Now that this blogging experience has draw to a close I would like to say that it was most enjoyable being able to come on a couple times a week and share my views with anyone willing to read them. As stated in my previous post, the goal of life is truth and through discourse such as that found on blogs, we can find that truth. My goal was to simply do my part in such discourse by offering up some of my opinions so that others may use them as fodder for theirs. I do apologize for remaining anonymous but the choice for such restrictions was not mine to make. For anyone who reads this blog, take from it what you will and feed the fire of discussion. I leave you with this.
“A fool unlike the average man does not learn from his own mistakes. However, a wise man learns not only from his mistakes but from those of others as well.” R.A.
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Religion
Religion is always a touchy subject and the latest case of religious tension is surrounding the new movie The Golden Compass. This movie supposedly has anti-Christian and anti-Catholic aspects in it. As a Catholic the thing that offends me the most is the protest against this movie. Where does this fear come from that people who watch a movie are going to walk out of the theater and say “screw the church I am going to be an atheist”. This sense of fear is perpetuated by the same group of people who are against the teaching of evolution in schools. These people have some idea that anyone who follows a religion has a weak mind and will simply loose their faith when confronted with a difference of opinion. As far as I am concerned I do not want anyone with such a pitifully weak mind to be part of or even associated with my faith.
When it comes down to it things like evolution are just a theory, as far as I am concerned it is a damn good one. Our entire existence is governed by logical natural laws which can be determined by empirical scientific evidence, why would this not include our evolution? The universe and this planet are not chaotic with random unexplainable occurrences, what if God set up this universe in a way that it forms in a logical manner and it does so for the purpose that we many understand it and thus advance ourselves. The theory of evolution keeps in step with the cause and effect system that governs this whole world and just because God did not just plop us down here one day in no way means that our existence was not desired by the divine.
It is the inability for Creationists and Evolutionists to realize that both of their theories are not mutually exclusive that leads to these problems. In my opinion the better we understand this existence the better we understand how God fits into everything. As humans it is our ability to understand the natural world that separates us from other creatures and it is our ability to advance ourselves through this knowledge that makes us closer to God.
Science and religion can work together, just as we can misunderstand science we can also misunderstand religion, being as humans are prone to fault. Over time our advancement in both fields will lead us to a clearer understanding of our existence. The history of religion has even changed with our understanding of science. Historically we see people believing in the existence of a soul within all objects and beings, next we see the emerging of deities that govern various categories of matter of daily life, and most recently we see the development of religion in which one supreme God rule over every thing.
Enter science; we are only beginning to understand the physical aspects of the universe, however what if God is an energy form that permeates the universe. If God is connected to everything then this supports the concept of him being omnipotent and all knowing. By knowing where all matter is he therefore knows where it has been and where it is going. In Christianity for instance there is the concept that we are all God’s children, well, if his energy is in us (what we would call a soul) then we are as much his children as we are our parents whose DNA is in us. Even concepts like heaven and hell can be brought into question. Maybe neither is a physical place but rather states of being, complete connection or disconnection to this energy force.
I am no more a theologist than I am a scientist and it is not my intent to preach religious theory or scientific facts. My intent is merely to point out that religion and science are not as distant as we are all lead to believe, and if we truly wish to live in a learned society we must allow questions in pursuit of the truth, because the truth will not only set you free, but it can also define you.
When it comes down to it things like evolution are just a theory, as far as I am concerned it is a damn good one. Our entire existence is governed by logical natural laws which can be determined by empirical scientific evidence, why would this not include our evolution? The universe and this planet are not chaotic with random unexplainable occurrences, what if God set up this universe in a way that it forms in a logical manner and it does so for the purpose that we many understand it and thus advance ourselves. The theory of evolution keeps in step with the cause and effect system that governs this whole world and just because God did not just plop us down here one day in no way means that our existence was not desired by the divine.
It is the inability for Creationists and Evolutionists to realize that both of their theories are not mutually exclusive that leads to these problems. In my opinion the better we understand this existence the better we understand how God fits into everything. As humans it is our ability to understand the natural world that separates us from other creatures and it is our ability to advance ourselves through this knowledge that makes us closer to God.
