drink alcohol for such a long time that at one point or another, we wonder, what exactly is wrong with it?
Do not confuse this with crack, cocaine, or heroin. Consumption = Death.
But Alcohol? The problem with Alcohol, is that parents consume it and tells their kids not to. This makes little sense considering consumption still occurs. Rather than telling kids not to drink alcohol, the most important thing is to do is to preach responsible drinking habits. For example, when drinking, drink in moderation. When drinking, always have a designated driver. These are easily enforced, considering most parents do the same. These make sense.
Ironically enough, those who consume alcohol with their parents have a much lower rate of binge drinking than those who don't. Let the evidence speak for itself.
Ressurection
After a long hiatus, Pamphlets has been resurrected.
News on the Staff:
Eli has been Eli. He will probably not update anything.
Jihan has been annoying as of late. On that note, LA sucks. Don't look for his posts either.
Starring:
Roger Yang
Alex Zhao
And whoever guest writer we have in the future.
News on the Staff:
Eli has been Eli. He will probably not update anything.
Jihan has been annoying as of late. On that note, LA sucks. Don't look for his posts either.
Starring:
Roger Yang
Alex Zhao
And whoever guest writer we have in the future.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
These Peripheral Devices Are So Stupid
The reason people play video games is to simulate real life. Now, this means that they want some degree of attachment away from reality. Obviously if you had to actually, you know, learn how to operate a controller that simulated a real gun perfectly just to play Doom, we wouldn't have one of the best selling games ever. That's why for console games, whose goal is to entertain you while you're lying on a couch in front of a TV, ease of use of controllers is important.
Well, apparently some new developers aren't getting that message. While bad game input devices have littered history (Power Glove, anyone?), some newer developers (and some older ones who've been in this business for a long time) still haven't learned their lesson yet: too many of the peripheral devices released have too limited purposes.
An example of a relatively useful peripheral would be the DDR pad. Yes, it only works for one type of game, but it works for the entire genre. A bad example that's coming out soon, however, are the different instruments for Rock Band. Guitar Hero's use of a guitar peripheral makes sense because the guitar could simulate a bass as well, but having drums, guitars, and microphones all bundled with one game is going to be extremely expensive, not to mention as burdensome as the Steel Battalion add-on.
Worse still are Nintendo with their Wii add-ons. Do we really need a case so that the wiimote looks like a gun? Link's sword? These aren't items that help game play in any way, and all they do is make your product look like a cheap gimmick.
So lay off all of these peripheral devices. They're only hurting your product, and they're damaging the essence of video games.
Well, apparently some new developers aren't getting that message. While bad game input devices have littered history (Power Glove, anyone?), some newer developers (and some older ones who've been in this business for a long time) still haven't learned their lesson yet: too many of the peripheral devices released have too limited purposes.
An example of a relatively useful peripheral would be the DDR pad. Yes, it only works for one type of game, but it works for the entire genre. A bad example that's coming out soon, however, are the different instruments for Rock Band. Guitar Hero's use of a guitar peripheral makes sense because the guitar could simulate a bass as well, but having drums, guitars, and microphones all bundled with one game is going to be extremely expensive, not to mention as burdensome as the Steel Battalion add-on.
Worse still are Nintendo with their Wii add-ons. Do we really need a case so that the wiimote looks like a gun? Link's sword? These aren't items that help game play in any way, and all they do is make your product look like a cheap gimmick.
So lay off all of these peripheral devices. They're only hurting your product, and they're damaging the essence of video games.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Drug Laws Increase Possession Among Minors
The goal of government is to do as the people wish it to. However, like everyone else, the government creates consequences whenever it decides to enact laws. Some of these consequences are very much intentional: laws against murder, for example, are intended to stop people from killing others. Other consequences, however, are completely unintended, and can cause havoc with people’s lives as well as various societal and economic institutions. One law in
The most obvious case of laws intended to protect people going wrong is that of anti-drug legislation. While intended to prevent people from using drugs, which have adverse health effects, the current “War on Drugs” and anti-drug legislation has ended up creating a bigger drug problem, with stronger cartels, more sales to minors, and a host of unintended consequences. While intended to decrease the amount of illegal drugs sold and to stop its trade, the War on Drugs has failed. By making the drugs illegal, it has limited the sale of such substances to only those involved in already illegal activities, giving gangs a new source of funding.
