Now tying this all back to where I began two posts ago, illegal immigration, allowing people into this country to take the jobs that Americans don’t want. The CIA world fact book states that in 2006, 4.8% of Americans were unemployed and numbers from 2004 state that 12% of the population was below the poverty line (both numbers were the most recent ones offered). With automation being the way of the future for this country just as animals and simple machines replaced human labor in the time of our ancestors those numbers have no where to go but up. While this country should continue to allow legal immigrants it should make strict standards for who is allowed such as educated people and those in a sustainable financial situation. As more Americans are willing to take any job they can get before turning to the option of emigration in search of new work the jobs that are currently held by illegal immigrants will become in demand for legal residents.
My solution to the illegal immigration problem is simple require all companies to file a request for employment application with the federal government when ever they hire new workers. If the records of an employee do not check out they are black listed and their employment terminated. Any company that hires or maintains employment of a black listed person or does not file the proper paper work is hit with a massive fine. The government wouldn’t even have to worry about the cost of deporting these people. By taking away all possible avenues of employment they will be forced to leave because they will not be able to afford the cost of living here. Eventually the word of mouth about there being no jobs in America will get around and people will stop coming.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Social Aspects to my Theory of Emigration
For those of you who just read my previous post and are thinking to your selves “That is a horrible idea, why isn’t he thinking about all the people who will loose their jobs and be forced to move to other parts of the world. What an uncompassionate asshole!” well I have some news; it is the best viable option for the continued economic success of this country. The options are simple when it comes to production based companies in this country.
1. Do nothing, allow rising labor costs and union demands such as for heath care for a huge labor force to cause your product’s price to rise to the point at which it is no longer affordable to its target audience and your company can no longer generate income and you go out of business sinking not just your self but your suppliers and distributors leaving a gaping hole in the American economy.
2. Outsource, while this option does not cause the executives of a company to loose their jobs most of the lower level employees do as well as those working for suppliers and distributors. Even though the company is in business however because the product is now an import the price will still be unreasonably high for Americans
3. My plan for automation, the lower level employees are still lost as in the case of outsourcing however a small number of educated employees are newly hired to run and maintain the automated machinery. The company still expands its operations to other countries which increases revenue as well as corporate office staff based in the US to handle all of the managerial responsibilities for the new operations. However even though the overseas operations continue the product that is distributed in America is still made here and is cheaper than before allowing people to continue purchasing it. The suppliers and distributors in the US are kept in business as well because the company is still producing.
In the end out of the three possible outcomes for an American production company my plan is the one in which American job losses are kept to a minimum and as opposed to damaging the US economy that plan actually bolsters it. As for the workers that lost their jobs they are free to move to the new plants built overseas at which the company would hire them due to their experience. While they would be making less the cost of living would also be less.
A practical application of this is let’s say you have 50,000 workers in a Detroit auto plant, your business is terrible and your company will go under unless changes are made. Your company also consists of 750 line managers and 750 office personnel as well as 500 members of management. The Detroit plant is responsible for North American, Central America, The Caribbean, and South America. To solve the problem you build 4 small automated plants around the US and Canada as well as 3 medium sized manual labor plants in South and Central America. For the 4 automated plants you hire 200 tech personnel to operate the systems. You also hire 20,000 people to work at the 3 new manual labor plants for the same amount it would have cost you to employ 10,000 people at the old one. To manage the 20,000 employees you retain 300 line managers. Due to the new operations you also take on another 250 office personnel and another 50 members of management.
What you have just done is maintained production, decreased costs significantly, and increased the average education and pay level of your employees in the United States.
1. Do nothing, allow rising labor costs and union demands such as for heath care for a huge labor force to cause your product’s price to rise to the point at which it is no longer affordable to its target audience and your company can no longer generate income and you go out of business sinking not just your self but your suppliers and distributors leaving a gaping hole in the American economy.
2. Outsource, while this option does not cause the executives of a company to loose their jobs most of the lower level employees do as well as those working for suppliers and distributors. Even though the company is in business however because the product is now an import the price will still be unreasonably high for Americans
3. My plan for automation, the lower level employees are still lost as in the case of outsourcing however a small number of educated employees are newly hired to run and maintain the automated machinery. The company still expands its operations to other countries which increases revenue as well as corporate office staff based in the US to handle all of the managerial responsibilities for the new operations. However even though the overseas operations continue the product that is distributed in America is still made here and is cheaper than before allowing people to continue purchasing it. The suppliers and distributors in the US are kept in business as well because the company is still producing.
In the end out of the three possible outcomes for an American production company my plan is the one in which American job losses are kept to a minimum and as opposed to damaging the US economy that plan actually bolsters it. As for the workers that lost their jobs they are free to move to the new plants built overseas at which the company would hire them due to their experience. While they would be making less the cost of living would also be less.
A practical application of this is let’s say you have 50,000 workers in a Detroit auto plant, your business is terrible and your company will go under unless changes are made. Your company also consists of 750 line managers and 750 office personnel as well as 500 members of management. The Detroit plant is responsible for North American, Central America, The Caribbean, and South America. To solve the problem you build 4 small automated plants around the US and Canada as well as 3 medium sized manual labor plants in South and Central America. For the 4 automated plants you hire 200 tech personnel to operate the systems. You also hire 20,000 people to work at the 3 new manual labor plants for the same amount it would have cost you to employ 10,000 people at the old one. To manage the 20,000 employees you retain 300 line managers. Due to the new operations you also take on another 250 office personnel and another 50 members of management.
What you have just done is maintained production, decreased costs significantly, and increased the average education and pay level of your employees in the United States.
An Overview on my Theory of Emigration
Recently there has been a lot of talk about illegal immigration and I want to throw out a theory I have. Again this is just a theory and if you can find problems with it leave a comment and let me know because this is something I have been thinking about for a while and I would like to refine it if need be. I call this my theory of emigration as the title of this article so aptly says. The premise of this theory is that over time the completion of tasks becomes more efficient.
Take for instance farming; you have a patch of land that produces say 1,000 pounds of grain every year and there are 100 people working there. After a while you discover irrigation and begin using simple machines to do it. You can now produce 1,500 pounds of grain and only need 80 people to do it now that you no longer have need to haul buckets of water every where. Next you domesticate animals and construct basic farming equipment and now you’re down to 50 people and still producing 1,500 pounds of grain. Next comes selective breeding and crop rotation and now you are producing 2,500 pounds of grain each year with you 50 people. Industrial revolution comes along and now you have a machine that separates the grain from the useless stuff and you no longer need 10 of your people. Then a planting machine, bam 15 more gone, fertilizer and machines to spread it come along and you can now grow 3,000 pounds with only 25 people. Then along comes harvesting machines and your down to 5 people who just drive machines all day. Eventually all of your machines become automated and you now have 1 guy who sets up a program and updates it when need be and he alone is responsible for producing the 3,000 pounds of grain that at one point would have taken 300 people to produce.
This process doesn’t just affect manual labor jobs either, just 50 years ago many offices had people to crunch accounting numbers or draw design blue prints and all of those jobs were replaced by calculators and computers. For those of you who read my post “Questions of Constitutionality” on 09/22/2007 you may know where this is going. In that article I put out the idea that the best thing for American companies to do if they want to stay in business would be to automate plants in the US and have those plants provide goods to the US, and at the same time build plants with manual labor in other countries to provide to those countries.
At this point I would like to refine this idea by suggesting that companies build smaller automated plants in first world counties and larger manual labor plants in 3rd world countries. Each of the plants would provide for production in that part of the world and distribution / exports from any particular plant would be restricted by necessity to nearby area’s and countries. At the larger manual plants the workers are paid reasonable wages by those countries’ standards, when the cost of labor gets to the point of being inefficient when compared to automated standards the plant is then replaced with automated plants.
The concept of this plan is that people would emigrate from 1st world countries to 3rd world countries in search of jobs. This would be a reverse of what we have now and the way I view it is that the demand for educated people (College degree of some sort) in 1st world countries would go up and the demand for uneducated people would go significantly down. In 3rd world countries however the demand for uneducated people would go up. Slowly but surely 3rd world countries will become 1st world countries and the bulk of the human population will continue to move to new developing nations. By the time the whole world is completely covered in developed countries and there is no need for uneducated workers anywhere on this planet hopefully we will be colonizing other ones.
While such a suggestion may seem like science fiction it has been almost 40 years since we have been to the moon and the technological breakthroughs since then have been astronomical, lunar research stations followed by colonies are not only plausible but imperative as we continue to use up this planet’s resources with the ever growing human population.
Take for instance farming; you have a patch of land that produces say 1,000 pounds of grain every year and there are 100 people working there. After a while you discover irrigation and begin using simple machines to do it. You can now produce 1,500 pounds of grain and only need 80 people to do it now that you no longer have need to haul buckets of water every where. Next you domesticate animals and construct basic farming equipment and now you’re down to 50 people and still producing 1,500 pounds of grain. Next comes selective breeding and crop rotation and now you are producing 2,500 pounds of grain each year with you 50 people. Industrial revolution comes along and now you have a machine that separates the grain from the useless stuff and you no longer need 10 of your people. Then a planting machine, bam 15 more gone, fertilizer and machines to spread it come along and you can now grow 3,000 pounds with only 25 people. Then along comes harvesting machines and your down to 5 people who just drive machines all day. Eventually all of your machines become automated and you now have 1 guy who sets up a program and updates it when need be and he alone is responsible for producing the 3,000 pounds of grain that at one point would have taken 300 people to produce.