Science and religion can work together, just as we can misunderstand science we can also misunderstand religion, being as humans are prone to fault. Over time our advancement in both fields will lead us to a clearer understanding of our existence. The history of religion has even changed with our understanding of science. Historically we see people believing in the existence of a soul within all objects and beings, next we see the emerging of deities that govern various categories of matter of daily life, and most recently we see the development of religion in which one supreme God rule over every thing.
Enter science; we are only beginning to understand the physical aspects of the universe, however what if God is an energy form that permeates the universe. If God is connected to everything then this supports the concept of him being omnipotent and all knowing. By knowing where all matter is he therefore knows where it has been and where it is going. In Christianity for instance there is the concept that we are all God’s children, well, if his energy is in us (what we would call a soul) then we are as much his children as we are our parents whose DNA is in us. Even concepts like heaven and hell can be brought into question. Maybe neither is a physical place but rather states of being, complete connection or disconnection to this energy force.
I am no more a theologist than I am a scientist and it is not my intent to preach religious theory or scientific facts. My intent is merely to point out that religion and science are not as distant as we are all lead to believe, and if we truly wish to live in a learned society we must allow questions in pursuit of the truth, because the truth will not only set you free, but it can also define you.
Race Relations
Recently Congress dropped a bill that included gay individuals in hate crime laws.
Merriam-Webster’s defines hate as the following: Intense hostility and aversion. So I guess by this definition a hate crime is a crime whose motive is determined by hatred toward the victim as opposed to something else. For instance: If I killed someone because I disliked them it would be a hate crime, as opposed to killing them during the course of a random robbery.
Currently hate crime laws are set up to protect people from crimes based on race, religion, color or national origin. My question is why does this require separate legislation? If you kill someone you go to a trial for murder and the motive determines guilt and sentence time. Are people not all the same? These laws are out there saying that indeed they are not and I find that unacceptable.
This leads up to other things like affirmative action, where people are given jobs or admitted to universities based on race rather than performance. Does this not just create animosity? If we promote practices such as this are we not judging people based the color of their skin rather than the content of their character? Now had King said something along the lines of “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. Except when it can work to their advantage such how white people currently use it to their advantage when finding jobs or seeking education.”, had he said that I think people would have called him a hypocrite and been right to do so. However he did not say that because he was seeking equality, not superiority.
In one of my previous posts I condemned the way things were being done in Jena, Louisiana and the racism directed at 6 black teenagers. However the street is by no means one way. Constantly non-white comedians, celebrities, and politician’s belittle white people by using slang terms like cracker and honky, claim that white people are responsible for all the problems that everyone else faces, and demand things like reparations from the US government.
Now while I disagree with the use of a racial terminology for insults (If you can think of nothing better to insult than a persons skin color, you need to shut your mouth), I do not think under any condition people should face repercussions for use of such terminology whether it be the word cracker or n*gger. Do I agree with the use of either of these terms? No, but then again our freedom of speech does not just protect the majority opinion, as a matter of fact it is in place to protect the estranged minority from prosecution, be they the Black Panthers or the Ku Klux Klan.
As far as white people being responsible for all of the world’s problems, I find that contempt undeserved. War and conflicts have raged between every tribe, clan, and country on this planet since the beginning of time. Native Americans fought each other for land but when Europeans enter the mix they are vilified. Africans enslaved each other as part of warfare and waged war on Europe (Hannibal & Tariq), but when Europeans gain the upper hand and colonize Africa and enslave people it is no longer war but a moral abomination. While I disagree with slavery for any reason I think that all parties should be judged the same. It is this ridiculous double standard that best describes modern race relations.
On the subject of reparations by the United States government or even the notion that the United States owes some debt to people of any race is ridiculous. The United States had existed for less than 100 years before the civil war and emancipation and I find that the blood of about a million casualties more than pays for 86 years of slavery in the United States, all other debts can be taken up with Great Britain. On top of that the mass immigration to the United State from Europe began around the civil war and went on into the early 1900’s. It is this group of people to whom most modern Americans can trace their lineage and seeing as these people hold no responsibility for slavery they should owe no debt.
All in all, in the end being white no more means that you are a racist slave holder than being black means you’re a salve. Skin color means nothing in the long run and only ignorant people would use it as a basis for their assumptions. I say we treat people all the same, every one should be judged by the same set of laws (no hate crime legislation) and everyone should be hired based on their abilities (no affirmative action or segregation). We are all the same, let us start acting like it and eliminate any and all double standards regardless of who they favor.
