I've found the recent protestations over the host country for the Olympic games to be quite intriguing. On one hand I feel, like those opposing or disagreeing with the protesters, that we should not politicize the games, that they should be about competition, togetherness, and brother/sisterhood. One the other hand I appreciate what these protesters are doing because they are drawing attention to an important blemish on China's records; their human rights record. I love seeing this kind of fervor developing for another country because it shows that we can transcend national boundaries and show empathy and heart for our fellow human beings, no matter what their nationality. Citizens of the world are coming together on this and it truly is enjoyable to see.
I envy these protesters in certain ways. I envy their zeal, commitment, and audacity. It takes immense heart and passion to turn against the current of mainstream society, to stand up and "yell out in defiance, your rules not for me" as a favorite Pennywise song of mine goes. To me, bravery or heroism is not hitting two free throws to win a championship or nailing your wide receiver between three defenders to win a Superbowl, real heroism are these people who stand up for what they believe in despite criticism and potential ostracism by those around them. I laud these protesters and scorn the disrespect they are shown by the "authorities". I always find it interesting how untouchable official ceremonial proceedings are. There is this diligence about ensuring that they are seen through to the end; they are viewed as tainted or spoiled if a few people try to highlight their concern over a lack of humanity within the borders of a growing world power. The central issue here is thus; Why did the Olympic committee grant China, a country that does not represent the spirit of the games, the privilege of hosting the games? Yes, the games should not be politicized, but this isn't about politics, this is about humanity, and is that not what the games are about?
A small note on the presidential race...The recent revelations about the lies, and skewing of the facts by Hillary Clinton is emblematic of her character. Many politicians use indirectness and inflationary tactics to boost the perception of their character, but the obviousness of her lies has been scandalous. Come on Hillary, you touched down in a war zone with bullets whistling all around you? Really? I know you're trying to play the tough gal on defense, but conservatives are suppose to be the delusional ones here.
One final note. If you are a gun toting red neck who feels that guns are a central issue in today's political world, you're wrong! The obsession some Americans have with guns truly is troublesome, and indicative of the paranoia and tough guy complex some are sick with, but Uncle Sam doesn't want your guns; And if you're going to invoke the Second Amendment, know it's damn context and what it means. The Second Amendment is outdated, it was initially inserted into the Bill of Rights because Americans needed guns to hunt for food, and protect themselves because they're weren't any real institionalized law enforcement agences or national military. Guns should be a privelege, not a right. We don't need to hunt for food, and we have law enforcement and an military to protect us. Sorry Jonny Reb, but Al Queda doesn't give a shit about you or your Dog so you don't even need a gun to protect you from them. Find something else to compensate for your insufficient manhood.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Obama is Capturing My Heart
I apologize for not writing this response to an article I read yesterday earlier, for I have definitely forgotten some of the details; But, the gist of the article was on some of the issues that the Democratic presidential candidates have been debating. OH! Now I remember, Hillary and Barack were arguing over their respective social security plans. Hillary would like to increase SS taxes on incomes over a certain level, as long as there was a gap between roughly $97,000 and I believe it was $180,000 where these "middle class" families aren't burdened by any new taxes. While on the other hand, we have Barack Obama who wants to raise taxes on incomes over that ninety seven grand level. This doesn't mean new taxes for those below that ceiling, it's rather, raising the ceiling to increase the liability for those more affluent citizens.
Kudos to Obama on this one because I certainly agree with his plan more so than Ms Clinton's. Why give a tax break to those between $97,000 and $180,000 but, not those below $97,000? This absolutely boggles my mind, aren't we suppose to be helping those people with Social Security benefits, not increasing the tax burden on them, thus increasing their need for welfare and social security? There are many in society who like to chastise the working poor for using social welfare yet much of the onus of taxes falls upon their shoulders. As I write this my extra set of hands is typing because I'm PULLING MY HAIR OUT! Without going into one of my class diatribes I'll leave it at this; We all benefit from a socially organize, civic, economic civilization, certainly the wealthy do, and I believe they should help take care of the rest of the Americans who are oppressed by the shortfalls of Capitalism, the same shortfalls that our opulent benefit from.
So on the substantive issues I'm starting to lean toward Mr. Obama. He talks the talk, and I am more than willing to see if he'll talk the talk. He has experience as a community organizer, he's been on the shit, he's talked to real people, I think he may be on to something with a fresh perspective that is practical yet visionary. Maybe he doesn't talk the unabashed class talk of John Edwards, but he certainly addresses the class issue.
On a side note, I was amazed that $97,000 grand was considered middle class. I guess I have been living a lie, my family has never made half that, and that would be if one calculated ever working person's income together under the roof. I must note, I think those who work hard deserve the fruits of their hard labor....but that goes for the working poor just as much as the wealthy. As much as big business and the wealthy like to complain about government, they sure do benefit from regulation, economic stimulus, and subsidies, all of which are paid for by hard earned workers in America. Yes, that means all Americans rich and poor. So why not help your brothers and sisters selling that T-Shirt for 19.95 which basically turns them into a walking advertisement which only further fattens your pockets Mr./Mrs. Bigwig?