One unintended consequence of anti-drug legislation has been the increased sale of drugs to minors. Because drug sales are illegal to both adults and minors alike, dealers have no incentive to avoid selling to children. In fact, they have a greater incentive to sell it to minors, because minors are less likely to rat them out, since minors have very few avenues of recourse against the dealers. Because youths are unable to legally purchase weapons, or pursue other judicial means, it becomes much harder for them to retaliate against drug dealers. As such, it becomes safer for drug dealers to sell to minors rather than adults, because it is safer for them personally. If anti-drug legislation were replaced merely with laws allowing only the sale of drugs to adults, dealers have an incentive to not sell to young people. However, because anti-drug legislation considers all sales equally, dealers sell more drugs to minors.
With the increase in drug trade, people are made worse off by the law. Increased drug sales means increased revenue for criminal organizations and gangs. Like in the era of Prohibition, criminal cartels make vast amounts of money selling drugs and circumventing the law. More funding for criminals means more crimes, more murders, deaths, and violence. The problem is especially bad in areas such as the cities, and has even crept into places normally considered far removed from drug problems. Even suburban areas and rural towns now face a drug problem.
There are, of course, better alternatives. Legalizing the sale of drugs will cut off drug dealing as a source of revenue for criminals. Drug users can get treatment, since using drugs will no longer be a crime that they are punished for. People who sell drugs will not sell to minors, because it would be disadvantageous and unprofitable. Legislation that doesn’t restrict drugs entirely, but rather sets a minimum age, would increase individual freedom to use drugs. It would also reduce the current drug problem in the
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Anger Over Accepting Pesos is Ridiculous
The debate over immigration has shown up in the business world, this time in the form of death threats and angry letters to the owner of a pizza chain in the South and Southwest. The Pizza Patron chain of stores began accepting Mexican pesos as official payment along with
The difference here is that many of the pizza joints are far from the border, in places like Dallas, more than 400 miles away, and Denver, more than 700 miles. There’s therefore controversy over whether this kind of action would be catering to illegal immigrants from
The money they’re trying to pull in isn’t in huge quantities, so it would have been inconvenient to convert it back to dollars on the way back. Chances are the pesos would have gone around simply sitting in somebody’s sock drawer and have been unused. If the company wants to make more money this way, then let them do it. Don’t drag them into a debate over illegal immigration just because they’re accepting some foreign currency.
Friday, November 24, 2006
Freedom of Speech? Hardly.
They’re small, confined areas surrounded by cage wire, usually designed to look like detention centers. They’re used on dissidents against the current presidential administration as well as the protestors of the government at large. People are often crowded inside of them, shackled or handcuffed to each other, and left there for hours and sometimes even days without a real reason for arrest. They have been used as political tools to suppress popular protest against the leaders of the economic and political world internationally. Democrats can usually be found within them. This description isn’t of the jail cells at Guantanamo Bay, but rather so called “free speech zones” put up across the country for protestors across the nation at major international summits and meetings of world leaders.
These zones, more accurately described as cages, are an affront to the American way of life. Their purpose isn’t crowd control, as so often cited by police departments around the world. While many supporters of the meetings and summits are allowed to stay next to or very close to the location of the meeting or convention of world leaders, freedom of speech cages are oftentimes kept up to half of a mile away from the intended locations of the conventions, parades, and summits. Their most prominent use these days is political: freedom of speech zones are often placed at locations in which President Bush intends to appear, in order to allow local authorities and the Secret Service to take out individuals with anti-Bush apparel or posters to locations far away from the press and the President. In other words, these cages are used as nothing more than places to put away people who disagree with the President so that the media manages to avoid showing actual opposition to Bush and instead ends up portraying the President as if he actually had popular support from the people.
On what grounds are these protest zones even legal? The justifications are very shaky at best. Many times police will simply arrest people who refuse to go such zones with charges of trespassing, despite the fact that in these cases those arrested will oftentimes be surrounded by supporters of the President. At one incident in Pittsburgh, at which the Presidential motorcade made a stop in 2002, a 65 year old- retiree was singled out from a crowd of hundreds and ordered to go to a baseball field one third of a mile out of the way, simply because his sign criticized the Bush Administration’s policy towards the poor. It was, of course, much easier to send that retired worker away than to actually face the criticism.