This process doesn’t just affect manual labor jobs either, just 50 years ago many offices had people to crunch accounting numbers or draw design blue prints and all of those jobs were replaced by calculators and computers. For those of you who read my post “Questions of Constitutionality” on 09/22/2007 you may know where this is going. In that article I put out the idea that the best thing for American companies to do if they want to stay in business would be to automate plants in the US and have those plants provide goods to the US, and at the same time build plants with manual labor in other countries to provide to those countries.
At this point I would like to refine this idea by suggesting that companies build smaller automated plants in first world counties and larger manual labor plants in 3rd world countries. Each of the plants would provide for production in that part of the world and distribution / exports from any particular plant would be restricted by necessity to nearby area’s and countries. At the larger manual plants the workers are paid reasonable wages by those countries’ standards, when the cost of labor gets to the point of being inefficient when compared to automated standards the plant is then replaced with automated plants.
The concept of this plan is that people would emigrate from 1st world countries to 3rd world countries in search of jobs. This would be a reverse of what we have now and the way I view it is that the demand for educated people (College degree of some sort) in 1st world countries would go up and the demand for uneducated people would go significantly down. In 3rd world countries however the demand for uneducated people would go up. Slowly but surely 3rd world countries will become 1st world countries and the bulk of the human population will continue to move to new developing nations. By the time the whole world is completely covered in developed countries and there is no need for uneducated workers anywhere on this planet hopefully we will be colonizing other ones.
While such a suggestion may seem like science fiction it has been almost 40 years since we have been to the moon and the technological breakthroughs since then have been astronomical, lunar research stations followed by colonies are not only plausible but imperative as we continue to use up this planet’s resources with the ever growing human population.
The Land of Immigration
At one of our country's largest ports stands a mighty collosus that holds an inscription containing the passage "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" I am of course refering to the Statue of Liberty. So if our country is supposed to accept the poor and tired who want to be free, why does it cost so much to become a citizen?
Have you ever wondered why there are so many illegal immigrants? No, no, not why they come over, but why are they illegal? Are they just too lazy to go through the process of becoming a citizen? No, that isn't exactly the case. The act of becoming a legal citizen is wired with red tape and expensive tasks. One has to pay legal fees by hiring a lawyer, take a difficult test containing random U.S. History questions that the majority of legal citizens couldn't even answer, and all of this is assuming you even got sponsored by someone inside the country to begin with. How do the people who don't know any Americans get sponsored? How do the poor, honest immigrants who can't even afford to even become legal immgrants with a green card pay for the legal fees involved? They usually can't, but they still want into the Land of the Free, so they do it the only way they can, illegally.
I'm not saying we should let anyone become a citizen and have no restrictions on immigration; we don't want anymore serial killers inside our country, we make enough of our own. However, I am saying that we should make ways for honest yet financially handicapped people to get in, such as free temporary status, like a green card, that can be obtained by anyone that comes over and is willing to work. Some kind of pay-as-you-go type of citizenship, like an indentured servant almost, but without the servant part. That way we really can live up to the Statue of Liberty and welcome anyone, regardless of wealth, into our great country.
Update: Here are the steps required to receive a green card. A relative or employer of the immigrant must submit papers to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service. This takes a few months usually and costs around 200$. Next the papers must be processed and additional documents and a passport usually need to be obtained as well. This takes a few more months and around 500$ is needed for processing fees. If the immigrant is a direct relative to the sponsor, then no visa number is required and the case goes straight to the U. S. embassy in their country. After some blood tests and medical checks that cost another 200$, the person can enter the United States. However, if the immigrant isn't a direct relative, they must wait for an Immigrant Visa number to become available before they go to the medical check stage, which takes anywhere from a few months to a few years. The whole process costs around 1000$ and takes at least 5-6 months.
Considering the fact that many of the current illegal immigrants were in a stage of poverty before coming here, it isn't hard to understand why they can't cough up a thousand dollars and wait half a year or more. In case you are wondering where I got this info, I received much of it first hand from a legal immigrant who lives in my suite. Also, this website sums it all up nicely if you are interested in learning more.
Have you ever wondered why there are so many illegal immigrants? No, no, not why they come over, but why are they illegal? Are they just too lazy to go through the process of becoming a citizen? No, that isn't exactly the case. The act of becoming a legal citizen is wired with red tape and expensive tasks. One has to pay legal fees by hiring a lawyer, take a difficult test containing random U.S. History questions that the majority of legal citizens couldn't even answer, and all of this is assuming you even got sponsored by someone inside the country to begin with. How do the people who don't know any Americans get sponsored? How do the poor, honest immigrants who can't even afford to even become legal immgrants with a green card pay for the legal fees involved? They usually can't, but they still want into the Land of the Free, so they do it the only way they can, illegally.
I'm not saying we should let anyone become a citizen and have no restrictions on immigration; we don't want anymore serial killers inside our country, we make enough of our own. However, I am saying that we should make ways for honest yet financially handicapped people to get in, such as free temporary status, like a green card, that can be obtained by anyone that comes over and is willing to work. Some kind of pay-as-you-go type of citizenship, like an indentured servant almost, but without the servant part. That way we really can live up to the Statue of Liberty and welcome anyone, regardless of wealth, into our great country.
Update: Here are the steps required to receive a green card. A relative or employer of the immigrant must submit papers to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service. This takes a few months usually and costs around 200$. Next the papers must be processed and additional documents and a passport usually need to be obtained as well. This takes a few more months and around 500$ is needed for processing fees. If the immigrant is a direct relative to the sponsor, then no visa number is required and the case goes straight to the U. S. embassy in their country. After some blood tests and medical checks that cost another 200$, the person can enter the United States. However, if the immigrant isn't a direct relative, they must wait for an Immigrant Visa number to become available before they go to the medical check stage, which takes anywhere from a few months to a few years. The whole process costs around 1000$ and takes at least 5-6 months.
Considering the fact that many of the current illegal immigrants were in a stage of poverty before coming here, it isn't hard to understand why they can't cough up a thousand dollars and wait half a year or more. In case you are wondering where I got this info, I received much of it first hand from a legal immigrant who lives in my suite. Also, this website sums it all up nicely if you are interested in learning more.
CandiedYams: Fence on the Border Definitely a Terrible Idea
While I don't always see eye-to-eye with Mrs. Nancy Pelosi, when it comes to the topic of the Mexico-America fence I completely agree with her. I'm on the fence, pun totally intended, when it comes to illegal immigration and whether we should grant them citizenship or kick them out, but I'll save that for my next post. For this post, let me bring to light some reasons as to why building a fence over the 2000-mile border is just plain silly. I use data from a post on Washingtonpost.com very liberally here, as well as some info from wikipedia at this page. The post can be found here.
- Its 2000 miles long.
And we're not talking about a nice long stretch of flat grassland here. The fence would go through Mexican and American cities, mountains, deserts, rivers, and even irrigation canals. In the plan's defense, it only mandates a fence along 700 miles. Keeping in mind that the plans involve 15 foot high fences, sometimes of double or triple thickness, one can imagine how much this would cost.
- It is going to cost somewhere along 2 billion dollars.
And that's just to build it. Anyone who owns a fence knows that it is very difficult to keep it in good condition. Weather animals really like to destroy fences, and when your fence is measured in the hundreds of miles, you are talking about a constant state of needing repair.
- It breaks laws.
Technically it doesn't break laws because of the 2005 Real ID Act which states, "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive all legal requirements such Secretary, in such Secretary’s sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section." So basically, the Secretary of Homeland Security can ignore any law he wants to build this thing, and no one has any discretion over breaking these laws except him. So much for checks and balances, a concept this country was built on. Laws that the proposed plan breaks include; the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act. And all of those were broken just in the construction of a small stretch of fence just outside of San Diego in '05.
- It won't work.
Anyone who has watched espionage or action movies can tell you just how easy it is to get past a fence that has no guards. Considering the length of the fence, the majority of it will be unmanned, which means anyone with a ladder and maybe a leather coat can climb any fence with barbed wire at the top. A fence built at the border of San Diego in the 1990's was built to stop immigrants. This didn't stop immigrants from coming; it just made them try to get in somewhere else, like through the desert. To counter this, more border patrol units were sent to the surrounding area, which ironically left the fence itself vulnerable to penetration. What follows is a quote straight form the Washington Post.
"Tucson now has 2,600 agents. San Diego has lost 1,000 agents. Guess where the traffic is going? Back to San Diego." said T.J. Bonner, the president of the National Border Patrol Council, the main union for Border Patrol agents. "San Diego is the most heavily fortified border in the entire country, and yet it's not stopping people from coming across."
All these topics are just the tip of the iceberg. The ones I've discussed just happen to the most glaring issues, in my opinion at least. Hopefully this brings the idea of a fence into a different light, and stops anyone from thinking that Pelosi's lack of support for the fence is because of a lack of support for national security.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Pelosi: Fence on the Border a Terrible Idea
When asked about the fence being built along the United States-Mexico border, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calls it a "terrible idea." She is referring to the Secure Fence Act, which President Bush signed into law ordering the construction of about 370 miles of fence and 200 miles of vehicle barriers, including concrete barriers, by the end of 2008. She stated, "I have been against the fence, I thought it's a bad idea even when it was just a matter of discussion." My translation: "I am against national security, and have been against it from the beginning, even after 9/11." How can one be so hungry for Hispanic votes to overlook such an important issue as protecting our borders? And an even better question: How did someone who apparently doesn't care about the security of our country get to be second in line for the presidency?The construction of the fence is necessary for several reasons. One, as I mentioned previously, is national security. We need to know who is in this country, and why, at all times. Also, we currently have between 12 and 20 million illegal immigrants who are unaccounted for in this country, and if they commit a crime while they are here, we have no formal record of them to track them down. And finally, each illegal immigrant that comes into the country makes it a little harder for other immigrants to enter the country legally. I am not anti-immigrant at all. Having people from several different cultures is what this country was built on. But this country also has laws, and they must be followed, and cannot be followed until we close off the border and account for those illegal immigrants already in the country.