Merriam-Webster’s defines hate as the following: Intense hostility and aversion. So I guess by this definition a hate crime is a crime whose motive is determined by hatred toward the victim as opposed to something else. For instance: If I killed someone because I disliked them it would be a hate crime, as opposed to killing them during the course of a random robbery.
Currently hate crime laws are set up to protect people from crimes based on race, religion, color or national origin. My question is why does this require separate legislation? If you kill someone you go to a trial for murder and the motive determines guilt and sentence time. Are people not all the same? These laws are out there saying that indeed they are not and I find that unacceptable.
This leads up to other things like affirmative action, where people are given jobs or admitted to universities based on race rather than performance. Does this not just create animosity? If we promote practices such as this are we not judging people based the color of their skin rather than the content of their character? Now had King said something along the lines of “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. Except when it can work to their advantage such how white people currently use it to their advantage when finding jobs or seeking education.”, had he said that I think people would have called him a hypocrite and been right to do so. However he did not say that because he was seeking equality, not superiority.
In one of my previous posts I condemned the way things were being done in Jena, Louisiana and the racism directed at 6 black teenagers. However the street is by no means one way. Constantly non-white comedians, celebrities, and politician’s belittle white people by using slang terms like cracker and honky, claim that white people are responsible for all the problems that everyone else faces, and demand things like reparations from the US government.
Now while I disagree with the use of a racial terminology for insults (If you can think of nothing better to insult than a persons skin color, you need to shut your mouth), I do not think under any condition people should face repercussions for use of such terminology whether it be the word cracker or n*gger. Do I agree with the use of either of these terms? No, but then again our freedom of speech does not just protect the majority opinion, as a matter of fact it is in place to protect the estranged minority from prosecution, be they the Black Panthers or the Ku Klux Klan.
As far as white people being responsible for all of the world’s problems, I find that contempt undeserved. War and conflicts have raged between every tribe, clan, and country on this planet since the beginning of time. Native Americans fought each other for land but when Europeans enter the mix they are vilified. Africans enslaved each other as part of warfare and waged war on Europe (Hannibal & Tariq), but when Europeans gain the upper hand and colonize Africa and enslave people it is no longer war but a moral abomination. While I disagree with slavery for any reason I think that all parties should be judged the same. It is this ridiculous double standard that best describes modern race relations.
On the subject of reparations by the United States government or even the notion that the United States owes some debt to people of any race is ridiculous. The United States had existed for less than 100 years before the civil war and emancipation and I find that the blood of about a million casualties more than pays for 86 years of slavery in the United States, all other debts can be taken up with Great Britain. On top of that the mass immigration to the United State from Europe began around the civil war and went on into the early 1900’s. It is this group of people to whom most modern Americans can trace their lineage and seeing as these people hold no responsibility for slavery they should owe no debt.
All in all, in the end being white no more means that you are a racist slave holder than being black means you’re a salve. Skin color means nothing in the long run and only ignorant people would use it as a basis for their assumptions. I say we treat people all the same, every one should be judged by the same set of laws (no hate crime legislation) and everyone should be hired based on their abilities (no affirmative action or segregation). We are all the same, let us start acting like it and eliminate any and all double standards regardless of who they favor.
Saturday, December 8, 2007
The Double O Show
In case you haven't heard, Oprah has started endorsing Obama, and to great effect. They have started a tour featuring Oprah herself, and this week in Iowa they put up a show. And it was the quite the show apparently, as a huge crowd was drawn and much attention was gathered. At the event, Oprah herself gave a speech that she wrote without any help from the Obama campaign. A friend of hers reported that she allegedly wrote the speech herself the night before.
Oprah's speech described Obama as an honest politician, which is something even she admitted to be a rare sight. She listed all of the cheesy promotional scenes that politicians of the past have used: stunts, sitting on porches with everyday people, and intimate conversations. Honestly, I've had enough of such disturbingly obvious attempts at bridging the gap between the foreign political landscape and everyday life. That's one of the reasons why I actually like Obama, if even just a little, because he doesn't have to use such ploys to seem honest and sincere. He doesn't have enough experience in politics itself, which hasn't lead to his corruption and alienation from the common people. You can whine all you want about him not being an experience politician, but at least he isn't a complete sneaky bastard like many politicians.
