Well, Karr isn't being charged with killing JonBenet. Hopefully that means that the media circus over the issue can die back down within a week and we can get back to the real issues threatening the nation today: corruption, war, media consolidation, and the devestation of the Gulf Region from last year's Hurricane Katrina. When the media is so focused on the lurid circus of their own self-perpetuation, ignoring all else, then it does little service to democracy, to the need for the public to be well-informed so that they may make decisions. Why couldn't one of the major media outlets focused on important local, national, and world issues during the Karr circus, and leave the for-profit insanity to every other station, newspaper, and newsmagazine across the nation. The American media are serial-sensationalists, focused on the murder cases and fluff of the globe. Campaign coverage is practically issueless, the way the mainstream media portrays it, and only soundbites and photo ops matter: Dean's "Scream", Kerry snowboarding, Bush on an aircraft carrier. The "Scream" is the perfect example, a repetitive attack on a Democratic frontrunner by the media which culminated the end days of the most powerful Internet mobilization of peole power -- democracy -- in this nation as of 2004. An Internet movement that once again made myself, and others of my generation, proud to be not only Americans, but Democrats. Progressives. Even... liberals.
This nation is so ruled by for-profit media, with few exceptions to the rule (Christian Science Monitor comes to mind). Everything is about entertaining to increase viewership; all at the expense of information. "Info-tainment" they call it, but have you taken a close look at it lately? More "tainment" than "info", that's for sure, and it's progressively decaying to an even worse standard. There are your bright lights among the murk still, but they come infrequently. Democracy is being held at gunpoint, and the gun is in the hands of the Murdochs of the world. Media is no longer an independent voice to inform the people so that they may make educated decisions: it is a massive entertainment machine operated to maximize circulation and effeciency at the lowest possible cost to the owners. Operating at the least common denominator is not news, not when you've eliminated your own actual national and international reporting and depend on someone else -- AP, Reuters, the Monitor -- to do it for you. And when you do ship one of your guys out there, it's for a media circus: O.J. Simpson Trial, Michael Jackson Trial(s), et cetera.
This is by-far one of the biggest threats to our electorate, lagging only slightly behind partisan redistricting, restricting ability to vote in states like Ohio and Florida, and outright "buying" of the vote through high-paying corporate donors and their "bundling" policies which buys them access to the pols once elected. Why the hell do "we the people" stand for it? This is our democracy, God damn it, and we're going to take it back. And when we do, the news media won't know what the hell hit them. Infotainment is reaching it's limits, all the while the people are striking back: blogging and organizing where they're blind. On the Internet.
Monday, August 28, 2006
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
The Anti-Democrat / Green Coalition of America
I used to respect the Greeg Party, I even considered switching my official affiliation over to them between 2000 and 2004, but something made me hesitate. While I agree with many Green positions, something gave me pause. I was disgusted with Nader in 2004 for running the way he did, but he was also running independent of the Greens that election cycle, so I gave it little thought. Now, however, I'm pissed off.
A Green is running for the Senate in Pennsylvania for Santorum's seat, which is annoying enough in its typical spoiler scenario for the Democrats. But, like Nader in 2004, Carl Romanelli has accepted G.O.P. funds and the G.O.P. worked with him in order to secure the signatures for his candidacy petition. How could the Greens debase themselves so? This isn't just running to prove a point, or running to offer a third option; this is purposefully trying to spoil the election of a Democratic challenger to a seat held by a Republican incumbant. The Green Party has lost its credibility in my eyes, and in the eyes of many others. This move is down right infuriating and sickening.
A Green is running for the Senate in Pennsylvania for Santorum's seat, which is annoying enough in its typical spoiler scenario for the Democrats. But, like Nader in 2004, Carl Romanelli has accepted G.O.P. funds and the G.O.P. worked with him in order to secure the signatures for his candidacy petition. How could the Greens debase themselves so? This isn't just running to prove a point, or running to offer a third option; this is purposefully trying to spoil the election of a Democratic challenger to a seat held by a Republican incumbant. The Green Party has lost its credibility in my eyes, and in the eyes of many others. This move is down right infuriating and sickening.
Monday, August 14, 2006
Iran and Energy
What most disappoints me most about the international attempts to deal with Iran on the nuclear issue is the apprehension over Iran's control of so much oil. Nations are seemingly really loathe to declare sanctions against a country with such a large oil exporting capacity, and they fear that Iran itself might try to restrict oil exports to most of the world, thus driving up prices for its enemies and potentially lowering them for its allies. If we were doing more to wean ourselves off of oil, the potential threat Iran poses would be lessened, at least economically.
The other thing, possibly the most ignorant argument I've ever heard, is that why does Iran need nuclear energy when they have so much oil at their disposal. Well let's see, perhaps they too are considering the creation of alternative energy sources in preparation for a time when using oil can become prohibitively expensive. Or perhaps they're doing it to free up more oil to export and profit off of, instead of burning it all up at home. The only ones who really know are the Iranians. If you're going to accuse Iran of doing something wrong, don't make it out to be about nuclear energy, focus on the real issue: nuclear weapons.
I don't disagree that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. They exist in an increasingly -- sadly enough -- nuclear world, and an increasingly nuclear Middle East. Though not officially, some claim -- one could even say have proven -- Israel to have at least 300-to-400 nuclear devices through the help and assistance of France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Iraq, then Iran's enemy when Saddam was dictator, also was pushing for nuclear weapons prior to his nation being crippled during the 1991 Gulf War. Also, one must consider that both Pakistan and India are nuclear, and Iran is separated from Pakistan only by Afghanistan, where U.S. forces are centered in that region.
On the other side, Iran has the occupied nation of Iraq, which is currently controlled (mostly) by U.S. troops. Indeed, if I were Iran, I would be worried about my neighbors using their nuclear stockpiles in negotiations, as well as fearing my neighbors could become U.S. invasion corridors. So Iran's position on nuclear energy and -- although not widely spoken -- nuclear weapons is a dangerous, unfortunate, and destructive policy, in a way I can almost see why they would go such a way.
Is there a solution? Not an easy one, I'm afraid. The United States seems to have designs for Iran, and Iran has designs for Israel. The entire region hangs on the constant brink of annihilation so long as nuclear weapons are an option worldwide. The thinking generally goes, "If my enemies can have huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons, why can't I?" The United States, Russia, France, and the United Kingdom are setting a poor example in the world by maintaining their nuclear stockpiles as a "deterrent" against nuclear war. But other, smaller nations -- seen as less responsible -- are questioning "why not us, too?"
Can't we start downplaying nuclear weapons as a deterrent before that deterrent is so widely spread that eventually it will fail to be so? Couldn't we start to willingly give up our nuclear arsenal, much like South Africa did with its six warheads in the early 1990s? I doubt much progress would be made with such moves in today's world, not easily. But then again, what's wrong with trying?