Speaker Pelosi also mentioned her support for the DREAM Act, a piece of legislation that makes it easier for illegal immigrants to receive financial aid for college. "It just isn't fair," she said. "Those young people who came to America one way or another ... their opportunities are curtailed because of the situation. And it's not only harmful to them, it's harmful to the country." Again, I have to disagree. As a college student, it outrages me that government officials are trying to take away some of my financial aid dollars to give to people who aren't even supposed to be in the country. Also, the Democrats' argument for allowing the illegal immigrants to stay in the country is that they take job that are undesirable for Americans to fill. Well, those jobs don't require a college degree. Clearly, Speaker Pelosi arguments are starting to conflict each other, and I cannot wait to get a leader for Congress that has their head on straight and will get this country back to moving in the right direction.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Breaking Up is Hard to Do
Ice cream and cookie dough might soon be in order for the people of Belgium. The country of over 10 million consists of two nationalities that cannot stand each other. In the north lies Flanders where Dutch (aka Flemish) is spoken and money is increasingly made. In the south lies Wallonia where French is spoken and the depressing landscape is covered with old factories. It is primarily because of these differences that both sides, specifically northern Flanders, are pushing for a national divorce of sorts.
More than three months after a national election the country has failed to elect a new government, stable or otherwise. This has caused numerous predictions that the country will soon cease to exist. Filip Dewinter, leader of the extreme right Flemish Bloc, was quoted by the New York Times claiming, "We are two different nations, an artificial state created as a buffer between big powers, and we have nothing in common except a king, chocolate and beer." It is the radical Flemish extremists like Dewinter who are pushing for the division of this flat country of just over 10 million people who just cannot seem to coexist. The proposed split would be to divide the country horizontally down the middle along the ethnic and economic barriers. This is partly due to the resentment about the econimic circumstances of the south. There the unemployment rate is double that of the north, causing Flanders to have to financially support Wallonia. However, the French-speakers of the nation support the status quo.
While it may seem like a fairly cut and dry issue, there are many possible consequences of the perceived breakup. For instance, the French speaking capitol of Brussels was traditionally a Flemish speaking city. In the occurrence of a split Brussels would become the capitol of Flanders, much to the outrage of the French-speaking citizens. It would also have possibly severe international consequences. Brussels is the home to both the European Union and NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization). The theoretical effects on these organizations are still unknown, but it could encourage other separatist movements, namely those of the Basques and Catalans, among others.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Chelsea Clinton Has Daddy Do Her Dirty Work
The owner of a New York City restaurant got a rude awakening when he checked the mail recently. It was a letter from the office of President Bill Clinton himself. The former president had a problem with a photo displayed in the front window of the restaurant picturing Nino Selimaj, the restaurants owner, and Chelsea Clinton. “We ask that you immediately remove that picture and any and all pictures displaying Ms. Clinton,” the letter states. “We reserve the right to exercise any and all options available to us if you refuse to comply.” The photo had been in the window for the last five years, so receiving the letter now came as a shock. “I was disappointed because she meant a lot to me. I was heartbroken,” he told FOXNews.com. “I don’t think I’m taking it down until I’m forced. I hope I’m solving the problem with him with a letter.”I don't really understand the reasoning behind what Fmr. President Clinton is doing here. He has to know that threatening a lawsuit on this poor guy cannot be good for his (or his wife's) image. I mean, she willingly took the picture, and what did she think he was going to do with it? If it were that important to her, why not address it earlier? It could be that the Clintons don't want the restaurant making money off of their name, as the owner did state the picture attracts customers, but this is over the line. I am sure that the owner would not object near as much if they paid him a visit and politely asked for the photo to be removed. But in today's America, the lawyers have to take control of the situation. I almost hope this does end up in court, so it will show ALL of America just what kind of people they are (like they don't already know).
Monday, September 24, 2007
Seniors Citizens Protest for Doughnuts and Other Sweets
Senior citizens in Putnam County, NY decided to move from their rocking chairs to the picket lines to protest the denial of donations of doughnuts, pies, and breads at the William Koehler Memorial Senior Center. Protestors wore signs with sayings such as "They're Carbs, Not Contraband," trying to persuade the staff that they are old enough to make their own decisions. "I'm 86, not 8," said one protestor. Another stated that some senior center employees implied that they were too senile to make their own decisions. You can read more of the article by Fox News here.
I think they need to let the seniors, and anyone else for that matter, eat what they want. As long as healthy options are made available, what's wrong with a little sugar? This is America, we live on this stuff. And what happens if someone's sugar is low and they need something to boost them back up? Too bad for them I guess. There has been a big health kick going on for a while now and I don't think I like it. There isn't anything wrong with eating something loaded with carbs if someone enjoys it. What they eat doesn't affect anyone else, so why is it their business to tell them what to do. If it leads them to an early grave, at least they died a little bit happier, which is more than the people who are criticizing them about their eating habits can say. This country was built on individual freedoms, and what this senior citizen center is doing is ridiculous. If it were elementary aged students who aren't quite old enough to make their own decisions, I might have a different opinion, but in this case, let grown people eat what they want.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
More Problems in the Middle East
In the middle of the night on September 6th Israeli planes bombed a site in northern Syria. What was there? Well according to Israeli intelligence that was allegedly collaborated by the United States, items related to nuclear weapons from everyone’s favorite tracksuit and big sunglasses wearing dictator, Kim Jong-il.
Long live the 80’s Baby!
The Washington Post reports that Israel informed President Bush over the summer of the possibility that North Korean nuclear personnel were in Syria. Government sources however say that no action was taken by Israel until the US confirmed their intelligence at which point they bombed the suspected nuclear weapons facility. The strange part about this story is that no one is talking about it. Israel has said very little and censored press reports of the event, Syria has made minimal protest and claimed there were no casualties. As far as the US goes after Syria and North Korea said they were not working together to pursue nuclear weapons President Bush merely said that it would be unfortunate if the claims were true because it would jeopardize the six party talks with Pyongyang.
While I can only speculate at this point it seems like the Middle East is getting worse every day of the week. US and NATO troops in Afghanistan, US and British troops in Iraq, the possibility of a French led EU coalition in Iran seems plausible in the future if things continue in this direction, and who knows possibly a UN peacekeeping force to rebuild Syria if Israel blows them back to hell. I think the following picture says it all for me.
The Washington Post reports that Israel informed President Bush over the summer of the possibility that North Korean nuclear personnel were in Syria. Government sources however say that no action was taken by Israel until the US confirmed their intelligence at which point they bombed the suspected nuclear weapons facility. The strange part about this story is that no one is talking about it. Israel has said very little and censored press reports of the event, Syria has made minimal protest and claimed there were no casualties. As far as the US goes after Syria and North Korea said they were not working together to pursue nuclear weapons President Bush merely said that it would be unfortunate if the claims were true because it would jeopardize the six party talks with Pyongyang.
While I can only speculate at this point it seems like the Middle East is getting worse every day of the week. US and NATO troops in Afghanistan, US and British troops in Iraq, the possibility of a French led EU coalition in Iran seems plausible in the future if things continue in this direction, and who knows possibly a UN peacekeeping force to rebuild Syria if Israel blows them back to hell. I think the following picture says it all for me.
Questions of Constitutionality
Today Presidential candidate Ron Paul has brought to attention the W.T.O. is asking the U.S. Congress to raise taxes on certain corporations. The CNN report continues on to say that Rep. Paul was quoted saying "I support this notion of protecting sovereignty by getting out of the United Nations". While I do support Mr. Paul in the fact that no organization should have control over how much the U.S. taxes its corporations, I am in complete disagreement with leaving the United Nations. This two part issue is one of sovereignty and constitutionality.
The reason that this country went through a revolutionary war was so that it could have sovereignty. Many lives were lost in that war and in the many that have followed to protect our nation’s sovereignty and the rights promised to its citizens through the constitution. By having an organization tell the United States to tax its corporations more so that their countries corporations have a better chance will in the long run lead to the weakening if not collapse of our economic system. On corporate taxing the U.S. should answer to no one, if those countries want to give their companies a better shot at success then they can increase their tariffs on U.S. goods and we can do the same right back sinking many of the companies in their country that we import goods from.
The idea of free trade works both ways, the United States has a huge consumer base with immense buying power and the fact that we import goods helps smaller countries out. At the same time it costs U.S. jobs because the same goods could have been made here. However the loss of jobs means less income and the imported goods cost less so now instead of paying more on a higher salary for U.S. goods our workers are now paying less on a lower salary for imported goods.
A better system I believe would be for the U.S. to automate its factory’s so goods are still produced here for consumer’s here at a reasonable price and at the same time continue to set up overseas production to provide the same product to consumers there. In the end U.S. companies would make more money and instead of laying off all workers by closing a factory now by automating a factory positions open for computer technicians to run said equipment. This system would cause U.S. companies to have higher production capabilities and make more money as well as create more of a demand for educated workers as opposed to uneducated workers.
The idea of leaving the UN however is as far as I am concerned very foolish. Despite problems with the UN and its renowned hypocrisy and ineffectuality like any democratic body it is open for change. When the United States government has a problem we do not just dissolve it and make a new one, we fix the problems with the old one. The U.N. provides mediated discussion between countries and although that may not seem important, the first step to war is the end of diplomacy.