In my opinion, Oprah's endorsement of Obama will probably gain him a decent amount of votes. Oprah herself draws from the same type of charisma that housewives and factory workers alike can relate to. I don't watch Oprah, and I'm not sure if I'd even vote Democrat, but if I did, I'd vote for Obama. At least, if I had to vote right now, who knows how he could screw up in the future.
Oprah's speech described Obama as an honest politician, which is something even she admitted to be a rare sight. She listed all of the cheesy promotional scenes that politicians of the past have used: stunts, sitting on porches with everyday people, and intimate conversations. Honestly, I've had enough of such disturbingly obvious attempts at bridging the gap between the foreign political landscape and everyday life. That's one of the reasons why I actually like Obama, if even just a little, because he doesn't have to use such ploys to seem honest and sincere. He doesn't have enough experience in politics itself, which hasn't lead to his corruption and alienation from the common people. You can whine all you want about him not being an experience politician, but at least he isn't a complete sneaky bastard like many politicians.
In my opinion, Oprah's endorsement of Obama will probably gain him a decent amount of votes. Oprah herself draws from the same type of charisma that housewives and factory workers alike can relate to. I don't watch Oprah, and I'm not sure if I'd even vote Democrat, but if I did, I'd vote for Obama. At least, if I had to vote right now, who knows how he could screw up in the future.
My Final Post
To those of you who have been following this blog, this will be my last post on this blog. It has been really fun following the news and sharing my opinions on here, and it was a really good experience for me. It is my hope that, through my writing, I have gotten at least one person interested in the political realm, to take a look at what they believe in, whether they agree with me or not, because we are entering a time where it is getting more and more rare for college students especially to be interested in what is going on outside of their tiny world.
As a last piece of advice, when the elections come around, take a look at each of the candidates and go vote. This is the only true way to let your voice be heard and have it actually go towards something. Anyone can have an opinion, but the only ones that matter are the ones who take a stand and take action to make the world a better place. Keep yourself updated in the news. Don't blindly follow a political party, but rather challenge your beliefs and the actions of others. And last but not least, never trust a politician, because the only time they are telling you what they actually believe in is through their voting record. Have a good life blogosphere and may God bless you.
As a last piece of advice, when the elections come around, take a look at each of the candidates and go vote. This is the only true way to let your voice be heard and have it actually go towards something. Anyone can have an opinion, but the only ones that matter are the ones who take a stand and take action to make the world a better place. Keep yourself updated in the news. Don't blindly follow a political party, but rather challenge your beliefs and the actions of others. And last but not least, never trust a politician, because the only time they are telling you what they actually believe in is through their voting record. Have a good life blogosphere and may God bless you.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Gov. Mike Huckabee Defends Himself Against Allegations of Freeing a Convicted Rapist
A blog entry in the Huffington Post recently made some serious allegations against Fmr. Gov. Mike Huckabee, claiming Huckabee pressured a parole board to release Wayne Dumond, who was convicted of the rape and murder of an Arkansas woman. He was orginally sentenced to life plus 20 years, and later had his sentence reduced, made parole, and moved to Missouri and raped and killed two other women.
In reality, Huckabee had absolutely nothing to do with the case. All of the members of the parole board were appointed by Fmr. Gov. Bill Clinton and his Lieutenant Gov. Jim Guy Tucker. Huckabee was asked to review Dumond's case, and decided not to grant him clemency, but the media is using the story against him just because Dumond was released while he was governor. Here is a video of Huckabee defending himself on MSNBC's Scarborough Country. Watch it here.
It is really my hope that the American people do a little research on this for themselves if other candidates come out with ads about this. It would be really sad if a candidate as great as Huckabee has his shot at the presidency killed by sheer lies such as this. Huckabee is currently leading in some national polls for the Republican nomination, and I hope his momentum and up-front campaigning style will carry him to the White House in 2008.