Sunday, August 13, 2006
Axis Moste Evile
The New York Times printed, unopposed, accusations against Iran that it was inciting and organizing attacks in Iraq. The only source for this is Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq. After the Times reported his accusations, they had this to add in the sixth paragraph:
I know my readership of one, maybe two people isn't much, but the more publicity attempts to further demonize -- falsely -- Iran get, the better. Iran has its definate faults, but there's no need to add false ones to the list, it just serves to further degrade American integrity later on. There's no need for the mainstream media to continue parroting administration propaganda, you would have thought they would have learned their lesson in the first five years of the Bush Administration.
Remember, Republican talking points never die; they just become political headlines.
But he acknowledged that there was no proof that Iran was directing any particular operations by militias here.
I know my readership of one, maybe two people isn't much, but the more publicity attempts to further demonize -- falsely -- Iran get, the better. Iran has its definate faults, but there's no need to add false ones to the list, it just serves to further degrade American integrity later on. There's no need for the mainstream media to continue parroting administration propaganda, you would have thought they would have learned their lesson in the first five years of the Bush Administration.
Remember, Republican talking points never die; they just become political headlines.
Failed Approach?
David Sanger's piece in today's New York Times, Does Calling It Jihad Make It So?, brings up some interesting analysis, although, as always, much is left out. My main issue is with something I read at the end of the piece, the last two paragraphs:
Now, let's look back at the situations in Somolia and Beirut. Between 1993 and 1995, the U.N. force in Somolia suffered significant casualties and was involved with various military disasters, such as the crashed Black Hawk helicopter in 1993. The withdrawl from Somolia didn't make the nation any more of a breeding ground now than it was before, during, and after the withdrawl.
Lebanon is much the same: the 1983 Beirut barracks bombings forced U.S. troops first offshore, and then completely out of Lebanon in 1984. Not only did Lebanon not collapse into a "failed state", but they came out of their civil war five years after American withdrawl and have been rebuilding ever since. In fact, Lebanon is less of a breeding ground for extremism now than it was before, during, and after the barracks bombings. Hezbollah is the only armed militant group remaining from the civil war, with the others having been disarmed.
So in fact, a withdrawl from Iraq would not necessarily result in a failed state, but only if the withdrawl was properly planned and timed. A mid-2007 withdrawl would give enough time to complete the training of Iraqi security forces and transitioning them into being the public face of the counter-insurgancy in Iraq. Then we could mostly withdrawl and stay on in a supportative role, providing assistance when needed, and otherwise letting the Iraqis handle their own affairs.
What bothers me is Republicans trying to paint the Democratic Party as being "anti-war" and in favor of a "cut-and-run" policy in Iraq. Sure, some of us are anti-war, but don't lump everyone who wants to end the military catastrophe in Iraq in with the anti-war movement. Likewise, I don't know of a single conscientious Democrat who wants to abandon the Iraqi fate to civil war and a failed state. We need to fight back against the Republican propaganda machine, and the mainstream media which is complacent in helping spread it.
For Mr. Bush, however, dropping the talk of a “long war” would be to send a message that America can go back to sleep. Thus, each terrorist attack or threat is woven into the bigger picture of a global struggle.
It helps explain the recent redeployment of American troops to the streets of Baghdad: to pull out early would be a return to the failed approach of the 1990’s. It would be another Somalia, another Beirut. The problem is whether staying may give the jihadists something else: A narrative of never-ending conflict, in a war to be fought in Baghdad, in Lebanon and in economy class over the wing of a 747.
Now, let's look back at the situations in Somolia and Beirut. Between 1993 and 1995, the U.N. force in Somolia suffered significant casualties and was involved with various military disasters, such as the crashed Black Hawk helicopter in 1993. The withdrawl from Somolia didn't make the nation any more of a breeding ground now than it was before, during, and after the withdrawl.
Lebanon is much the same: the 1983 Beirut barracks bombings forced U.S. troops first offshore, and then completely out of Lebanon in 1984. Not only did Lebanon not collapse into a "failed state", but they came out of their civil war five years after American withdrawl and have been rebuilding ever since. In fact, Lebanon is less of a breeding ground for extremism now than it was before, during, and after the barracks bombings. Hezbollah is the only armed militant group remaining from the civil war, with the others having been disarmed.
So in fact, a withdrawl from Iraq would not necessarily result in a failed state, but only if the withdrawl was properly planned and timed. A mid-2007 withdrawl would give enough time to complete the training of Iraqi security forces and transitioning them into being the public face of the counter-insurgancy in Iraq. Then we could mostly withdrawl and stay on in a supportative role, providing assistance when needed, and otherwise letting the Iraqis handle their own affairs.
What bothers me is Republicans trying to paint the Democratic Party as being "anti-war" and in favor of a "cut-and-run" policy in Iraq. Sure, some of us are anti-war, but don't lump everyone who wants to end the military catastrophe in Iraq in with the anti-war movement. Likewise, I don't know of a single conscientious Democrat who wants to abandon the Iraqi fate to civil war and a failed state. We need to fight back against the Republican propaganda machine, and the mainstream media which is complacent in helping spread it.
Saturday, August 12, 2006
Administration Cut Anti-Terrorism Funding
Apparently the Bush administration wants to cut $6 million from programs directed at developing new explosive detection technology. This after the Department of Homeland Security failed to spend $200 million earmarked for the same purposes of research and development. Just more proof that this administration's focus on the War on Terror goes no further than Iraq.
Comcast's Lobby Stinks
I wasn't really fond of Comcast before today -- I've dealt with since as long as I could remember, they were the only cable service provider in the Detroit Metropolitan Area, my place of origin -- but now I've been given even more reason to dislike them. I present to you: lobbyist lies about network neutrality.
Warm Fuzzies
I love the good people over at Daily Kos. The kind of snarky humor they use is right up my alley, and I highly appreciate it.
Also, apparently the threat of someone using liquid bombs on planes has been known and ignored by the administration for year, and they did nothing to act on it. I'm impressive by this administration's record on national security. Not.
Also, apparently the threat of someone using liquid bombs on planes has been known and ignored by the administration for year, and they did nothing to act on it. I'm impressive by this administration's record on national security. Not.
Democratic Revolution?
Matt Bai of the New York Times has written a piece about Lamont supporters within the Democratic Party which I have found over at the Times' website. In it, he compares the current situation within the Democratic Party, the rejection of triangulation and blind bipartisanship, to "Reagan's Revolution" in 1976, when the right-wing of the Republican Party rose up against the same political strategies which now define the DLC-wing of the Democrats, and therefore dominate our parties politics. This passage in particular caught my eye:
While Bai makes some interesting points on the comparisons between the two movements, he also upholds the view that the Democrats, and even more so the liberal "revolutionaries" within the party, don't have a governing agenda, that we're not "for" anything. Yes, while many of us believe that it's easier to formulate a governing strategy after you've won the elections, we are still for things, it's just the media doesn't want to look at it that way. They just like attaching a view to us as revolutionaries without values.