The only federal law used to justify these cases is one that is so rarely used that it is hardly known to anyone. This law allows the Secret Service to arrest people who willfully enter areas cordoned off for the President. Regardless of what statutes or laws used to justify the zones, several trials at many levels of federal courts on the subject have ruled that restricting people at major appearances of the President simply by the content of their protest is illegal, and yet it’s still done anyway. Freedom of speech zones are in direct violation of judicial authority in this nation. Allowing them to continue will only help to undermine the US court system’s authority.
But even more so, these zones fundamentally undermine the United States Constitution. Not only does the First Amendment to the Constitution not come with a qualifier that says that “this law only applies to cages set up far away from public notice,” but it specifically prohibits Congress and by extension the federal government from violating the freedom of speech. No federal law can therefore be used to justify sending people out of the way to exercise their rights inside of cages and far away from the media. But even worse is the implication that this has for freedom of speech in general. If freedom of speech is only limited, as implied by the name, to those specific areas at all times, does it mean that we live in a country where we can’t exercise our inalienable constitutional rights unless we’re confined to prison-like conditions? What good are these rights if the only place we can exercise them is in cages? What kind of message does it send to the world when America proclaims that the only place in which you can truly be free is inside of a chain linked cell?
The only conceivable reason that these zones could possibly be used under any circumstance is extreme crowd control. But this is clearly not the case, as every event in which the Presidential motorcade or a summit of world leaders in the United States occurs requires these zones. They are nothing more than political tools for those in power to both ignore and silence their critics from the American people. At the very best they highlight the incompetence of police departments in being able to control protestors. At the worst they exist as physical affronts to the United States Constitution and to Americans as a whole. The freedom of speech zone is a concept that must be eliminated immediately, because every time one is used, it sends out a message to the rest of the world: America is no longer the land of the free, no longer the land of opportunity or self-expression. Instead, America becomes a land of irony where the only true way to be free is to be imprisoned in cages.
These zones, more accurately described as cages, are an affront to the American way of life. Their purpose isn’t crowd control, as so often cited by police departments around the world. While many supporters of the meetings and summits are allowed to stay next to or very close to the location of the meeting or convention of world leaders, freedom of speech cages are oftentimes kept up to half of a mile away from the intended locations of the conventions, parades, and summits. Their most prominent use these days is political: freedom of speech zones are often placed at locations in which President Bush intends to appear, in order to allow local authorities and the Secret Service to take out individuals with anti-Bush apparel or posters to locations far away from the press and the President. In other words, these cages are used as nothing more than places to put away people who disagree with the President so that the media manages to avoid showing actual opposition to Bush and instead ends up portraying the President as if he actually had popular support from the people.
On what grounds are these protest zones even legal? The justifications are very shaky at best. Many times police will simply arrest people who refuse to go such zones with charges of trespassing, despite the fact that in these cases those arrested will oftentimes be surrounded by supporters of the President. At one incident in Pittsburgh, at which the Presidential motorcade made a stop in 2002, a 65 year old- retiree was singled out from a crowd of hundreds and ordered to go to a baseball field one third of a mile out of the way, simply because his sign criticized the Bush Administration’s policy towards the poor. It was, of course, much easier to send that retired worker away than to actually face the criticism.
The only federal law used to justify these cases is one that is so rarely used that it is hardly known to anyone. This law allows the Secret Service to arrest people who willfully enter areas cordoned off for the President. Regardless of what statutes or laws used to justify the zones, several trials at many levels of federal courts on the subject have ruled that restricting people at major appearances of the President simply by the content of their protest is illegal, and yet it’s still done anyway. Freedom of speech zones are in direct violation of judicial authority in this nation. Allowing them to continue will only help to undermine the US court system’s authority.
But even more so, these zones fundamentally undermine the United States Constitution. Not only does the First Amendment to the Constitution not come with a qualifier that says that “this law only applies to cages set up far away from public notice,” but it specifically prohibits Congress and by extension the federal government from violating the freedom of speech. No federal law can therefore be used to justify sending people out of the way to exercise their rights inside of cages and far away from the media. But even worse is the implication that this has for freedom of speech in general. If freedom of speech is only limited, as implied by the name, to those specific areas at all times, does it mean that we live in a country where we can’t exercise our inalienable constitutional rights unless we’re confined to prison-like conditions? What good are these rights if the only place we can exercise them is in cages? What kind of message does it send to the world when America proclaims that the only place in which you can truly be free is inside of a chain linked cell?