In reality, Huckabee had absolutely nothing to do with the case. All of the members of the parole board were appointed by Fmr. Gov. Bill Clinton and his Lieutenant Gov. Jim Guy Tucker. Huckabee was asked to review Dumond's case, and decided not to grant him clemency, but the media is using the story against him just because Dumond was released while he was governor. Here is a video of Huckabee defending himself on MSNBC's Scarborough Country. Watch it here.
It is really my hope that the American people do a little research on this for themselves if other candidates come out with ads about this. It would be really sad if a candidate as great as Huckabee has his shot at the presidency killed by sheer lies such as this. Huckabee is currently leading in some national polls for the Republican nomination, and I hope his momentum and up-front campaigning style will carry him to the White House in 2008.
Monday, December 3, 2007
Religion Becoming a Key Factor for Republican Presidential Hopefuls
At a time when the race to become the next President of the United States is as heated as ever, Republican voters have begun to look for ways to differentiate the candidates, and one way they do that is through religion. The first presidential caucus, held in Iowa on January 3rd, has a large block of evangelical Christians, and who they choose to support will greatly influence their decision. In fact, about 44% of all caucus-goers in Iowa consider themselves born-again Christians, and the candidates are scrambling to shore up some of that vote.One such candidate, Mitt Romney, has faced a great deal of skepticism because he is a Mormon, and most voters are not familiar with the faith. He is even considering addressing the nation in a speech describing the similarities between his faith and other forms of Christianity, because he thinks it is hurting him in the polls. Romney tries to emphasize the fact that he believes in Jesus Christ, in upholding strong family values, and has a pro-life stance.
Fred Thompson, whose national support has been falling since he entered the race, does not attend church on a regular basis, only when he visits his mother in Tennessee, but assures voters that he is still a Christian. He stated in an interview published Monday, "I'm OK with the Lord, and the Lord is OK with me, as far as I can tell," but voters still aren't convinced as he rarely discusses his faith while on the campaign trail.
The candidate who has benefited most from the support of the religious right is Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas. Before his political career, Huckabee was a Southern Baptist minister, and his small town approach to campaigning and set of values is really impressing Christian voters. A poll by Rasmussen Reports shows Huckabee receiving the support of 48% of all evangelical voters in Iowa, more than all the other candidates combined. He is hoping to ride this wave of support to an Iowa victory, where he is currently leading in most polls.
While I don't believe that religion should be a key determining factor on whether or not to vote for someone, I think that it should play at least a small part. Religion is something that is very important to some voters, and they want to make sure that the leader of their country has the same or a similar belief system that they do. We will have to wait and see who is going to come out on top for the Republican nomination, but religion is sure to play a big part, and we won't have to wait too long before the nomination process gets moving to find out.
Chavez Proposal Defeated
Half of Venezuela is cheering today as earlier this morning the election results of Chavez's proposed constitutional amendments were announced, with him losing by a 51%-49% vote. A successful vote would have granted President Hugh Chavez sweeping powers in the government. Currently Chavez and his supporters control nearly all levels of power in the government. There were 69 proposed amendments which would have given Chavez nearly universal power. This is the first major defeat in his nine years of presidency, the New York Times reports. When the results were announced at 1:20 am opposition leaders were ecstatic and fireworks were a common sight. Hundreds of people flocked to Plaza Altamira and were celebrating in the streets of relatively prosperous eastern Caracas.
The success of the opposition is partly because of the joining of previously splintered movements. For this election on the amendments the separated groups worked together with disillusioned Chavez supporters to defeat the referendum. Had it passed the changes would have abolished term limits, increased the state's role in the economy, and allowed Chavez to declare states of emergency for unlimited periods of time. This is a small step in the right direction for a country who's president has forged a single Socialist party among his followers. He has also forced a television network critical of the government off the airwaves and nationalized oil, telephone and electricity companies, all according to the Times.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Value of Goods in the United States
As the holiday season approaches I am sure that many of you have seen the video’s on CNN about tainted toys from China. In some of those video’s CNN interviews random customers at toy stores and many of them say that they are now looking for a “Made in the USA” label. I think this is a valuable lesson for businesses in the United States who make products overseas. Just because that particular country has lax product safety laws the countries to which you are exporting probably don’t. This may be just the thing that brings a competitive advantage back to US companies.