Health care: roughly 16% of Americans are uninsured, more are under-insured. The American health care infrastructure has the highest administrative costs in the industrialized world. We wish to make health care available and affordable to all, by reducing the overall administrative costs of health care, streamlining the system, and providing subsidies and incentives to ensure everyone is insured. A publicly-funded healthcare system would be nice too, but let's not push it yet. In fact, Ned Lamont has stated a pretty solid health care proposal in his bid for the Senate. It's not as much as some would like, but it's a start.
National security: Democrats support increasing security in our nation's ports and vital infrastructure, and have made proposals aimed at furthering those goals which have been rejected by the Republican-controlled Congress because we can't afford them, because of the deficit. Yet we can afford a repeal of the estate tax, which would cost over $250 billion over ten years in tax revenue on the top 1% of the population. The Republican Party's heart just really isn't behind real national security, and the Democrats have advocated actual port security, reducing the causes of extremism by reducing poverty and furthering education worldwide. Our party, especially the liberal wing, has also advocated an end to "Cowboy Diplomacy" which makes us hated worldwide.
The economy: we have proposed removing the disastrous tax cuts for the wealthy, rebuilding the public sector, creating jobs through the reconstruction of our public infrastructure in the wake of several national disasters, including the Blackout of 2003 and Hurricane Katrina. We liberals also support keeping American jobs at home, and American-made products in our stores. International trade is nice, great, awesome; but it shouldn't come at the expense of the middle-class.
Those are just three key issues in which we have advocated. Of course the community have its differences, and everyone has their own ideas and own versions of what to do, but we are united in our desire to see this country done right. We tire of "Cowboy Diplomacy", of the mishandled War on Terror, the floundering economy and the destruction of the middle-class. We also tire of the Culture Wars; the portrayal as the Democratic Party as a party without values, who are against family values. Not only do we have values, but we have great ones: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The protection and survival of the citizens of the United States. The education and well-being of our children and families.
So I say to Matt Bai, before you accuse us of not standing for something, why not try asking one of us what we do stand for. You might just find yourself surprised at what you didn't know already existed.
There are, in fact, some compelling parallels between this moment in Democratic politics and the one that saw the ideological cleansing of the Republican ranks three decades ago. In ''Reagan's Revolution,'' an inside account of Reagan's failed 1976 campaign, Craig Shirley notes that aides to President Gerald Ford warned that they were ''in real danger of being outorganized by a small number of highly motivated right-wing nuts.'' Those so-called nuts, meanwhile, waged war on the then widely held belief that ''if they were to succeed, Republicans had to be 'pragmatic,' they had to 'broaden the base' and they had to 'compromise.' Otherwise, they would always be in the minority.'' The very same things might be written now, substituting the words ''left'' and ''Democratic'' for ''right'' and ''Republican.'' And like those bygone Republican leaders, establishment Democrats exhibit a surprisingly shallow understanding of the uprising that now threatens to engulf them.
While Bai makes some interesting points on the comparisons between the two movements, he also upholds the view that the Democrats, and even more so the liberal "revolutionaries" within the party, don't have a governing agenda, that we're not "for" anything. Yes, while many of us believe that it's easier to formulate a governing strategy after you've won the elections, we are still for things, it's just the media doesn't want to look at it that way. They just like attaching a view to us as revolutionaries without values.
Health care: roughly 16% of Americans are uninsured, more are under-insured. The American health care infrastructure has the highest administrative costs in the industrialized world. We wish to make health care available and affordable to all, by reducing the overall administrative costs of health care, streamlining the system, and providing subsidies and incentives to ensure everyone is insured. A publicly-funded healthcare system would be nice too, but let's not push it yet. In fact, Ned Lamont has stated a pretty solid health care proposal in his bid for the Senate. It's not as much as some would like, but it's a start.
National security: Democrats support increasing security in our nation's ports and vital infrastructure, and have made proposals aimed at furthering those goals which have been rejected by the Republican-controlled Congress because we can't afford them, because of the deficit. Yet we can afford a repeal of the estate tax, which would cost over $250 billion over ten years in tax revenue on the top 1% of the population. The Republican Party's heart just really isn't behind real national security, and the Democrats have advocated actual port security, reducing the causes of extremism by reducing poverty and furthering education worldwide. Our party, especially the liberal wing, has also advocated an end to "Cowboy Diplomacy" which makes us hated worldwide.
The economy: we have proposed removing the disastrous tax cuts for the wealthy, rebuilding the public sector, creating jobs through the reconstruction of our public infrastructure in the wake of several national disasters, including the Blackout of 2003 and Hurricane Katrina. We liberals also support keeping American jobs at home, and American-made products in our stores. International trade is nice, great, awesome; but it shouldn't come at the expense of the middle-class.
Those are just three key issues in which we have advocated. Of course the community have its differences, and everyone has their own ideas and own versions of what to do, but we are united in our desire to see this country done right. We tire of "Cowboy Diplomacy", of the mishandled War on Terror, the floundering economy and the destruction of the middle-class. We also tire of the Culture Wars; the portrayal as the Democratic Party as a party without values, who are against family values. Not only do we have values, but we have great ones: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The protection and survival of the citizens of the United States. The education and well-being of our children and families.
So I say to Matt Bai, before you accuse us of not standing for something, why not try asking one of us what we do stand for. You might just find yourself surprised at what you didn't know already existed.
Friday, August 11, 2006
Links of the Week
Daily Kos: Two Great Democrats: Bill Clinton and Jim McDermott
- Clinton gave a frank, up front speech on the big picture of the conservative movement within the Republican Party at a campaign fundraiser for Jim McDermott.
The Columbus Dispatch - Local/State - Bob Ney is stepping down as the candidate for Congress in Ohio's 18th District and Joy Padgett steps up. But is her replacement of Ney legal? A Republican-passed state "Sore Loser" law, often called the Strickland Amendment, which was designed to prevent Strickland from running both for Senator and Governor may preclude her involvement in the race for Ohio's 18th. Republican's say it applies only to the same ballot, while Democrats say it means the same year. State Attorney General says it's legal, but Democrats plan to challenge. Padgett ran as Petro's Lt. Governor in the Republican Primary for Gubernatorial candidate.
Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall August 11, 2006 06:48 PM - A Pro-Social Security phase out Democrat, ex-Sen. Bob Kerrey, has thrown his support behind Lieberman, a fellow Social Security hater. Will evil prevail? :-P
Media Matters - NBC's Today, New York Times repeated GOP claim that arrests benefit Republicans in elections, when polling shows Democrats have erased GOP advantage on the issue - And Democrat's have apparently removed the Republican's national security advantage.
And finally...
Eschaton - Aasif Mandvi - The Daily Show has a new Middle Eastern correspondent. Funny stuff.
Also, as a quick comment... apparently Democrats want to appease our enemies aboard and domestic. Really, this comes as a surprise to me. I'd love to see how this idea is justified among conservatives. Explain it to me, someone. I'd love to debate the issue.
To All You "Christian Fascists" Out There, Listen Up!