The only conceivable reason that these zones could possibly be used under any circumstance is extreme crowd control. But this is clearly not the case, as every event in which the Presidential motorcade or a summit of world leaders in the United States occurs requires these zones. They are nothing more than political tools for those in power to both ignore and silence their critics from the American people. At the very best they highlight the incompetence of police departments in being able to control protestors. At the worst they exist as physical affronts to the United States Constitution and to Americans as a whole. The freedom of speech zone is a concept that must be eliminated immediately, because every time one is used, it sends out a message to the rest of the world: America is no longer the land of the free, no longer the land of opportunity or self-expression. Instead, America becomes a land of irony where the only true way to be free is to be imprisoned in cages.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
NJ Ruling Does Nothing for Republicans
It would appear that the Republican Party is grasping at straws. They are seeking any possible reason to try and rally their conservative base. The recent ruling in the New Jersey Supreme Court that gay couples have the same legal and financial rights as heterosexual ones is their latest attempt to try and garner some votes from their demoralized supporters. It’s not going to work this time, unlike in 2004, because the issue has already been played out, and because it’s seen clearly as a ploy by the Republicans to simply gather more votes, not to do anything on the issue.
The biggest reason that this issue isn’t going to work is because the court actually stopped short of getting into the “gay marriage” issue by not mandating the state give that title to unions for gay couples. This means that the ruling doesn’t necessarily offend anyone in particular. In fact, very few social conservatives will be that concerned, since bigger issues like the war in Iraq and health care play on their minds. Gay marriage seems like a small issue compared to those, especially when it’s not actually involving the word marriage.
Another reason why the New Jersey ruling won’t seriously affect change in the polls is because of the damage and fallout from the Mark Foley scandal. This scandal has been a big, big problem for the Republicans. It managed to obscure the news of the launching of nuclear weapons by North Korea. It’s hurting the Republicans on this issue now. The party is seen as the one who harbored a homosexual pedophile. Regardless of their views on gay marriage, conservatives are now much less likely to vote with their party, or at all.
What this all means is that the Republican Party’s attempts to try and make this whole ruling a big issue will fail. They’re not likely to excite their base anymore after Mark Foley. The chances of them winning the House and Senate elections are now slimmer than ever, and committing themselves to this issue is not going to help them one bit.
The biggest reason that this issue isn’t going to work is because the court actually stopped short of getting into the “gay marriage” issue by not mandating the state give that title to unions for gay couples. This means that the ruling doesn’t necessarily offend anyone in particular. In fact, very few social conservatives will be that concerned, since bigger issues like the war in Iraq and health care play on their minds. Gay marriage seems like a small issue compared to those, especially when it’s not actually involving the word marriage.
Another reason why the New Jersey ruling won’t seriously affect change in the polls is because of the damage and fallout from the Mark Foley scandal. This scandal has been a big, big problem for the Republicans. It managed to obscure the news of the launching of nuclear weapons by North Korea. It’s hurting the Republicans on this issue now. The party is seen as the one who harbored a homosexual pedophile. Regardless of their views on gay marriage, conservatives are now much less likely to vote with their party, or at all.
What this all means is that the Republican Party’s attempts to try and make this whole ruling a big issue will fail. They’re not likely to excite their base anymore after Mark Foley. The chances of them winning the House and Senate elections are now slimmer than ever, and committing themselves to this issue is not going to help them one bit.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Russian Nukes for Sale, Terrorists Inquire Within
On September 26, 2006, is a day that you should learn about. Had the judgement of one man failed, the world as we know it would no longer exist. In fact, the world as we know it would consist of the smoldering nuclear ashes of the US and the Soviet Union. That man was Stanislav Petrov, and he stopped a nuclear retaliation against a faulty warning by the USSR’s computer systems. Unfortunately, if our current policy towards former Russian nuclear scientists continue, no one man will be able to stop nuclear destruction.
The problem is that since that day onwards, the Soviet Union has ceased to exist. However, their nuclear arsenal, still ready to be used at a moment’s notice and powerful enough to wipe cities off the map, are readily available. Compounding the problem of shoddy security, corruption, and the general unworthy character of the Russians is the fact that Russian nuclear scientists are unemployed and willing to work for very low pay. How low? Al Qaeda could afford to hire them.