What makes a company want to produce a product overseas anyway? Profits, plain and simple. Labor is cheaper, materials are cheaper, and you don’t have all those labor and product safety laws to abide by. The only downsides are shipping and customs, and as long as the profit margin that is gained by moving production overseas is substantial enough to counter these two downfalls outsourcing of production will continue.
The question now becomes how do we give an edge back to companies that are producing products in the US? We increase the downfalls with importing of certain products. By mandating certain safety standards for various products we can force overseas manufacturers to upgrade their materials to a similar quality level of those used in the US. Next we make those companies pay for product safety checks at US customs. In this manner we can legislate a number of small changes to our import laws that not only increase product safety for the US consumer but serve to close the cost gap between import and domestic products.
Naturally these laws would be more lax for products in serious demand such as oil or in the event of another deficit those products. By doing this we could keep prices low on product that we need to import and increase prices on those we choose to import. This may mean an increase in prices for the US consumer but it would also mean more US jobs so those same consumers could afford to pay more.
By legislating product quality requirement levels of imports closer to ours (but slightly lower) not only do we get the aforementioned benefits but the quality of American goods would still be higher building/maintaining a world wide reputation for quality thus increasing the implied value of American goods.
What makes a company want to produce a product overseas anyway? Profits, plain and simple. Labor is cheaper, materials are cheaper, and you don’t have all those labor and product safety laws to abide by. The only downsides are shipping and customs, and as long as the profit margin that is gained by moving production overseas is substantial enough to counter these two downfalls outsourcing of production will continue.
The question now becomes how do we give an edge back to companies that are producing products in the US? We increase the downfalls with importing of certain products. By mandating certain safety standards for various products we can force overseas manufacturers to upgrade their materials to a similar quality level of those used in the US. Next we make those companies pay for product safety checks at US customs. In this manner we can legislate a number of small changes to our import laws that not only increase product safety for the US consumer but serve to close the cost gap between import and domestic products.
Naturally these laws would be more lax for products in serious demand such as oil or in the event of another deficit those products. By doing this we could keep prices low on product that we need to import and increase prices on those we choose to import. This may mean an increase in prices for the US consumer but it would also mean more US jobs so those same consumers could afford to pay more.
By legislating product quality requirement levels of imports closer to ours (but slightly lower) not only do we get the aforementioned benefits but the quality of American goods would still be higher building/maintaining a world wide reputation for quality thus increasing the implied value of American goods.
The Digital Divide
For those of you who don’t know the “Digital Divide” refers to the gap between those who benefit from digital technology and those who do not. It has recently come to my attention that there are people out there such as those at www.digitaldivide.org who make arguments about how giving everyone their own wireless internet accessible device will solve all of the world’s problems. Personally I think that the idea of trying to close this “digital divide” between developed and undeveloped countries just by giving them internet access is absolutely ridiculous. I tend to agree with www.economist.com in saying that there are larger problems at hand than giving the impoverished people of this world computers. To think that just thrusting a poor 3rd world village into the information age and expecting them to compete in the global economy without any sort of backing is absurd.
All computer related businesses offer a service of some sort, whether it is hosting websites, advertising, consulting, or selling a product. Now who in their right mind would think that someone living in the 3rd world with no education, food, fresh water, medicine, or infrastructure could do any of these things? Without any education you cannot even run a competitive business on a world wide scale, without financial backing you cannot even start a business even if you could run it, and without infrastructure even if you can run a business and have the money to start it you cannot actually do business. As far as the food and water go those are obviously top priorities and without those all other concerns are irrelevant because the dead don’t do business.
Before we even consider putting these people into the information age at the top of the pyramid that is human technological evolution lets build them a base to stand on. Start with necessities food, water and basic medical care (I’m not talking about experimental cancer treatments or the real advanced stuff, just simple things like the treating of wounds and antibiotic’s). Once the people have these things we need to stabilize the region by introducing a government dedicated to the betterment of its people and direct our funding and efforts through them.
Once these two tasks have been completed we can start by teaching these people how to farm and build irrigation channels, thus giving them a permanent supply of food and water. By building up the agrarian base of a country they can eventually feed their population if everyone is in the farming business. Once enough crops are being grown a surplus is generated and exporting can begin leading to the development of infrastructure like roads and ports. At this point other businesses start up such as mining, refining, and production of materials and products. These businesses would use the new infrastructure to do business and generate revenue. Eventually these farmers and factory workers would make enough money to pool together and give their children a basic education and every generation would then make more money and gain more skills until the factories were being run by the people of that country and they had enough wealth to invest in information technology and do business on a world wide scale.