...You're hurting America. :-P
Bush made the wise decision recently, when commenting on the foiled terror plot announced by the U.K. yesterday, to call the terrorists "Islamic Fascists". U.S. Muslim groups are criticizing, rightfully, the President on this move. Daily Kos, I believe, has provided a solid post exploring the issue. My favorite is the following passage, taken from a Gallup Poll last month:
In fact, I know a government which fits many of the qualities of a budding fascist regime: this one. If we don't start changing our culture and our politics soon, we could spiral down the path of fascism. I'm not saying Bush is the next Hitler, but his policies have tended towards that of more benign (relative to Nazi Germany) form of fascism. We need to shy away from the ideological trap as defining an entire group of people as "enemies" just for a vague set of criteria. Because at this rate, the "enemy" will become Islam. We cannot let that occur if we ever want to see peace again.
Also, the G.O.P. political machine pissed me off with the "presponse" to the foiled terror plot. Knowing about the plot before its official announcement, they started attacking Democrats on national security earlier in the week.
Bush made the wise decision recently, when commenting on the foiled terror plot announced by the U.K. yesterday, to call the terrorists "Islamic Fascists". U.S. Muslim groups are criticizing, rightfully, the President on this move. Daily Kos, I believe, has provided a solid post exploring the issue. My favorite is the following passage, taken from a Gallup Poll last month:
While Americans tend to disagree with the notion that Muslims living in the United States are sympathetic to al-Qaeda, a significant 34% believe they do back al-Qaeda. And fewer than half -- 49% -- believe U.S. Muslims are loyal to the United States. Almost four in ten, 39%, advocate that Muslims here should carry special I.D. That same number admit that they do hold some "prejudice" against Muslims. Forty-four percent say their religious views are too "extreme."My roommate, Amber, I believe put it best when we noticed the President's use of language: she observed that the "enemy" has been slowly evolving. We've gone from calling them "terrorists" to "Islamic Fascists", which is such a loaded term. You're combining Islam, a religion which many U.S. citizens seem to percieve as being in opposition to Judeo-Christian western society, and Fascism, an extreme-right nationalist social movement in several nations worldwide which has resulted in the deaths of millions, the persecution of peoples for various reasons, and warmongering across the globe for nationalist interests.
In fact, I know a government which fits many of the qualities of a budding fascist regime: this one. If we don't start changing our culture and our politics soon, we could spiral down the path of fascism. I'm not saying Bush is the next Hitler, but his policies have tended towards that of more benign (relative to Nazi Germany) form of fascism. We need to shy away from the ideological trap as defining an entire group of people as "enemies" just for a vague set of criteria. Because at this rate, the "enemy" will become Islam. We cannot let that occur if we ever want to see peace again.
Also, the G.O.P. political machine pissed me off with the "presponse" to the foiled terror plot. Knowing about the plot before its official announcement, they started attacking Democrats on national security earlier in the week.
Terrorism
Ever since the U.S. Embassy bombings in 1998, and the Clinton Administration's response to them (Operation Infinite Reach, which consisted of cruise missile strikes against Sudan and Afghanistan), I've wondered why we didn't start consulting more with other security and counter-terrorism experts worldwide. It would have been better to consult with people in other countries who have had a history of dealing with terrorist threats. Israel and Egypt have much experience with the types of Islamic extremists which were targetting the United States. The United Kingdom and Spain have dealt with home grown "terrorist" militias advocating independence of certain provinces dominated by specific ethnicities. So many nations have the experiences and training we lacked, and we could have learned much instead of trying to blunder our way through it.
September 11th, 2001 was not the first time I had ever heard of Osama Bin Laden. I remember the 1993 World Trade Center bombings from when I was young, and remember in subsequent years of hearing about possible connections between those attacks and Osama Bin Laden. I heard more about this man following the embassy bombings in 1998. I came to know and understand more about Osama Bin Laden, but until 2001 he was not a figure whose motives I knew very well, nor did my young mind understand them as well as I now understand them. Still, I always knew that if people were trying to attack us, particularly targeting our transportation infrastructure, that we should consult with the experts who have dealt with such things in the past, and still deal with them day to day.
That fateful day back in 2001, however, strengthened my belief that we needed to consult with international security experts immediately. My thoughts automatically focused on Israel, whom I admire for their transportation security and most of their counter-terrorism policies (although not all, especially the way they've treated Lebanon and the Occupied Territories). Since then, I haven't really aired my beliefs on the matter to many people, because of one reason or another: I was shy, no adult would listen to the ideas of a teenager, the system was too big and too corrupt for me to attempt to penetrate, et cetera. Eventually it faded from the forefront of my mind as other issues occupied it: the economy, the War on Afghanistan, the illegal War on Iraq, the dismantling of our civil liberties, et cetera. Still, deep down, I've always been disappointed with the blunder that our attempts to solo our "increased" homeland security has been.
Then the foiled terror plot announced yesterday began to bring it back to the surface, as my disappointment with homeland security and the fearmongering of the U.S. Department of the same name (only capitalized!) roiled. But I didn't really remember it until I spotted a quote in an article on CNN.com from an Israeli named Rafi Ron, the former head of security at Tel Aviv's Den Gurion Airport:
September 11th, 2001 was not the first time I had ever heard of Osama Bin Laden. I remember the 1993 World Trade Center bombings from when I was young, and remember in subsequent years of hearing about possible connections between those attacks and Osama Bin Laden. I heard more about this man following the embassy bombings in 1998. I came to know and understand more about Osama Bin Laden, but until 2001 he was not a figure whose motives I knew very well, nor did my young mind understand them as well as I now understand them. Still, I always knew that if people were trying to attack us, particularly targeting our transportation infrastructure, that we should consult with the experts who have dealt with such things in the past, and still deal with them day to day.
That fateful day back in 2001, however, strengthened my belief that we needed to consult with international security experts immediately. My thoughts automatically focused on Israel, whom I admire for their transportation security and most of their counter-terrorism policies (although not all, especially the way they've treated Lebanon and the Occupied Territories). Since then, I haven't really aired my beliefs on the matter to many people, because of one reason or another: I was shy, no adult would listen to the ideas of a teenager, the system was too big and too corrupt for me to attempt to penetrate, et cetera. Eventually it faded from the forefront of my mind as other issues occupied it: the economy, the War on Afghanistan, the illegal War on Iraq, the dismantling of our civil liberties, et cetera. Still, deep down, I've always been disappointed with the blunder that our attempts to solo our "increased" homeland security has been.
Then the foiled terror plot announced yesterday began to bring it back to the surface, as my disappointment with homeland security and the fearmongering of the U.S. Department of the same name (only capitalized!) roiled. But I didn't really remember it until I spotted a quote in an article on CNN.com from an Israeli named Rafi Ron, the former head of security at Tel Aviv's Den Gurion Airport:
Rafi Ron, former head of security at Tel Aviv, Israel's Ben Gurion
Airport, said screeners should focus more on finding suspicious people
than on hunting for potential terrorist tools.