The idea of free trade works both ways, the United States has a huge consumer base with immense buying power and the fact that we import goods helps smaller countries out. At the same time it costs U.S. jobs because the same goods could have been made here. However the loss of jobs means less income and the imported goods cost less so now instead of paying more on a higher salary for U.S. goods our workers are now paying less on a lower salary for imported goods.
A better system I believe would be for the U.S. to automate its factory’s so goods are still produced here for consumer’s here at a reasonable price and at the same time continue to set up overseas production to provide the same product to consumers there. In the end U.S. companies would make more money and instead of laying off all workers by closing a factory now by automating a factory positions open for computer technicians to run said equipment. This system would cause U.S. companies to have higher production capabilities and make more money as well as create more of a demand for educated workers as opposed to uneducated workers.
The idea of leaving the UN however is as far as I am concerned very foolish. Despite problems with the UN and its renowned hypocrisy and ineffectuality like any democratic body it is open for change. When the United States government has a problem we do not just dissolve it and make a new one, we fix the problems with the old one. The U.N. provides mediated discussion between countries and although that may not seem important, the first step to war is the end of diplomacy.
The Stem of the Issue
Last night after writing my previous post I was doing my laundry and all the while thinking about Stem Cells, a topic I brought up as an example. Well, even though the issue hasn't been in the media or most peoples minds as much, I figured this very important issue deserved a post of its own.
A stem cell is a type of cell that isn't specialized. In other words, through the usage of special signals a stem cell can, in some cases, turn into any of the 220 "normal" cells in a human body. It can also, just like normal cells, make 2 copies of itself through mitosis. Now what is so great about this?
Imagine one of your friends has recently been involved in a car crash. He has suffered a spinal injury that killed most of the nerve cells in his spine leaving him paralyzed from the waist down. With current technology chances are he will never heal, due to the fact that healthy nerve cells in an adult don't multiply to replace damaged ones. However, if doctors created a line of stem cells that contained your friends DNA and exposed them to the proper signals they could "grow" him new nerve cells that they could repair his spine with. This has other applications as well, such as possibly curing/preventing Alzheimer's Disease, repairing other organs such as the heart, and even producing new white blood cells for someone with HIV.
A stem cell is a type of cell that isn't specialized. In other words, through the usage of special signals a stem cell can, in some cases, turn into any of the 220 "normal" cells in a human body. It can also, just like normal cells, make 2 copies of itself through mitosis. Now what is so great about this?
Imagine one of your friends has recently been involved in a car crash. He has suffered a spinal injury that killed most of the nerve cells in his spine leaving him paralyzed from the waist down. With current technology chances are he will never heal, due to the fact that healthy nerve cells in an adult don't multiply to replace damaged ones. However, if doctors created a line of stem cells that contained your friends DNA and exposed them to the proper signals they could "grow" him new nerve cells that they could repair his spine with. This has other applications as well, such as possibly curing/preventing Alzheimer's Disease, repairing other organs such as the heart, and even producing new white blood cells for someone with HIV.
However, many people are against researching and utilizing stem cells. Today, the only place we can harvest stem cells is from a blastocyst, an early stage of an embryo. The way medical researchers go about doing this might surprise you. By taking an unfertilized egg from a woman and removing its nucleus, the place the DNA is stored, and inserting the nucleus from a normal cell, such as a skin cell, we can create an egg that contains all of the instructions needed to create an embryo. The stem cells that can be harvested from this embryo will have the same DNA, and thus be identical to, the stem cells of the embryo that formed the person who donated the nucleus that was transplanted into the egg. This process is called therapeutic cloning if the stem cells are harvested, and reproductive cloning if the embryo grows to be an individual. However, there is a huge roadblock that stops researchers from practicing this.
A Blastocyst (http://www.advancedfertility.com/pics/blastocyst.jpg)
By now I'm sure many of you are sick of the biology lesson and want some politics, well here you go. In 1995 President Clinton signed the Dickey Amendment which prohibited federal money to be used in research that created or destroyed and embryo (Thanks wikipedia). Considering the fact that the vast majority of research funding is attributed to federal spending, this really brought therapeutic cloning to a near stand-still. This law was passed due to many factors. Some people believe the act of killing these embryos to be similar to killing an individual, much like abortion. Others think therapeutic cloning will lead to reproductive cloning of humans. These fears, with help from the media, have put the issue of stem cells usage into a very negative light in public opinion. Well, allow me to put these fears to rest.
When gametes, egg and sperm cells, are formed through a process called meiosis, they go through a process called Imprinting. Every cell in your body contains 2 of each of the 23 types of chromosomes, which make up your DNA. These chromosomes code for the production of proteins, which basically means they code for what makes you you , and what makes me CandiedYams. Since you have 2 of each type of chromosome, you have 2 of every type of gene, which causes 2 dosages of every type of protein you body produces. However, during development, an embryo only needs 1 dosage of about 50 different genes. If they have the normal 2, they will either be severely deformed, or will spontaneously abort.
This is where Imprinting comes into play. There are about 25 male and 25 female imprints. This means that in the egg, 25 different genes are "turned off," and the same goes for a different 25 in a male. Together this turns all 50 of the extra genes that an embryo does need. After some time, these imprints wear out, and both pairs of these genes are expressed, but by that time the person is fully developed and can handle them.
In normal adult cells some, if not all, of the imprints are gone. This means that when you take the nucleus out of an adult cell and transplant it into an egg without a nucleus, it will more than likely lack the imprints as well. This is why reproductive cloning is so ineffective. Dolley, the famous cloned sheep, took over 800 attempts before the embryo grew to become a normal individual. Because of this, an embryo that is used for therapeutic cloning has less than a 0.125% chance of becoming an adult with todays techniques. I hardly consider killing these embryos the prevention of life or murder. If the stem cells are grown and used to save the life of the DNA donor you just traded in 1/800th of a life for a whole life. Seems like a good trade to me.
So the next time you hear that stem cells are harvested from aborted babies, remind yourself that they aren't. Stem cells are made from an unfertilized egg and the nucleus of a normal cell that you can get from your skin. To a medical researcher, stem cells are the like clay an artist molds to make art or the hot iron a blacksmith uses to forge his creations, they are the tools a surgeon and doctor can use to cure dozens of disease and restore life to someone who might not have any left.
I would like to give credit to Dr. Sam Rhine, from whom I learned most of this information from.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Landmrk Moment
I would like to congratulate the women and government of Egypt on their landmark stance against female genital mutilation. For those out of the loop, female genital mutilation has been a hot button political issue in international politics in the last few decades and has finally made headway in many countries, especially Egypt. Female genital mutilation (FGM), also known as female circumcision by supporters, is the cutting out of the clitoris. Usually performed on girls aging from 7 to 13 years old, it is performed by a doctor, barber, or anyone else in the town who is willing to do it. Needless to say, this can result in scarring, nerve damage, and death (yes, many girls have died from it). The primary reasons for genital cutting are to ensure chastity and honor, and many believe that it will also prevent a woman from being unfaithful to her husband. These views and the tradition of the ritual are believed and enforced by the men of the community, and in traditionally patriarchal societies this belief and custom is hard to change.
After the deaths of two girls during the procedure over summer, a nationwide campaign to enforce the ban has become the largest and most significant social movement in this generation of Egyptian history. The movement has unified top governmental officials, official religious leaders, and activists. The Ministry of Religious Affairs has published information explaining that the practice is not called for in Islam, and Egypt's grand mufti Ali Gomaa has declared the practice haram, prohibited by Islam. There was an existing ban established in 1996 but it left a loophole for allowing the procedure for 'medical emergencies' so wide that the ban made no difference at all. Now, with an estimated 96% of married, divorced and widowed women having undergone the procedure the government is pushing for a comprehensive ban.
While the practice is common and increasingly controversial in sub-saharan Africa, it is making headway in Egypt after decades failed attempts. Even in Saudi Arabia where women cannot drive, vote, or hold most jobs, the practice is view as barbaric. The movement has made such progress because it is now no longer considered socially unacceptable to discuss the topic in public. This is partly due to the prevalence of human sexuality on radio, in television, and in the movies. Also, there is much more news and media coverage of botched operations and more public demonstrations highlighting deaths. Hopefully this will influence policy in other countries currently allowing FGM and eradicate the practice worldwide.
After the deaths of two girls during the procedure over summer, a nationwide campaign to enforce the ban has become the largest and most significant social movement in this generation of Egyptian history. The movement has unified top governmental officials, official religious leaders, and activists. The Ministry of Religious Affairs has published information explaining that the practice is not called for in Islam, and Egypt's grand mufti Ali Gomaa has declared the practice haram, prohibited by Islam. There was an existing ban established in 1996 but it left a loophole for allowing the procedure for 'medical emergencies' so wide that the ban made no difference at all. Now, with an estimated 96% of married, divorced and widowed women having undergone the procedure the government is pushing for a comprehensive ban.
While the practice is common and increasingly controversial in sub-saharan Africa, it is making headway in Egypt after decades failed attempts. Even in Saudi Arabia where women cannot drive, vote, or hold most jobs, the practice is view as barbaric. The movement has made such progress because it is now no longer considered socially unacceptable to discuss the topic in public. This is partly due to the prevalence of human sexuality on radio, in television, and in the movies. Also, there is much more news and media coverage of botched operations and more public demonstrations highlighting deaths. Hopefully this will influence policy in other countries currently allowing FGM and eradicate the practice worldwide.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
A Matter of Agreement
Tonight while watching former president Bill Clinton’s interview on the Daily Show I came to realize that he had raised a very valid point about campaign fundraising. Mr. Clinton mentioned that most Congressmen, Senators, and Presidential hopefuls spend a lot of their free time flying around and trying to raise funds to get re-elected. In my opinion this time could be better spent listening to constituents and working on new bills with other elected officials. Even Barack Obama talked about this problem in his book The Audacity of Hope. While Mr. Clinton stated that this was a problem I started to think about possible solutions. One idea I had was that congress passes a law that does two things.