Now, it doesn’t take a genuis to realize that starving Russian nuclear specialists + terrorists with money = nuclear terrorists. Clearly then, since a nuclear program by a terrorist organization would be catastrophic, the United States, in its vaulted war on terror, would be working to stop these Russian scientists from not having work? Not anymore. Now with no program in place to hire former Soviet scientists, their knowledge goes to the top bidder, and despite the elapsed time, Soviet nuclear technology is still as potent as it once was.
What I’m saying is this: that the if Russian scientists are not given employment, they will do anything to get money to feed their families and themselves. People are willing to survive no matter what the cost, even if it means giving terrorists the technology to make 9/11 look like a game of paintball. What I ask, then, is that you never cease to remember that should effort be made to contain this threat the world will literally end.
This isn’t hard to do. It’d take less money than funding the Iraq War and does more to make the world safer. So why aren’t we doing it?
Alex Zhao is foxchasefive’s self-appointed expert on nuclear proliferation.
The problem is that since that day onwards, the Soviet Union has ceased to exist. However, their nuclear arsenal, still ready to be used at a moment’s notice and powerful enough to wipe cities off the map, are readily available. Compounding the problem of shoddy security, corruption, and the general unworthy character of the Russians is the fact that Russian nuclear scientists are unemployed and willing to work for very low pay. How low? Al Qaeda could afford to hire them.
Now, it doesn’t take a genuis to realize that starving Russian nuclear specialists + terrorists with money = nuclear terrorists. Clearly then, since a nuclear program by a terrorist organization would be catastrophic, the United States, in its vaulted war on terror, would be working to stop these Russian scientists from not having work? Not anymore. Now with no program in place to hire former Soviet scientists, their knowledge goes to the top bidder, and despite the elapsed time, Soviet nuclear technology is still as potent as it once was.
What I’m saying is this: that the if Russian scientists are not given employment, they will do anything to get money to feed their families and themselves. People are willing to survive no matter what the cost, even if it means giving terrorists the technology to make 9/11 look like a game of paintball. What I ask, then, is that you never cease to remember that should effort be made to contain this threat the world will literally end.
This isn’t hard to do. It’d take less money than funding the Iraq War and does more to make the world safer. So why aren’t we doing it?
Alex Zhao is foxchasefive’s self-appointed expert on nuclear proliferation.
Monday, September 18, 2006
Stop Rioting. It's not that bad
The pope quoted a medieval author, saying something like the Muslims have only brought evil upon the world. Something along those lines, I’m not really quite sure. But the fact remains is, after the apology and re-explanation from the pope, many Muslims are still up, demanding for the pope’s apology, after receiving one. I for one am completely against those who protest against the Muslims on this one. Not only because the Muslims, who want to prove they are not evil, are causing riots and advocating a holy war against the west, but the fact that the Muslims aren’t treated that badly. One statement by a religious figure is not enough to cause a huge riot.
I know some of you may think, “Well, what would you do if your beliefs were attacked?” For that, I say fuck you. I’m an Atheist/Agnostic. I’m treated like crap. They don’t like us in the military. Something like, “There is never an Atheist in a foxhole.” Only recently have they allowed the atheist to have something on their grave stone. The Jews have a star. The Christians have the cross. And I finally get the Atom. But even with that, the atheists are treated far worse. Many people state that the Atheists are just a bunch of communists. Recent surveys indicate that Atheists are on the bottom of the trusted totem pole. This puts them below gays, terrorists, Muslims, and Jews. This basically means that an Atheist will never hold office. At least until this religious period passed.
What does this exactly mean? When was the last time an Atheist waged a war because their beliefs were attacked? Repeatedly, we’re stomped on and distrusted, even if we advocate the separation of church and state. Many atheists wouldn’t even agree if the words, “There is no god,” was inscribed everywhere. Unlike several radials located in the
Naturally, I give sympathy to those who are not militant, and would rather get on with their lives rather than be screened for plastic explosives.
Now, I believe that Islam is a fairly peaceful religion. The Jihad is something that happens when an intruder comes in and destroys thing. It’s something that you do in order to protect yourself (Correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s what I’ve picked up so far). However, this entire, “protect yourself,” doesn’t exactly seem to coincide with the definition of the Holy War. Neither does the outrage against the Pope’s quote. If anything, the Muslims should be pissed off at history.
Then again, what does that say about Atheists?
It was worse back then, granted. The Medieval ages were very Christian oriented, and Heresy was a big topic.
Yet even so, Atheists seem to remain fairly peaceful people. The Muslims in
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