"It is extremely
difficult for people to disguise the fact they are under tremendous
amount of stress, that they are going to kill themselves and a lot of
people around them in a short amount of time, and all the other factors
that effect their behavior," Ron said.
And it hit me again: we should have Israeli security consultants training transportation security around the country. In the airports, the train and bus stations, the ports. In power plants and water purifying facilities. This is what we need: expert advice and training from countries who already have established counter-terrorism training and expertise. Maybe not all of Israel's programs are right for us, but maybe those that aren't can be replaced by European programs, or homegrown programs, or something else entirely. Why do we always have to go it alone? As a country, we're different from other countries... but not that different. I mean, what could it hurt? Maybe it could save the lives of more civilians.
Thursday, August 10, 2006
My blog has sat idle for the past two months due to life stress and just a general apathy which I've been working to overcome. I'm reengaging with the outside world and meeting wonderful new people. Hopefully this, combined with my close scrutiny of the news becoming once again active, I will be posting more often. Who knows, maybe someone will even read them this time.
Also, ninjas versuses pirates, who wins?
Also, ninjas versuses pirates, who wins?
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Congressman Boehner
A wonderful individual, I must say. Unless you've been living under a rock, you've probably heard of the fight to save network neutrality. While I participated in e-mailing my representitives on the issue, and I actually got a reply back for Representitive Boehner's office -- a form letter. Below is the full text of the e-mail:
The only thing editted about that letter was some of the formatting. You can tell it's a really badly coded pre-written reply by looking at the remaining original HTML from my direct copy/paste prior to editing.
Well I e-mailed him again, with a reply to the above e-mail. This was my reply:
So yeah. That was my big reply. I decided to be formal with him, despite my urgings otherwise.
So yeah, I knew I was going to be voting against Representitive Boehner, the House Majority Leader, before this... but somehow this was the final straw. I've been pushed by Mr. Boehner into actively campaigning against his re-election.
Anyway, peace.
Dear Sean :Thank you for contacting me regarding recent interest group proposals for so-called "net neutrality." It is good to hear from you.
This year, Congress will reauthorize the 1996 Telecommunications Act. One of the key criticisms of that act (and the original 1934 version for that matter) is that, despite supposedly benevolent intentions, Congress essentially picked winners and losers in the various sectors of the telecommunications industry instead of allowing a free marketplace in which competition would lead to new technology, better service, and lower prices for consumers. As a result, many industry experts have concluded that governmental regulation has impeded the emergence of new technology and better applications. Perhaps the biggest example of America's stifled telecommunications progress is that the United States, despite being the world's economic powerhouse, is currently ranked 16 th for Internet broadband deployment. In anticipation of the reauthorization, I believe we must honestly examine and reflect upon the many government regulations already on the books and carefully consider the pros and cons of any newly-proposed regulations before endorsing proposals that may simply sound good on the surface.
One of the issues that Congress will address is the concept known as "net neutrality." Certain interest groups and press editorialists proclaim that Congress should mandate that cable and telephone industry broadband operators offer control of their networks equally to any and all Internet traffic. In fact, several major software and e-commerce firms have already formed a lobbyist organization called the Coalition of Broadband Users and Innovators (CBUI) to petition the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to do just that. In the name of preserving "network neutrality" and Internet "openness," CBUI members argue that the FCC must adopt preemptive "nondiscrimination safeguards" to ensure Internet users open and unfettered access to online content and services in the future. Despite the rhetoric however, there is currently no evidence that broadband operators are going out of their way to block access to any widely used websites or similar online services. In fact, any significant discriminatory behavior on the part of broadband service providers ( BSPs ) would generally be financially counterproductive considering that BSPs make more money by carrying more traffic. On the rare occasion that a BSP may actively regulate traffic or impose differential pricing schemes on their network, it would likely be for rather sensible reasons. Network owners may want to discourage the use of certain devices on their networks to avoid system crashes, interference, or signal theft. They may want to price services differently to avoid network congestion and/or conserve bandwidth. They may want to exclusively partner with other firms to help them reach new customers and ultimately create superior services. And perhaps they may very well direct users towards some content before others because it helps them make the necessary money to recoup the huge investment required to create and build out broadband networks. Outlawing the ability of network owners to favor certain content kills a major financial incentive for entrepreneurs to invent and build new networks in the first place. Ultimately, in the absence of clear harm, government typically does not regulate in the preemptive fashion that CBUI members are requesting.
Please be aware that the House Energy and Commerce Committee recently passed the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Efficiency Act of 2006. Among other points, the act empowers the FCC to enforce the Commission's broadband policy statement and the principles incorporated within including: 1) consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice, 2) consumers are entitled to run the applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement, 3) consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network, and 4) consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.
Throughout the 1990s and more recently, I have resisted placing additional regulations and taxes on the Internet because of its effect on slowing development and service for consumers and the propensity for those regulations to actively harm certain businesses while rewarding competitors. Instead of being so preoccupied with maximizing consumer welfare within the confines of existing systems, "net neutrality" proponents would be better served to put more thought and energy into how future alternative networks may be created. The principle that "net neutrality" advocates seem to ignore is that competition in the creation of new networks is as important as competition in the goods and services that get sold over existing networks.
Please be assured that I will keep your thoughts in mind as this legislation comes before the House floor.
Thank you again for contacting me regarding this important issue. Please continue to keep me informed of your concerns.
Sincerely,
John A. Boehner
The only thing editted about that letter was some of the formatting. You can tell it's a really badly coded pre-written reply by looking at the remaining original HTML from my direct copy/paste prior to editing.
Well I e-mailed him again, with a reply to the above e-mail. This was my reply:
Dear Representitive Boehner,
I thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to send me a reply, even if it is a generalized form letter in response to the deluge of e-mails you have recieved as part of the various network neutrality advocates and their petitions which I am sure you have been receiving. I am, however, writing you back to correct you on a few points.
In Canada, where there are no similar safeguards for network neutrality as there are here, a BSP had blocked access to a site supporting a worker's union while they were in a negociation with their workers who belonged to that union.
Also, I am all for future development of the internet and of the networks -- my chosen major centers around computers and the internet, after all. But what I also think you fail to understand is that the Internet did not start as a privately-funded and developed enterprise: it was born from publically-supplied investments and publically-developed networks. The broadband networks were laid down by corportate interests, under regulation from the government. Yes, private investment in networks is needed and desired, but a little thing like network neutrality has not and will not kill the profit of large corporations with their hands in numerous pots.
Also, BSPs make more money dependent on how many clients they have, not how much traffic they have. Traffic -- as in bandwidth -- is a commodity which it costs money to allow access to, and they make extra money alloting extra bandwidth to high-end users like websites, heavy downloaders, et cetera.
The real concern with the repeal of network neutrality is not that corporations be forced to issue everyone the same bandwidth no matter what their usage is -- that's why they have a sliding billing cost depending on bandwidth usage for high-end users. The concern is that they will use the lack of network neutrality to "double bill" and block competitors off of their networks. The double-billing would come from a tiered internet which functions on a cable TV model: if you want access to the higher tier of bandwidth, you must pay a special "fee" to the BSP in order to access that, and then you're still paying the sliding scale fee based on actual bandwidth usage.