The second thing this law should do is limit the amount of money that a candidate can spend on their campaign to a reasonable level based on the office they are running for giving all of the candidates an equal chance to promote themselves. This law would also place limits on how much money can be spent in certain periods such as before primaries and after. In addendum to this part of the law would be a stipulation that any serving official (such as a US Senator) would have the opportunity to present a petition for funding to the political body within which they currently represent (The US Senate) signed by a reasonable number of their current constituents and said body would allocate a portion of the funding allowed from that point up until the end of primaries at which point it would be assumed that any candidate with the potential to advance would be backed by a party or have significant private backers.
With these stipulations in place not only would the candidates need less money to campaign but elected officials in current service could spend more time with their voters and at work as opposed to constantly trying to raise money in order to be reelected or elected to a higher office. So by forcing voters to look into their candidates as well as give these candidates more time with which to talk to voters rather than fundraising we can increase voter awareness of issues as well as maintain a higher level of connectivity for the official to his voters.
The second thing this law should do is limit the amount of money that a candidate can spend on their campaign to a reasonable level based on the office they are running for giving all of the candidates an equal chance to promote themselves. This law would also place limits on how much money can be spent in certain periods such as before primaries and after. In addendum to this part of the law would be a stipulation that any serving official (such as a US Senator) would have the opportunity to present a petition for funding to the political body within which they currently represent (The US Senate) signed by a reasonable number of their current constituents and said body would allocate a portion of the funding allowed from that point up until the end of primaries at which point it would be assumed that any candidate with the potential to advance would be backed by a party or have significant private backers.
With these stipulations in place not only would the candidates need less money to campaign but elected officials in current service could spend more time with their voters and at work as opposed to constantly trying to raise money in order to be reelected or elected to a higher office. So by forcing voters to look into their candidates as well as give these candidates more time with which to talk to voters rather than fundraising we can increase voter awareness of issues as well as maintain a higher level of connectivity for the official to his voters.
When the Few do not Represent the Many
Today's Congress is inadequate. There are 100 members in the Senate, and 435 in the House. That seems like a lot right? Wrong. Now, you might be asking, "Whats the big deal Yams, who cares?" Well, I care, and so should you. The number of Congressmen in the House has been set at 435 since 1911 when Public Law 62-5 was enacted. 1911. My Grandparents weren't even alive back then. Now back then, 435 might have fit the bill, but in today's world, not so much.
You want to know what else happened in 1911? The first Indy-500 race was run, Chevy entered the automobile market, and 1911 also marked the first time an aircraft landed on a boat. The populations knowledge-base has grown tremendously since 1911, as has the way we do things; just look at how much the Indy-500 has changed in the last 96 years.
Today we aren't worrying about how to use combustion engines in a way such as to assist farmers or how to do basic surgery without the patient getting an infection, today we worry about how to genetically modify crops by mixing DNA from different organisms and how to harness the power of stem cells, all while keeping everything safe and without trying to cross any boundaries. So what's the big deal? I'll tell you the big deal. Our Congressmen don't have the knowledge-base to keep up with society's.
So how do we fix this? I'm a results kind of guy. Complaining about how most of our senators don't even know what a blastocyst is isn't going to solve the issue. However, putting people into Congress who do know that a blastocyst is a very early stage of embryo development when stem cells can be harvested just might. I see two options.
You want to know what else happened in 1911? The first Indy-500 race was run, Chevy entered the automobile market, and 1911 also marked the first time an aircraft landed on a boat. The populations knowledge-base has grown tremendously since 1911, as has the way we do things; just look at how much the Indy-500 has changed in the last 96 years.
Today we aren't worrying about how to use combustion engines in a way such as to assist farmers or how to do basic surgery without the patient getting an infection, today we worry about how to genetically modify crops by mixing DNA from different organisms and how to harness the power of stem cells, all while keeping everything safe and without trying to cross any boundaries. So what's the big deal? I'll tell you the big deal. Our Congressmen don't have the knowledge-base to keep up with society's.
So how do we fix this? I'm a results kind of guy. Complaining about how most of our senators don't even know what a blastocyst is isn't going to solve the issue. However, putting people into Congress who do know that a blastocyst is a very early stage of embryo development when stem cells can be harvested just might. I see two options.
- We could add more Congressmen, but that would probably just lead to more fights and childish filibusters.
- My favorite, we stop electing the same type of person into Congress and start treating it how it was supposed to be, a small representation of everyone in America where the people voice there opinions and create laws based on those.
Senate Condemns "General Betray Us?" ad
As I mentioned in an earlier post, MoveOn.org, took out a full page ad in the New York Times questioning the credibility of General David Petraeus, the military mastermind behind the recent troop surge in Iraq, calling him "General Betray Us. MoveOn.org is a liberal organization whose main purpose is to "defeat the right wing and elect moderates and progressives" a.k.a. liberal democrats. Today the U.S. Senate took some initiative by overwhelmingly passed legislation condemning the ad. The legislation did not mention MoveOn.org by name, but stated, "the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, commanding general, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn(s) personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces."Senators and 2008 Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Chris Dodd voted against the measure (go figure), while Barack Obama and Joe Biden didn't even show up to vote. You can read more about the legislation at the Fox News website.
MoveOn.org came out with a petition stating, "The U.S. Senate just told you to sit down and be quiet. They passed a resolution condemning MoveOn.org and it has one purpose: to intimidate all of us who care about responsibly ending this war. They wanted to send a message that anyone who speaks unpleasant truths about this war will pay. To make everyone--especially politicians--think twice before they accuse the administration of lying.
We can't let that happen, so we're letting Congress know that they're not going to intimidate us."
Why can MoveOn just let this go? I applaud the U.S. Senate for making a bipartisan effort to condemn an ad that is trying to tear this country apart in a time in which we need to be unified the most. Whether you approve of the war or not, pretty much everyone supports the troops in their efforts, and all this ad accomplishes is making the soldiers believe that some people back in the country they are fighting to protect don't value the many sacrifices they have made to defend them. Shame on those like Hillary Clinton and Chris Dodd who are playing party politics with the lives of the soldiers that defend them, and kudos to those who are a little more mature and did the right thing.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Debates
With all of the absurdity of the televised presidential debates and interviews lately I am left yearning for a simpler, and yet more entertaining, time. Recently the television and broadband waves have been filled with the CNN YouTube debates and the Kerry debacle at the University of Florida, and I am left wondering...seriously? For those of you who are out of the loop on this one, at a recent campus forum for John Kerry's presidential campaign an overzealous student who refused to leave the question podium was tasered by campus police. What ever happened to a classy, respectful debate? Also, after the uproar of a UCLA student being tasered for attempting to enter the library without an i.d. card, how could the U of F campus police not learn that tasering students- especially in front of video cameras- is just a bad idea? It seems a bit excessive, even for a presidential candidate forum, and even if the guy was being a jerk.
The YouTube debate, on the other hand, focused on questions in the form of online video submissions and moderated by Anderson Cooper; with one debate for Democratic candidates and one for Republicans. While I applaud the ingenuity of this idea and the ability to have legitimate questions answered as opposed to scripted audience members asking pre-approved questions, I am reminded of the fact that they still have the ability to chose which submitted questions are asked and aired. I would like some real debate please.
With the outlandishness of these forums and debates I long to return to the time of Bill Clinton's MTV presidential candidate forum. It offered a unique setting that allowed and encouraged college-age men and women to become interested and involved in US politics. It also provided a forum for students and young adults to ask questions relevant to them and connect with the candidate- Clinton- in a way more relevant to them. When was the last time someone asked Obama or Thompson their underwear preference during a debate?
The YouTube debate, on the other hand, focused on questions in the form of online video submissions and moderated by Anderson Cooper; with one debate for Democratic candidates and one for Republicans. While I applaud the ingenuity of this idea and the ability to have legitimate questions answered as opposed to scripted audience members asking pre-approved questions, I am reminded of the fact that they still have the ability to chose which submitted questions are asked and aired. I would like some real debate please.
With the outlandishness of these forums and debates I long to return to the time of Bill Clinton's MTV presidential candidate forum. It offered a unique setting that allowed and encouraged college-age men and women to become interested and involved in US politics. It also provided a forum for students and young adults to ask questions relevant to them and connect with the candidate- Clinton- in a way more relevant to them. When was the last time someone asked Obama or Thompson their underwear preference during a debate?
Like I Said Before...
The day after I forecasted a new war with Iran, the deputy commander of the Iranian air force has announced they have developed a plan of attack to bomb Israel "if" Iran is bombed by the Jewish State. "We have drawn up a plan to strike back at Israel with our bombers if this regime (Israel) makes a silly mistake," Gen. Mohammad Alavi, deputy air force chief, said in a statement. General Alavi also made it clear that Israel is within range of their Shahab-3 missile, which is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.
Iranian officials can tell us all they want that these plans are for a counter-attack, but I think the United States and Israel need to treat this as a preparation for war and draw up some plans of our own, if we haven't done so already. I said yesterday that this war was coming sooner then we wanted, but I didn't know the planning would start today. Iran and the United States need to be careful in making nuclear threats, because no one wants to start a nuclear-powered World War III. That would end in much destruction as well as more lives lost than ever imagined before, and would take the focus from soldiers killing soldiers, to soldiers wiping out entire cities and states.