Personally I think that building this base and guiding these people through the agrarian, industrial, and technological revolutions to a point at which they can stand on their own is a lot better than a bunch of rich 1st world people donating to a fund that sends iphones and translated manuals into a starving, disease infested, uneducated 3rd world village. The manuals would be used as toilet paper and the devices would be sold on the black market for food money faster than you could say “This may have been a bad idea”. In short from a common sense stand point it is much better to stand on a top of a tall building it took you 50 years to build than be thrown from a plane at the same height.
All computer related businesses offer a service of some sort, whether it is hosting websites, advertising, consulting, or selling a product. Now who in their right mind would think that someone living in the 3rd world with no education, food, fresh water, medicine, or infrastructure could do any of these things? Without any education you cannot even run a competitive business on a world wide scale, without financial backing you cannot even start a business even if you could run it, and without infrastructure even if you can run a business and have the money to start it you cannot actually do business. As far as the food and water go those are obviously top priorities and without those all other concerns are irrelevant because the dead don’t do business.
Before we even consider putting these people into the information age at the top of the pyramid that is human technological evolution lets build them a base to stand on. Start with necessities food, water and basic medical care (I’m not talking about experimental cancer treatments or the real advanced stuff, just simple things like the treating of wounds and antibiotic’s). Once the people have these things we need to stabilize the region by introducing a government dedicated to the betterment of its people and direct our funding and efforts through them.
Once these two tasks have been completed we can start by teaching these people how to farm and build irrigation channels, thus giving them a permanent supply of food and water. By building up the agrarian base of a country they can eventually feed their population if everyone is in the farming business. Once enough crops are being grown a surplus is generated and exporting can begin leading to the development of infrastructure like roads and ports. At this point other businesses start up such as mining, refining, and production of materials and products. These businesses would use the new infrastructure to do business and generate revenue. Eventually these farmers and factory workers would make enough money to pool together and give their children a basic education and every generation would then make more money and gain more skills until the factories were being run by the people of that country and they had enough wealth to invest in information technology and do business on a world wide scale.
Personally I think that building this base and guiding these people through the agrarian, industrial, and technological revolutions to a point at which they can stand on their own is a lot better than a bunch of rich 1st world people donating to a fund that sends iphones and translated manuals into a starving, disease infested, uneducated 3rd world village. The manuals would be used as toilet paper and the devices would be sold on the black market for food money faster than you could say “This may have been a bad idea”. In short from a common sense stand point it is much better to stand on a top of a tall building it took you 50 years to build than be thrown from a plane at the same height.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
It's a Bomb!
Actually, it was just a road flare covered in duct tape. Just this Friday, a man held a group of people hostage using a "bomb" he had on his chest. No one ended up getting hurt, but it sure caused a stir in the media. The event took place in New Hampshire, and lasted about 5 hours before the hostages were let off unharmed. The man said he was angry about not being able to get the mental health treatment he needed and demanded, among other things, to talk to Hillary Clinton! If that seems a little odd, it may have to do with the fact that the whole thing took place in one of Hillary's campaign offices.
The man, named Leeland Eisenberg and 46 at the time, has apparently had a very troubled past. He was homeless around the age of 21 due to the death of his mother and the abuse of his alcoholic father. He eventually tried to find shelter at Roman Catholic Parish. They took him in, gave him work, and generally took care of him. Unfortunately, one of the priests at the parish was one of those "hands on" type of guys. Leeland was molested and supposedly raped during his time there. He tried to commit suicide a week later by jumping off a bridge, but was put in a psychiatric ward instead.
Obviously this guy had a few screws loose thanks to his traumatic past, which might help explain why he would do something like this. It is like the child who misbehaves in an attempt to gain attention and aid, but ends up hurting himself in the end. I personally feel sorry for the guy, and feel that this is a story of society failing to support the less fortunate. Since the guy was homeless, he couldn't really hire a lawyer to take this priest to court, nor could he afford mental counciling. I'm not saying I think his actions were justified, but he seems to finally be getting the attention he needed, as I'm sure they're giving him medicine and medical attention now.