Blocking competitors services is another concern. There are many VOIP -- Voice Over Internet Protocol -- providers, among them the very BSPs which we are currently discussing. The concern would be that, say Time Warner, the key broadband, internet phone, and cable TV provider in this area would, for example, block Skype, a cheap VOIP service, and YouTube, an online video service, as they would be competitors to Time Warner's VOIP service and cable television services.
The other concern, though certainly lesser, would be the blocking of views which dissent with the corporation (in terms of labor disputes and others) and/or are unwilling to pay the fee to access the higher-tier (a "bribe"), and therefore would be silenced.
Yes, BSPs may lose money blocking content -- but only if they can't make up for it in double-billing and creating a tiered internet much akin to the way cable tv operates. You see my concern, as both a citizen, a netizen, and a (hopefully) future participant in the development of computers and the networks which connect them?
I doubt my views will persuade you, or that this e-mail will see anyone higher than a staff member assigned to wade though all of these e-mails. I do, however, wish you luck in your endeavors, good sir, and that I am glad I live in the district which the House Majority Leader represents.
Again, good luck to you and your re-election campaign this fall.
Sincerly,
Sean Stinnett
So yeah. That was my big reply. I decided to be formal with him, despite my urgings otherwise.
So yeah, I knew I was going to be voting against Representitive Boehner, the House Majority Leader, before this... but somehow this was the final straw. I've been pushed by Mr. Boehner into actively campaigning against his re-election.
Anyway, peace.
Two Things
One, I may not be posting as often for the rest of the week so I can spend a little more time catching up on the news and doing a little more factual investigating on some things. I am disappointed with the Kennedy article, which I believed in solidly and only briefly glancing through the sources. While I still believe that there were many irregularities in the 2004 election, and I believe there was fraud in the election, I believe that the focus on exit polls as 'proof' takes the focus off of the real problems: elections.
The other thing is, Blogger seems to be having issues today and that will affect the frequency of my posts. I've been on Blogger for three days and am already looking to move off of it. However, until I can make a bit more of a footprint in terms of being able to make developing, hosting, and writing my own website. So I may be on Blogger for a short time or a long time, depending on how it goes, but for the near-future I am here.
Peace.
The other thing is, Blogger seems to be having issues today and that will affect the frequency of my posts. I've been on Blogger for three days and am already looking to move off of it. However, until I can make a bit more of a footprint in terms of being able to make developing, hosting, and writing my own website. So I may be on Blogger for a short time or a long time, depending on how it goes, but for the near-future I am here.
Peace.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Illegimate Illegality
They work so hard for us, to further our way of life on their backs. Can't we just cut some of them a break? Isn't that fair?
Iraq
This week's been big in announcements of Iraq-related events. Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki announced 2,500 inmates would be released to help reconcile various sects within Iraq. Yesterday nearly 600 inmates of the 2,500 were released. I see this as a step forward in healing the wounds Iraq suffers from, but it won't solve the problem. You have to get to the causes of fundamentalism and extremism: people deserve better lives for what they work for; they deserve to be treated like equals and not have foreign powers coming in and telling them that they're running not just their government (which they usually don't have a hand in), but their society all wrong. And it's not just "you're doing it wrong, so we're here to help", it's "you're doing it wrong, so we'll do it for you how we see fit". It's not fair to a people to have a superpower come in and try to change the way your society functions via force. It's not fair and it doesn't work. Iron handed tactics only drive more people towards extremism: it's human nature.
The other big news is a timetable from the new Italian government, led by Prime Minister, Romano Prodi, issuing a timetable for withdrawl of Italy's troops from Iraq by the year's end. There are currently around 2,700 Italian soldiers serving in Iraq who will be returning to their homeland before the year's end. However, in my mind this raises a question: who is filling the gaps in Iraq's security arrangements? Believe me, I'm no fan of the war, and have opposed it all along on ideological and socio-political grounds, but I also don't believe that Iraq's security forces are ready to take over. In fact, I don't think Iraq's security forces really constitute any such thing right now.
I am a big believer in allowing Arab countries to assist patroling in Iraq. I say Arab countries because Turkey and Iran have too many interests in Iraq right now -- the Kurdish and Shiite situations respectively -- to act fairly in Iraq. And maybe I am wrong in that belief, maybe there are Arab countries who have similar conflicts of interest in Iraq; in fact, I know there are, but there are also many nations in the Arab League, and Arab League peacekeepers would therefore be a diverse group of international peacekeepers. Maybe allowing its neighbors -- any of them -- to police Iraq is a bad idea, but it's bound to be better than flooding the country with white soldiers from Christian nations which fundamentalists can paiunt as crusaders and target, right? Even a fully international U.N. peacekeeping mission would be better than the current situation, but any of the above proposals would require the conservative administration and Congress of America to come down off of their collective high horses about America's moral and political superiority and give up their dreams of American hegemony.
We can create a stronger, more globalized community if we work together with other nations in the best interests of the human race instead of working against everyone in the best interests of a national administration. But we'll see, maybe I'm wrong and the Iraqi security forces will ultimately turn out to be mostly competent, above corruption, and well-trained.
But I wouldn't hold my breath. Man do I get off-topic sometimes. Oh well, later guys.
Peace.
The other big news is a timetable from the new Italian government, led by Prime Minister, Romano Prodi, issuing a timetable for withdrawl of Italy's troops from Iraq by the year's end. There are currently around 2,700 Italian soldiers serving in Iraq who will be returning to their homeland before the year's end. However, in my mind this raises a question: who is filling the gaps in Iraq's security arrangements? Believe me, I'm no fan of the war, and have opposed it all along on ideological and socio-political grounds, but I also don't believe that Iraq's security forces are ready to take over. In fact, I don't think Iraq's security forces really constitute any such thing right now.
I am a big believer in allowing Arab countries to assist patroling in Iraq. I say Arab countries because Turkey and Iran have too many interests in Iraq right now -- the Kurdish and Shiite situations respectively -- to act fairly in Iraq. And maybe I am wrong in that belief, maybe there are Arab countries who have similar conflicts of interest in Iraq; in fact, I know there are, but there are also many nations in the Arab League, and Arab League peacekeepers would therefore be a diverse group of international peacekeepers. Maybe allowing its neighbors -- any of them -- to police Iraq is a bad idea, but it's bound to be better than flooding the country with white soldiers from Christian nations which fundamentalists can paiunt as crusaders and target, right? Even a fully international U.N. peacekeeping mission would be better than the current situation, but any of the above proposals would require the conservative administration and Congress of America to come down off of their collective high horses about America's moral and political superiority and give up their dreams of American hegemony.
We can create a stronger, more globalized community if we work together with other nations in the best interests of the human race instead of working against everyone in the best interests of a national administration. But we'll see, maybe I'm wrong and the Iraqi security forces will ultimately turn out to be mostly competent, above corruption, and well-trained.