I absolutely hate being right on this issue, but since it is upon us, we need to prepare ourselves for the worst. We need to go in to it as a unified country, united in our cause, and support our troops, having faith that they will do the job right. This war could be the world's worst nightmare, and would be a dream that neither side could wake up from, so we need to think long and hard before any military action is taken.
Iranian officials can tell us all they want that these plans are for a counter-attack, but I think the United States and Israel need to treat this as a preparation for war and draw up some plans of our own, if we haven't done so already. I said yesterday that this war was coming sooner then we wanted, but I didn't know the planning would start today. Iran and the United States need to be careful in making nuclear threats, because no one wants to start a nuclear-powered World War III. That would end in much destruction as well as more lives lost than ever imagined before, and would take the focus from soldiers killing soldiers, to soldiers wiping out entire cities and states.
I absolutely hate being right on this issue, but since it is upon us, we need to prepare ourselves for the worst. We need to go in to it as a unified country, united in our cause, and support our troops, having faith that they will do the job right. This war could be the world's worst nightmare, and would be a dream that neither side could wake up from, so we need to think long and hard before any military action is taken.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Go Ahead and Prepare for the Next War, It's Coming
Iranian media outlets have criticized the French government for its statements condemning Iran's nuclear program and France is not ruling out a military solution to the problem. France's newly elected president, Nicolas Sarkosy, is finally renewing his country's integrity in my eyes by finally taking a strong stance on national security, something they haven't been doing during the current War on Terror. The U.S. and many of its allies have also kept military action as an option if Iran keeps violating UN sanctions and continues with its nuclear ambitions. You can read the full story by Yahoo! News here.First of all, I am not advocating starting another war. Our troops are already committed to other areas, mainly Iraq and Afghanistan, and the only way we could take on another project is to cease operations in these areas or to reinstate the draft. Neither of these is a sensible option, so we must first try diplomacy to fix the problem. If that does not work after several attempts, and our troops become available, we need to go in with the advice of several well-respected generals who have a clear-cut plan to win the war as well as a sound exit strategy. We need to learn from our mistakes in Iraq, and do this thing the right way, or don't do it at all. I am not looking for a war, but the United States has to stay on the offensive with these terrorists, and not let them have the first strike like we did on 9/11.
Again, I really don't want this to happen, but the way things are going, I don't see it going any other way. The Iranian government views the United States and countries like Israel as the enemy, and will do anything in its power to crush them, and we must do everything in our power to keep that from happening.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Clinton Endorsed By Clark
Some of you may remember an ex-four star general who ran for the democratic presidential nomination during the 2004 election by the name of Wesley Clark. Well as of today Mr. Clark has decided to back Senator Hillary Clinton when he told reporters over a conference call that he had complete confidence in her as a president and commander in chief. Clark served under Senator Clinton's husband former President Bill Clinton as the commander of allied forces back in '99 and Senator Clinton said that the two have been friends for the past 25 years.
Well it is sure good to know that Mrs. Clinton's 25 year old friend thinks that she will make a good president however most mainstream news sites felt it unnessecary to mention that Obama just receive endorsements from multiple high profile former military and civilian experts in support of his canidacy including (and i quote)"former Senior State Department Official Greg Craig, former Secretary of the Navy Richard Danzig, Major General Scott Gration (ret.), former Chief of Staff of the Air Force General Tony McPeak (ret.) and former Senior State Department Official Susan E. Rice in support of Senator Barack Obama and his preparedness to serve as Commander in Chief. "
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/15/clark-endorses-clinton/
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/09/15/clark-endorses-clinton/
http://campaignsandelections.com/nh/releases/?id=2471
Well it is sure good to know that Mrs. Clinton's 25 year old friend thinks that she will make a good president however most mainstream news sites felt it unnessecary to mention that Obama just receive endorsements from multiple high profile former military and civilian experts in support of his canidacy including (and i quote)"former Senior State Department Official Greg Craig, former Secretary of the Navy Richard Danzig, Major General Scott Gration (ret.), former Chief of Staff of the Air Force General Tony McPeak (ret.) and former Senior State Department Official Susan E. Rice in support of Senator Barack Obama and his preparedness to serve as Commander in Chief. "
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/15/clark-endorses-clinton/
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/09/15/clark-endorses-clinton/
http://campaignsandelections.com/nh/releases/?id=2471
Conviction overturned in “Jena 6” Case
A quick background on the “Jena 6” case as the media has begun calling is that back in the late months of 2006 in the town of Jena, Louisiana a series of racially motivated incidents took place. It all started when several black students decided to sit under a tree that was reserved for white students after receiving permission to do so from their vice principal. The next morning nooses were found hanging from the tree. The principle recommended expulsion for the three behind the hanging of the nooses but the ruling was overturned by the school district committee who called it a prank and suspended the three white students who did it for three days.
After this racial tensions seemed to explode with student fights reported around town and on November 30th the main academic building of the high school was set on fire. The incident that however resulted in this case occurred four days after the fire when several black students assaulted a white student and beat him up for allegedly yelling racial epithets (The validity of this point is contested by the white student and his family).
After this happened the police arrested the 6 black students responsible and initially charged them with attempted murder and conspiracy to commit murder citing one of the defendants shoe’s as a murder weapon. Three of the defendants charges were reduced to second degree battery and conspiracy to commit second degree battery. The first and only one of the students to go to trial so far was Mychal Bell who was unable to post bail set at $90,000. Bell was charged as an adult and convicted of aggravated battery and conspiracy by an all white jury after his public defender never called a witness.
Recently however an appeals court has overturned the conviction on the conspiracy charge saying it should have been done in the juvenile system. Bell’s attorney’s are in the process of filling a motion to get him out of prison where he has been since December when he was arrested.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/14/jena.six/index.html?iref=mpstoryview (Link to story about overturned conviction)
Personally I think it is absolutely ridiculous that such things still happen in our country today. Everyone sits around talking about how Sunni’s and Shia’s can’t get along and that is the problem with Iraq, and at the same time they pretend that America’s shit smells like cinnamon bun’s and lollypop’s. While I don’t know about every incident that led up to this one in Jena, the fact that such a trial is being held is cause enough for concern to me.
The emancipation proclamation was enacted 145 years ago, the civil war ended 142 years ago, the post-war period of violence and rebuilding called reconstruction ended 130 years ago, the modern civil rights movement took place around 40 years ago. For the love of God can we not just get past this? Why has such a worthless issue a skin color preoccupied our countries mindset for so long? Who really gives a damn if some one doesn’t look like you, is there really nothing more important for you to spend your time worrying about?
I think the fact that we see such incidents occur in poor and remote parts of our country answers that question. NO!, these people do not have anything better to do with their time. The logic is quite simple, remote and poor parts of our country are not involved in mainstream things like politics, war, and the economy because none of these things are of practical concern to people in those parts and even if they were the people don’t believe that they have any control or influence over such things. So naturally they revert to worrying about things they do have control over, skin color. It’s similar to the way school children make fun of each other “Billy is fat” or “Jill has a big nose”, much like juveniles these people have nothing better to do with their time.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Joe Biden: Insert Foot in Mouth
Here is a video of Joe Biden's view on the Iraq war. Don't expect much.
I'm not even sure where to start. I'll go with the beginning. First of all, any one who says this is not America's war needs to be kicked out of the country. That statement is spitting in the face of our servicemen and women who are fighting for the everyday freedoms that we claim to believe in. I don't care if you don't agree with the war. That is a completely different issue, but to say that President Bush is the only one supporting these troops is an embarrasment.
As for the question he said General Petraeus was not able to answer, he answered the question a little while later in the testimony when he had a clearer meaning, apparently Joe Biden felt he didn't need the whole interview, only the snippet that makes him feel good. I have said it once and will say it again: Let the President and the generals on the ground do their jobs. If pigs begin to fly and Joe Biden gets elected president, then his opinion on the war begins to matter.
I'm not even sure where to start. I'll go with the beginning. First of all, any one who says this is not America's war needs to be kicked out of the country. That statement is spitting in the face of our servicemen and women who are fighting for the everyday freedoms that we claim to believe in. I don't care if you don't agree with the war. That is a completely different issue, but to say that President Bush is the only one supporting these troops is an embarrasment.
As for the question he said General Petraeus was not able to answer, he answered the question a little while later in the testimony when he had a clearer meaning, apparently Joe Biden felt he didn't need the whole interview, only the snippet that makes him feel good. I have said it once and will say it again: Let the President and the generals on the ground do their jobs. If pigs begin to fly and Joe Biden gets elected president, then his opinion on the war begins to matter.
Some SC Prisoners are Pretty in Pink
Sherone Nealous, an inmate at the Allendale Correctional Institution, is suing the state penal system for dressing him in pink clothing because he claims it makes them more likely to be "assaulted" by other inmates. They would look cute though, all tied together on the roadside picking up trash, wouldn't they?The prison is backing its policy, saying the pink outfit prevents criminals from wanting to come back. Another correctional facility in Mason County, Texas puts all of its criminals in pink, and has seen a 68% reduction in crime. You can read more about the South Carolina story here.My opinion: This is a good, if not great idea. We need to put all prisoners everywhere in pink. What a deterrent that would be! If it stops that much crime, think of all the lives that would be saved, all of the families it would keep intact. People would have second thoughts everyone would have before doing anything illegal. If something this small can be done to produce this big of an effect, it needs to be enacted immediately. I may just write my Congressman now.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Bush Addresses The Nation
As of now president Bush has just finished his speach to the nation. At this point i must say that this speach seems to me like a very good summary of the current situation. The president summarized the recent progress and what that means for troop deployment over the course of the next year. The president has also now established that even though are troops are likely to be there even after he leaves office that success is possible over the coming years. This is the speach that has been long coming and many Americans have wanted to hear, that we are succeding in parts of Iraq and because of that we can begin to draw down troops.