If you want to read more on the story, you can check this out.
The man, named Leeland Eisenberg and 46 at the time, has apparently had a very troubled past. He was homeless around the age of 21 due to the death of his mother and the abuse of his alcoholic father. He eventually tried to find shelter at Roman Catholic Parish. They took him in, gave him work, and generally took care of him. Unfortunately, one of the priests at the parish was one of those "hands on" type of guys. Leeland was molested and supposedly raped during his time there. He tried to commit suicide a week later by jumping off a bridge, but was put in a psychiatric ward instead.
Obviously this guy had a few screws loose thanks to his traumatic past, which might help explain why he would do something like this. It is like the child who misbehaves in an attempt to gain attention and aid, but ends up hurting himself in the end. I personally feel sorry for the guy, and feel that this is a story of society failing to support the less fortunate. Since the guy was homeless, he couldn't really hire a lawyer to take this priest to court, nor could he afford mental counciling. I'm not saying I think his actions were justified, but he seems to finally be getting the attention he needed, as I'm sure they're giving him medicine and medical attention now.
If you want to read more on the story, you can check this out.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Last week marked the 14th Anniversary of Don't Ask Don't Tell being signed into law, as well as a large protest in Washington calling for the law to be abolished. For all of you who don't know, Don't Ask Don't Tell, which will now be abbreviated as DADT so I don't go crazy, was a law signed by Clinton that calls for the discharge of all homosexuals in the military. The idea was supported by military officials who figured that homosexuals would cause difficulties within the ranks; taking some of the oil out of the machine so to speak, and everyone wants a well oiled machine when it comes to the military. However, there are now people, such as Eric Alva, speaking out calling the law a form of discrimination and asking for its abolishment.
Sergeant Alva is right, this law is nothing but blatant discrimination against homosexuals. First they can't get married, now they can't even volunteer to fight for their own country? How does allowing homosexuals into the military cause tension among troops? Are troops afraid they might get hit on, that homosexuals can't fire a weapon, aren't as capable of killing an enemy, or are they simply so uncomfortable around people who are different that they themselves will be unable to do any of the above? None of these are valid excuses, as homosexuals are just as capable of firing a weapon, nor would they have any more emotional problems than anyone else when it comes to dispatching an enemy. Not to mention, if we are willing to allow females into the military, they would cause just as many problems, if not more, when it comes to troops making moves on each other.
John Shalikashvili was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs under Clinton when DADT was passed. Coming from a cnn.com article, "...Shalikashvili supported the policy, believing that openly gay servicemen and women would hurt military cohesion. But in a New York Times editorial in January of this year, Shalikashvili said he was convinced the United States could abandon the policy." Obviously, even top brass agree that this law doesn't hold water in today's society. We really need to stop treating homosexuals as second rate citizens just because they act a little different than the majority of us. And honestly, if they are willing to put their life on the line to defend our country, who are we to slap them in the face and say no?
Sergeant Alva is right, this law is nothing but blatant discrimination against homosexuals. First they can't get married, now they can't even volunteer to fight for their own country? How does allowing homosexuals into the military cause tension among troops? Are troops afraid they might get hit on, that homosexuals can't fire a weapon, aren't as capable of killing an enemy, or are they simply so uncomfortable around people who are different that they themselves will be unable to do any of the above? None of these are valid excuses, as homosexuals are just as capable of firing a weapon, nor would they have any more emotional problems than anyone else when it comes to dispatching an enemy. Not to mention, if we are willing to allow females into the military, they would cause just as many problems, if not more, when it comes to troops making moves on each other.
John Shalikashvili was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs under Clinton when DADT was passed. Coming from a cnn.com article, "...Shalikashvili supported the policy, believing that openly gay servicemen and women would hurt military cohesion. But in a New York Times editorial in January of this year, Shalikashvili said he was convinced the United States could abandon the policy." Obviously, even top brass agree that this law doesn't hold water in today's society. We really need to stop treating homosexuals as second rate citizens just because they act a little different than the majority of us. And honestly, if they are willing to put their life on the line to defend our country, who are we to slap them in the face and say no?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)