But I wouldn't hold my breath. Man do I get off-topic sometimes. Oh well, later guys.
Peace.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Ken Blackwell for Ohio Governor 2006
No, this is not an endorsement. This is commentary on something I have observed. I am a big believer in a person's right to choose, whether it be at the grocery store, in bed, in the clinic, or at the voting booth. The right to vote is the foundation for our democracy, and the disenfranchising of legitimate voters is downright criminal and unconstitutional. So how can I live with the knowledge that Ken Blackwell, our Secretary of State and Republican gubernatorial candidate, is the man who presided over the 2004 election disaster?
To be honest, I really can't. How can I trust a man who presided over some of the worst election anomalies in modern U.S. history? A man who tried so desperately, while working as co-Chair of Bush's Ohio re-election campaign, to abuse his position as Secretary of State to disenfranchise thousands of voters, primarily in Democratic strongholds? This time it's his campaign he's presiding over as Ohio's chief elections official: how do we trust that?
There are so many allegations of corruption in the 2004 election and how it went down in Ohio, most of them centering around Ken Blackwell primarily (though it is clear that the national and Ohio GOP were involved on varying levels), that it makes me sick. The abuse of people and the stripping of their rights over something seemingly as petty as whose candidate gets to be head of state for the next 4 years. But in Ohio, it's more than that: it's about maintaining the status quo, about advancing Ken Blackwell through the GOP ranks.
Why should we even consider this man for Ohio Governor? If anybody can tell me one reason why he deserves to be our governor, I would much appreciate it. And I will respond in kind, participating -- hopefully -- in a civil debate over his qualifications for governor.
To be honest, I really can't. How can I trust a man who presided over some of the worst election anomalies in modern U.S. history? A man who tried so desperately, while working as co-Chair of Bush's Ohio re-election campaign, to abuse his position as Secretary of State to disenfranchise thousands of voters, primarily in Democratic strongholds? This time it's his campaign he's presiding over as Ohio's chief elections official: how do we trust that?
There are so many allegations of corruption in the 2004 election and how it went down in Ohio, most of them centering around Ken Blackwell primarily (though it is clear that the national and Ohio GOP were involved on varying levels), that it makes me sick. The abuse of people and the stripping of their rights over something seemingly as petty as whose candidate gets to be head of state for the next 4 years. But in Ohio, it's more than that: it's about maintaining the status quo, about advancing Ken Blackwell through the GOP ranks.
Why should we even consider this man for Ohio Governor? If anybody can tell me one reason why he deserves to be our governor, I would much appreciate it. And I will respond in kind, participating -- hopefully -- in a civil debate over his qualifications for governor.
RFK's Rolling Stone article: Was the 2004 Election Stolen?
Just a real quick post on an article I found from the June 1 2005 issue of Rolling Stone which I have come upon rather belatedly -- that's what I get for falling out of the loop for a year. The article, written by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., affirms my belief -- one that I have held for a year and a half, since November 2nd, 2004 -- that the 2004 presidential election was corrupt, especially in my new home of Ohio. The article is well-researched and supported by various investigations before it. One section really caught my eye, dealing with an investigation done by Rep. John Conyer's, one of Michigan's representitives and one of my favorite homestate polititcians:
Anyways, just thought I'd share that. Now back to sorting through the news today.
Peace.
EDIT 6-8-06: Well, turns out I made an error because my source was wrong. The article is from the June 01 2006 issue of Rolling Stone. Makes more sense as to why I've just now come across it. I was out of the loop, but I didn't think I had been that out of the loop. Turns out I was right. Makes me feel better about being able to do this.
The other addendum I wished to make to this post was this. It's a Salon.com article by Farhad Manjoo which counters Kennedy's. Farhad Manjoo also wrote a another piece on the 2004 exit polls last year. Both make for excellent reading.
The most extensive investigation of what happened in Ohio was conducted by Rep. John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.(52) Frustrated by his party's failure to follow up on the widespread evidence of voter intimidation and fraud, Conyers and the committee's minority staff held public hearings in Ohio, where they looked into more than 50,000 complaints from voters.(53) In January 2005, Conyers issued a detailed report that outlined ''massive and unprecedented voter irregularities and anomalies in Ohio.'' The problems, the report concludes, were ''caused by intentional misconduct and illegal behavior, much of it involving Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell.''(54)
''Blackwell made Katherine Harris look like a cupcake,'' Conyers told me. ''He saw his role as limiting the participation of Democratic voters. We had hearings in Columbus for two days. We could have stayed two weeks, the level of fury was so high. Thousands of people wanted to testify. Nothing like this had ever happened to them before.''
Anyways, just thought I'd share that. Now back to sorting through the news today.
Peace.
EDIT 6-8-06: Well, turns out I made an error because my source was wrong. The article is from the June 01 2006 issue of Rolling Stone. Makes more sense as to why I've just now come across it. I was out of the loop, but I didn't think I had been that out of the loop. Turns out I was right. Makes me feel better about being able to do this.
The other addendum I wished to make to this post was this. It's a Salon.com article by Farhad Manjoo which counters Kennedy's. Farhad Manjoo also wrote a another piece on the 2004 exit polls last year. Both make for excellent reading.
Peak Oil?
A lot of people are advocating alternative energy sources based only on knowledge of steadily increasing prices of gasoline for powering our cars, natural gas for heating our homes, and electricity -- much of which is generated from fossil fuels. But the Hubbert Peak Theory, or 'Peak Oil', may add some urgency to the hunt for alternate fuels.
In a recent article on AlterNet.org, James Howard Kunstler engages in something of an angry tirade at the American people for their lack of understanding for what he sees clearly as an obvious crisis, as well as their dependence on a lifestyle which he describes as: "an easy-motoring utopia of suburban metroplexes that (makes) incessant driving inevitable". Clearly he has a lot of frustration built up on the issue, but is he justified in lashing out this way?
I personally do not believe so. Yes, I am not a fan of suburban America or the sprawl it produces, and yes, I do believe that Peak Oil is a real threat and that something has to be done about it. But to blast the American public for a lifestyle that was pushed on us by corporate America and the upper class isn't fair. Sure, we are also complecent in the creation of this lifestyle we live, but none of us conjured Wal-mart out of thin air, or presided over the explosion of the American highway system which occured under former GM CEO Charley Wilson, Eisenhower's Commerce Secretary. The lifestyle we live came about because some very powerful people had a stake in creating it.
It is our duty to inform the public as to the dangers of Peak Oil, though. It is our moral responsibility to our descendents: they should have the right to live, consume, be happy -- oil and natural gas are a large part of the synthetic fertilizers and pesticides we use today. They should also have the right, as should people today, of being able to have a family without feeling guilty that they may be bringing them into a world which is worse than the one our generation inherited. Our children should not have to live through food shortages, oil wars, social upheaval, et cetera.