As far as long term stablization troops go the United States has had troops in Germany since the end of World War II and more troops in Korea since the end of that war. It is my opinion and members of the press seem to share this opinion that the United States will do the same with Iraq, that is; have troops there for stability of the region rather than combat purposes. These troops will serve to deter any interference or agression from other radical countries in the region and whose mear presence (even if it is non-combative) in Iraq will add strength to the newly elected government.
To many Americans who have been looking for a firm deadline to the war they did not get get the answers they were looking for. Hoever the president has layed out an immediate course of action and left room in the future for adaptability and mobility which to me seems to be the logical and smart thing to do. As somone who has read both Sun Tzu's and Machiavelli's Art of War as well as studied other classical literature on politic and war it is of my opinion based on this knowledge that having an unflexible plan for a war with no leway or mobility is not just a bad plan but just plain stupid and any one in politics who calls for such a timeline is going against most scholars in military history and they themselves now share the title of stupid.
In summary we the American people as well as the people of Iraq and the world now have a clearer view of the situation in Iraq and if current trends continue sometime in the next several years America will be able to withdraw from a daily combat position in Iraq.
As far as long term stablization troops go the United States has had troops in Germany since the end of World War II and more troops in Korea since the end of that war. It is my opinion and members of the press seem to share this opinion that the United States will do the same with Iraq, that is; have troops there for stability of the region rather than combat purposes. These troops will serve to deter any interference or agression from other radical countries in the region and whose mear presence (even if it is non-combative) in Iraq will add strength to the newly elected government.
To many Americans who have been looking for a firm deadline to the war they did not get get the answers they were looking for. Hoever the president has layed out an immediate course of action and left room in the future for adaptability and mobility which to me seems to be the logical and smart thing to do. As somone who has read both Sun Tzu's and Machiavelli's Art of War as well as studied other classical literature on politic and war it is of my opinion based on this knowledge that having an unflexible plan for a war with no leway or mobility is not just a bad plan but just plain stupid and any one in politics who calls for such a timeline is going against most scholars in military history and they themselves now share the title of stupid.
In summary we the American people as well as the people of Iraq and the world now have a clearer view of the situation in Iraq and if current trends continue sometime in the next several years America will be able to withdraw from a daily combat position in Iraq.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
FEMALE FLYERS BEWARE!
Believe it or not, but Southwest Airlines flight attendants are now asking female passengers who they believe are dressed inappropriately to cover up. Here's the story:
I completely agree with the last statement made. If Southwest Airlines believes it is good enough to establish a dress code, then write it down. This will only cause trouble, and in today's America, trouble means lawsuits, and with the financial difficulties being faced by airline companies already, this might be one battle they might just want to let go.
I completely agree with the last statement made. If Southwest Airlines believes it is good enough to establish a dress code, then write it down. This will only cause trouble, and in today's America, trouble means lawsuits, and with the financial difficulties being faced by airline companies already, this might be one battle they might just want to let go.
Monday, September 10, 2007
General Strike My Ass
Today marks the 6th anniversary of 9/11, the deadliest day for Americans since I was born, way back in '87. Today we should be bowing our heads in remembrance of the myriads of innocent victims, and in respect for the living whose lives were thrown into disarray in the wake. Now you can argue the fact of government cover-ups and conspiracies all you want, but the above facts are undeniable; roughly 3000 of our countrymen died on this day. But some people aren't bowing their heads in respect, or even just treating it as a normal day for that matter. Apparently, a group of people have decided to make today a day of protest.
That's right! Skip all your classes at our corrupt and sub par schools! Screw going to work, and buying things, you are just supporting our capitalist regime! Today we should run out into the streets and demand the government purges itself of anyone who supported the war in Iraq, Patriot Act, and/or had anything to do with the treatment of prisoners in Guantanimo.
Oh wait, that's right. People died today. Lots. Maybe we should pick a different day to throw dirt into people's faces and make a stand against that which we don't believe in. Today is a day in which we should all be united under the unwilling sacrifices of those who died, not a day in which we should stand divided by our different opinions concerning government and ethics.
All sarcasm aside, I normally support strikes and protests, even if they go against my own opinions, because it is the difference in opinions amongst the masses that makes our country strong. It stops us from being too extreme in any facet of our policies. However, today of all days is NOT the time to pull a stunt like this. I wouldn't have a party in my dorm on the anniversary of the day my roommate's dad passed away now would I? Of course not, that'd be a dick move. So please, don't be a jackass, protest tomorrow. In fact, just to prove a point, I'll be attending all my classes today and doing all my homework, which is no small feat in my case.
That's right! Skip all your classes at our corrupt and sub par schools! Screw going to work, and buying things, you are just supporting our capitalist regime! Today we should run out into the streets and demand the government purges itself of anyone who supported the war in Iraq, Patriot Act, and/or had anything to do with the treatment of prisoners in Guantanimo.
Oh wait, that's right. People died today. Lots. Maybe we should pick a different day to throw dirt into people's faces and make a stand against that which we don't believe in. Today is a day in which we should all be united under the unwilling sacrifices of those who died, not a day in which we should stand divided by our different opinions concerning government and ethics.
All sarcasm aside, I normally support strikes and protests, even if they go against my own opinions, because it is the difference in opinions amongst the masses that makes our country strong. It stops us from being too extreme in any facet of our policies. However, today of all days is NOT the time to pull a stunt like this. I wouldn't have a party in my dorm on the anniversary of the day my roommate's dad passed away now would I? Of course not, that'd be a dick move. So please, don't be a jackass, protest tomorrow. In fact, just to prove a point, I'll be attending all my classes today and doing all my homework, which is no small feat in my case.
The Petraeus Report
Those of you paying attention to the news lately have heard that today was the much-anticipated report to Congress from Four Star General David Petraeus, the architect of the current troop surge and current leader of armed forces in Iraq. The report was scheduled months ago to inform the Congressmen of the progress being made by the additional troops and to determine the necessity of maintaining the current troop level. General Petraeus informed the panel that much progress has been made as a result of the surge, and all of the extra troops will be able to come home by next July without any loss of progress.
As for the rest of the troops, he added, "Our experience in Iraq has repeatedly shown that projecting too far into the future is not just difficult, it can be misleading and even hazardous." That answer didn't suit the Democrats on the panel, as they view it as being more of the same, but why would we honestly give the enemy a schedule of our troop withdrawal? This has NEVER been done before and only admits defeat in a war that is still possible to be won. Do I believe we have made mistakes in Iraq? Sure. Do I believe we should come home just because we messed up on our first try? Absolutely not. We have changed our strategy to a winning one, brought in some new military leaders with new perspectives, and the results are showing. Last August in Anbar province alone, there were 1350 attacks on troops and civilians, while in August of this year, that number is down to just over 200. This comes as Iraqi civilians are turning their support from Al Qaeda to the Iraqi Army and police forces.
The morning of the report, a liberal website, www.MoveOn.org posted a full-page ad in the New York Times condemning the general's report before it was given, labeling him "General Betray Us." Cute, isn't it? Democratic leaders of the panel were almost as bad with their opening statements, almost telling the general there was not much he could say to change their opinions on the war. After the report several other Democratic politicians came forward doubting whether the report was actually of the general's opinion or that of the White House. Is it a possiblity that they both share the same opinion? Is it a possibility that we can possibly be winning the war in Iraq? No, it can't be, not for them, because they need us to lose this war to win their elections next year, and victory is NOT an option.
I guess all I am saying for those of you who don't know what to believe on the issue is to listen to the people who know what they are talking about. Should we listen to the media and the politicians who sit in their comfy offices five days a week, or should we listen to the stories of the soldiers on the ground? I have yet to speak to a soldier who regrets his decision to serve his country in Iraq, because they saw the good that was happening over there. If you just watch the news stories of the bombs going off every day in Iraq, then of course you are going to believe we should leave. But if you search long and hard for the media outlets who are focusing on the good things being done over there, your opinion on the matter might just change.
As for the rest of the troops, he added, "Our experience in Iraq has repeatedly shown that projecting too far into the future is not just difficult, it can be misleading and even hazardous." That answer didn't suit the Democrats on the panel, as they view it as being more of the same, but why would we honestly give the enemy a schedule of our troop withdrawal? This has NEVER been done before and only admits defeat in a war that is still possible to be won. Do I believe we have made mistakes in Iraq? Sure. Do I believe we should come home just because we messed up on our first try? Absolutely not. We have changed our strategy to a winning one, brought in some new military leaders with new perspectives, and the results are showing. Last August in Anbar province alone, there were 1350 attacks on troops and civilians, while in August of this year, that number is down to just over 200. This comes as Iraqi civilians are turning their support from Al Qaeda to the Iraqi Army and police forces.
The morning of the report, a liberal website, www.MoveOn.org posted a full-page ad in the New York Times condemning the general's report before it was given, labeling him "General Betray Us." Cute, isn't it? Democratic leaders of the panel were almost as bad with their opening statements, almost telling the general there was not much he could say to change their opinions on the war. After the report several other Democratic politicians came forward doubting whether the report was actually of the general's opinion or that of the White House. Is it a possiblity that they both share the same opinion? Is it a possibility that we can possibly be winning the war in Iraq? No, it can't be, not for them, because they need us to lose this war to win their elections next year, and victory is NOT an option.