Peak Oil is a dangerous thing, but maybe not as dangerous as some make it seem. For example, Kunstler's gloom and doom view of how events will go down, with predictions such as:
Worldwide peak oil is predicted to happen this decade, how accurate that prediction is -- or the prediction of worldwide peak oil happening at all -- remains to be seen, some even say it happened back in 2004. In the U.S. our production peaked in 1971. Some of the major oil fields in Mexico and Saudi Arabia have reported evidence which indicates they hit peak last year. Peak oil happens, what the consequences will if it happens worldwide be is entirely up to us.
In a recent article on AlterNet.org, James Howard Kunstler engages in something of an angry tirade at the American people for their lack of understanding for what he sees clearly as an obvious crisis, as well as their dependence on a lifestyle which he describes as: "an easy-motoring utopia of suburban metroplexes that (makes) incessant driving inevitable". Clearly he has a lot of frustration built up on the issue, but is he justified in lashing out this way?
I personally do not believe so. Yes, I am not a fan of suburban America or the sprawl it produces, and yes, I do believe that Peak Oil is a real threat and that something has to be done about it. But to blast the American public for a lifestyle that was pushed on us by corporate America and the upper class isn't fair. Sure, we are also complecent in the creation of this lifestyle we live, but none of us conjured Wal-mart out of thin air, or presided over the explosion of the American highway system which occured under former GM CEO Charley Wilson, Eisenhower's Commerce Secretary. The lifestyle we live came about because some very powerful people had a stake in creating it.
It is our duty to inform the public as to the dangers of Peak Oil, though. It is our moral responsibility to our descendents: they should have the right to live, consume, be happy -- oil and natural gas are a large part of the synthetic fertilizers and pesticides we use today. They should also have the right, as should people today, of being able to have a family without feeling guilty that they may be bringing them into a world which is worse than the one our generation inherited. Our children should not have to live through food shortages, oil wars, social upheaval, et cetera.
Peak Oil is a dangerous thing, but maybe not as dangerous as some make it seem. For example, Kunstler's gloom and doom view of how events will go down, with predictions such as:
Our suburbs will enter a shocking state of economic and practical failure.and:
We'd better start paying attention to the signals that reality is sending or we will be living in a very violent, impoverished and demoralized nation.These things are possible, yes, but not entirely likely. Promoting more research of better quality into replacement energy sources could abate many of these problems. Yes, there will be changes, but hopefully they will be generally positive -- I believe -- and not violent upheavels, die-offs, and what not predicted by some of the direst of Peak Oil advocates.
Worldwide peak oil is predicted to happen this decade, how accurate that prediction is -- or the prediction of worldwide peak oil happening at all -- remains to be seen, some even say it happened back in 2004. In the U.S. our production peaked in 1971. Some of the major oil fields in Mexico and Saudi Arabia have reported evidence which indicates they hit peak last year. Peak oil happens, what the consequences will if it happens worldwide be is entirely up to us.
First Post
It's been nearly a year since I last blogged... my old LiveJournal having been my rantspace on political, social, and economic events for roughly two years between the summer of 2003 and 2005. It was sparsely updated, not as well written as I would have liked it to be. It was angrier and less focused than I intend this to be. You can say that I've mellowed a bit, but I disagree: I believe that I have matured a bit, grown wiser about how I can opine and state my beliefs to others.
I hope this doesn't become just another progressive/liberal rantspace. I would really love honest, open, civil debate; I hope that I can do my part to assist in that goal. I plan on using this space as commentary on current and past events in the world and in America. Yes, I do try to stay informed on the news and yes, I do consider myself an amateur journalist -- how much of a typical blogger am I?
I hope to break out of that mold, though, and aspire to provide something unique, something worthwhile to the great debate in this country. Yes, I have bias; yes, one of my goals is to help unite the progressive movement in the face of long odds and a strong conservative movement. But everyone has bias, almsot everyone thinks their way is best. I do not intend this to be a neutral site, but I also do not want it to be a place where only one side is heard from.
As for a bit about me... I am about as left-wing as they come: liberal democrat (democrat as in supporter of democracy, not necessarily supporter of the Democratic Party), socialist, civil rights activist, et cetera. But I am capable of understanding and even comprimising with others who do not hold the same beliefs as I -- I have friends in the conservative movement, as well as others who fall into other socio-political affiliations. I wish I could say that I have never argued with them, but I have. But I try to keep the discourse civil, even if I am not always successful. I also have been working on my ability to do so, hoping that future arguments may be abated.
Otherwise, I am a 20-year-old male nanny. I watch a wonderful child, approaching three years of age, full time for a very close friend of mine, whom I share a home with. I am something of an amateur journalist and am always looking to be able to break into the field. I also desire to return to college and major in Computer Engineering, a path which I only have a semester worth of credits towards, due to my financial situation. I am currently a resident of southwest Ohio, and plan on settling in the area for the long-term. I am originally from the state of Michigan (go Wolverines!), and moved to Ohio after joking in late 2004 that I was going to adopt a swing state -- though ultimately that is not what brought me down here.
Anyways, I hope to make an actual post on current events sometime this week, and hope to at least be able to provide weekly posts for the time being. Until then:
Peace, love, and chicken grease.
I hope this doesn't become just another progressive/liberal rantspace. I would really love honest, open, civil debate; I hope that I can do my part to assist in that goal. I plan on using this space as commentary on current and past events in the world and in America. Yes, I do try to stay informed on the news and yes, I do consider myself an amateur journalist -- how much of a typical blogger am I?
I hope to break out of that mold, though, and aspire to provide something unique, something worthwhile to the great debate in this country. Yes, I have bias; yes, one of my goals is to help unite the progressive movement in the face of long odds and a strong conservative movement. But everyone has bias, almsot everyone thinks their way is best. I do not intend this to be a neutral site, but I also do not want it to be a place where only one side is heard from.
As for a bit about me... I am about as left-wing as they come: liberal democrat (democrat as in supporter of democracy, not necessarily supporter of the Democratic Party), socialist, civil rights activist, et cetera. But I am capable of understanding and even comprimising with others who do not hold the same beliefs as I -- I have friends in the conservative movement, as well as others who fall into other socio-political affiliations. I wish I could say that I have never argued with them, but I have. But I try to keep the discourse civil, even if I am not always successful. I also have been working on my ability to do so, hoping that future arguments may be abated.
Otherwise, I am a 20-year-old male nanny. I watch a wonderful child, approaching three years of age, full time for a very close friend of mine, whom I share a home with. I am something of an amateur journalist and am always looking to be able to break into the field. I also desire to return to college and major in Computer Engineering, a path which I only have a semester worth of credits towards, due to my financial situation. I am currently a resident of southwest Ohio, and plan on settling in the area for the long-term. I am originally from the state of Michigan (go Wolverines!), and moved to Ohio after joking in late 2004 that I was going to adopt a swing state -- though ultimately that is not what brought me down here.
Anyways, I hope to make an actual post on current events sometime this week, and hope to at least be able to provide weekly posts for the time being. Until then:
Peace, love, and chicken grease.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