I guess all I am saying for those of you who don't know what to believe on the issue is to listen to the people who know what they are talking about. Should we listen to the media and the politicians who sit in their comfy offices five days a week, or should we listen to the stories of the soldiers on the ground? I have yet to speak to a soldier who regrets his decision to serve his country in Iraq, because they saw the good that was happening over there. If you just watch the news stories of the bombs going off every day in Iraq, then of course you are going to believe we should leave. But if you search long and hard for the media outlets who are focusing on the good things being done over there, your opinion on the matter might just change.
Modern Book Burning
Now I may not be the most religious person in the world, but I do respect the rights a beliefs of those around me. This is why it is so frustrating to see the Standardized Chapel Library Project become so distorted. The project, an effort from the Bureau of Prisons and the Justice Department, attempts to purge religious books and materials in prison chapels. According to the Bureau of Prisons, it is a way of barring access to materials that could, "discriminate, disparage, advocate violence or radicalize." This seems reasonable enough until you discover that panels of experts are used to create lists of up to 120 approved book titles for the 20 religions or religious categories it created. The lists are broad, but reveal eccentricities and omissions, along with obvious favoritism to certain publishing houses. The bureau has also not provided additional money to buy the books on the lists, so after purging the shelves there are few approved books available to prisoners. This is almost like shooting a gnat with a 12-gauge because chaplains already reject inappropriate materials, and any donated materials have to approved by prison officials. This purging of religious materials also presents a serious violation of the First Amendment right to freely exercise religion, as well as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. While the government does have a legitimate right to screen out books that may incite violence, they do not have the ability to restrict and determine accessible religious teachings for prisoners without concrete justification; which they do not have or at least attempted to present.
For the full article from the New York Times, click here.
Saturday, September 8, 2007
Progress in Anbar Province
For those of you interested in the situation in Iraq the situation in the Anbar Province has recently swung in the favor of America. Recently tribal sheiks and militias have decided to stop attacking and killing American soldiers and rather work with the Americans to hunt down al-Qaida fighters in the area. Up to this point many people in the Anbar province (located in western Iraq and Sunni dominated) have been fighting the American forces in such hot spots as Fallujah and Ramadi but recently the leaders of the tribal fighters have come forward and offered to fight against al-Qaida in an attempt to bring peace to their region of Iraq.
Such progress certainly gives hope to the success of efforts in Iraq, and while this may not be cause for celebration just yet any progress is more than welcome. My personal thoughts on the matter of Iraq are that we should be building up critical infrastructure at this time such as electricity, water, food distribution, and such. With the Iraqi army and police forces growing it will only be a matter of time before we hand security over to the Iraqi government completely and at that point the citizens will need confidence in their government. By building new or fixing old critical infrastructure and then following that up with economic growth I believe that such confidence can be attained. However that is in the future and the success in Anbar is good news for now.
Such progress certainly gives hope to the success of efforts in Iraq, and while this may not be cause for celebration just yet any progress is more than welcome. My personal thoughts on the matter of Iraq are that we should be building up critical infrastructure at this time such as electricity, water, food distribution, and such. With the Iraqi army and police forces growing it will only be a matter of time before we hand security over to the Iraqi government completely and at that point the citizens will need confidence in their government. By building new or fixing old critical infrastructure and then following that up with economic growth I believe that such confidence can be attained. However that is in the future and the success in Anbar is good news for now.
Friday, September 7, 2007
Look Who's Back
After 35 months in hiding, Osama bin Laden has finally made his return with a new videotape that, you guessed it, promises death to more Americans. The twist is that American officials believe that bin Laden is wearing a fake beard in the video. Why, you ask? It is possible that he is hiding out in a country where having a beard would stick out like a sore thumb, such as Southeast Asia, so he strapped some fur to his chin(different color from three years ago, but the FBI wouldn't notice that, would they?) and gave his speech. But how much effect will it have?
My answer is not much at all. Contrary to popular belief, we are MUCH safer than we were six years ago, and I will tell you why. How many terrorist attacks in the United States have occurred in the past six years? None. The reason: the Patriot Act. Opponents argue it takes away the freedoms of everyday Joes like you and me, but that isn't the case at all. The only people whose wires are tapped are those who are on the government watchdog list. Even if they did want to waste their time by tapping into my phone line, what exactly would they hear? I can't say that I ever remember plotting a terrorist attack, but that's just me. If the government wants to listen to me talking to my friends about where we are going to have dinner, that's great. If having this power keeps me and my fellow Americans safe, they can listen all they like. Am I saying we are completely safe? No. We will never be completely safe, but we can use all the appropriate tactics available to ensure that we can say everything possible was done to prevent this from happening again.
I might change my opinion on this if we have another attack, but so far our methods have worked, and I will believe they will continue to work until I am proven wrong. As much as Osama bin Laden would like to see "the streets run red with American blood," it cannot happen if the terrorists have no means of doing so. We, along with our President, have taken the correct stance on the issue and must continue to stay on the offensive in order to truly win this War on Terror.
My answer is not much at all. Contrary to popular belief, we are MUCH safer than we were six years ago, and I will tell you why. How many terrorist attacks in the United States have occurred in the past six years? None. The reason: the Patriot Act. Opponents argue it takes away the freedoms of everyday Joes like you and me, but that isn't the case at all. The only people whose wires are tapped are those who are on the government watchdog list. Even if they did want to waste their time by tapping into my phone line, what exactly would they hear? I can't say that I ever remember plotting a terrorist attack, but that's just me. If the government wants to listen to me talking to my friends about where we are going to have dinner, that's great. If having this power keeps me and my fellow Americans safe, they can listen all they like. Am I saying we are completely safe? No. We will never be completely safe, but we can use all the appropriate tactics available to ensure that we can say everything possible was done to prevent this from happening again.
I might change my opinion on this if we have another attack, but so far our methods have worked, and I will believe they will continue to work until I am proven wrong. As much as Osama bin Laden would like to see "the streets run red with American blood," it cannot happen if the terrorists have no means of doing so. We, along with our President, have taken the correct stance on the issue and must continue to stay on the offensive in order to truly win this War on Terror.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
My Blog
CandiedYams here. As I'm sure you will soon realize my blog will not be your average political blog. On my blog you won't find boring stuff you could find on the news, or discussions aimed towards converting you to one political party or the other. In fact, I'm not a huge fan of political parties to begin with, but I'll save that for a different post (I bet you can't wait already eh?). Here's what you will be seeing on my blog:
- A unique outlook on stuff you experience everyday in the world... of politics. I belong to a very unique political group; me. If I really had to describe my views on politics, I'd be a Moderate with Extreme views that leans towards a more Libertarian way of running things. I'm also don't like talking on and on about theory and stuff we could have done differently. I'm a here and now kinda guy.
- My opinion, in all of its bluntly-in-your-face glory. I won't hold punches when I feel strongly about something, and I don't expect you to agree with me some, if not all, of the time. In fact, I'm really hoping you disagree and get slightly aggravated about it; otherwise you would just get bored and go read the comedy blog.
So stay a while and listen, you might just learn something or see something in a different light than before. At the very least I hope you will be moderately entertained, otherwise I'm just wasting your time.
Primary Frenzy
The big news to hit the presidential election in the past week (aside from the debate) is Fred Thompson's formal announcement that he is entering the race. He made the announcement Wednesday night on the "Tonight Show with Jay Leno." Thompson, a former U.S. Senator from Tennessee and former actor on "Law and Order," hopes he can now play the role of Ronald Reagan, a conservative actor-turned-politician who won the hearts of Americans on both sides of the political spectrum with his charm and political savvy. But the question everyone is asking, why enter so late? What is the strategy of waiting until now to enter the race when many have already decided on a candidate. Thompson didn't even participate in Wednesday's debate. When all the other candidates are informing voters of their beliefs, Thompson is sitting at home with his popcorn watching them fight with each other.
But maybe he is smart, or at least has an idea of what he is doing. I mean he already has a strong showing in the polls (16.8% according to Fox News), and most people don't know more about him than what he has shown through his character on Law and Order. Why screw that up? Well, the next few months are going to be do or die for him. Is he going to live up to the expectations, or is he going to flop when he finally opens his mouth in front of a live global audience. I guess we will just have to wait and see.
But maybe he is smart, or at least has an idea of what he is doing. I mean he already has a strong showing in the polls (16.8% according to Fox News), and most people don't know more about him than what he has shown through his character on Law and Order. Why screw that up? Well, the next few months are going to be do or die for him. Is he going to live up to the expectations, or is he going to flop when he finally opens his mouth in front of a live global audience. I guess we will just have to wait and see.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
About Our Blog
The goal of this blog is to discuss the various aspects and poignant issues of both domestic and international politics. We will cover the hot political topics to us as college students and world citizens. People who view this blog will find our views the most recent viewpoints of what is going on in the world today. They will come back because we offer reliable information on news items and sound debate on political issues important to us and the rest of the world. Those who will visit this site are those who care about what is going on in the world around them and would like to hear the opinions of several diverse college students with a variety of backgrounds about the issues which they care about most. We also welcome the opinions of several passers-by who happen upon our site and wish to share their opinions. This will be an informal and conversational blog, but we welcome friendly debating on the issues at hand. Each team member will be responsible for a minimum of three posts and a thousand words per week. We will develop credibility through consistent accuracy in all of our information as well as providing the readers with up-to-date information on what is going on in the world. This blog will cover a great deal of the same world issues as other blogs, but will put a different spin on the posts by being from the college student’s point of view. Thanks for reading, and enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)