Enough for tonight....
Kudos to Obama on this one because I certainly agree with his plan more so than Ms Clinton's. Why give a tax break to those between $97,000 and $180,000 but, not those below $97,000? This absolutely boggles my mind, aren't we suppose to be helping those people with Social Security benefits, not increasing the tax burden on them, thus increasing their need for welfare and social security? There are many in society who like to chastise the working poor for using social welfare yet much of the onus of taxes falls upon their shoulders. As I write this my extra set of hands is typing because I'm PULLING MY HAIR OUT! Without going into one of my class diatribes I'll leave it at this; We all benefit from a socially organize, civic, economic civilization, certainly the wealthy do, and I believe they should help take care of the rest of the Americans who are oppressed by the shortfalls of Capitalism, the same shortfalls that our opulent benefit from.
So on the substantive issues I'm starting to lean toward Mr. Obama. He talks the talk, and I am more than willing to see if he'll talk the talk. He has experience as a community organizer, he's been on the shit, he's talked to real people, I think he may be on to something with a fresh perspective that is practical yet visionary. Maybe he doesn't talk the unabashed class talk of John Edwards, but he certainly addresses the class issue.
On a side note, I was amazed that $97,000 grand was considered middle class. I guess I have been living a lie, my family has never made half that, and that would be if one calculated ever working person's income together under the roof. I must note, I think those who work hard deserve the fruits of their hard labor....but that goes for the working poor just as much as the wealthy. As much as big business and the wealthy like to complain about government, they sure do benefit from regulation, economic stimulus, and subsidies, all of which are paid for by hard earned workers in America. Yes, that means all Americans rich and poor. So why not help your brothers and sisters selling that T-Shirt for 19.95 which basically turns them into a walking advertisement which only further fattens your pockets Mr./Mrs. Bigwig?
Enough for tonight....
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Word of the Day: Intransigence
So today I read an article about the recent National Intelligence Estimate which contradicted the White House administration's official stance that Iran is developing a nuclear weapons program. On this issue, I've always felt that Bush has needed to tone down his rhetoric over Iran, the battle drums beat in his heart endlessly, and this is just another example of how loud they beat. Instead of reassessing his position on Iran's purported nuclear weapons program, Bush is simply reaffirming his stance that Iran is dangerous, and that America should continue to pressure them diplomatically, and of course, our country should not rule out preemptive military strikes if they don't acquiesce to America's demands.
Instead of taking a more conciliatory stance toward Iran, Bush had this to say, "So, I view this report as a warning signal that they had the program, they halted the program. And the reason why it's a warning signal is that they could restart it." This reasoning, seems faulty and completely intransigent since no matter what we find out about Iran Bush will craft an argument which portrays Iran as a threat. One would think that a logical, reasonable individual would reach the conclusion that perhaps pressures have worked against Iran, and that this should be a hopeful sign; But, we're not dealing with a logical, intelligent individual here, Bush only understands violence, and he doesn't understand compromise or what diplomacy really means.
Now of extreme importance here, at least to note, is the blatant hypocrisy of the United States ostracizing a country for developing nuclear weapons, when America has a hefty arsenal of nuclear weapons itself, and always important is that this country is the only one to have actually used the devastating weapon. So who is more dangerous to world stability? This isn't to say that Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons, but neither should the U.S. or Russia or Pakistan or Britain, etc. Violence, destruction, devastation is not subjective, it's all wrong.
The always unyielding Bush responded to criticism over the increased credibility gap he faces with the American people by saying thus, ""No, I'm feeling pretty spirited — pretty good about life." Fantastic, our president feels great about life, of course he wouldn't have to worry about a surreptitious terrorist attack on himself, it is usually civilians who feel the impact of war or terrorism.
There are so many things wrong with this man, this issue, and this country's stance toward the rest of the world. What's so wrong with saying, "hey, we had it wrong, let's go to the bargaining table and bring about a practical, long term solution to this situation." Well, there a few things that are wrong with it, mainly that the United States is not sincere about any non military solution to problems with countries such as Iran. The United States does not know the meaning of compromise and must have all diplomacy conducting under its own terms, how can this be an effectual way of conducting international relations, it's not possible. It's is extremely suggestive of America's stance on diplomacy when one of the conditions for talks is suspending of a nuclear program, and after information is revealed which dictates that that program was suspended three years ago there is no attempt at pursuing a peaceful solution. Instead, Bush is stronger in his resolve to portray Iran as a threat, which means further fabrication of disinformation.
Power is the fundamental element of our leaders intentions. I'm not sure how else this could be explained. I think it's perfectly clear that this country needs to be more conciliatory, and genuinely so, toward the rest of the world if our government really wants to make its citizens safer. Think about personal relationships, if you constantly talk down to a friend or significant other, disregarding their opinions and concerns; if you constantly bully them and preach to them ideals you yourself do not follow, what chance is their that they'll listen to you? Not good. Generally, they will get angry and all reason and logic will go out the window and there will then be no rectifying the problem. However, the effects in the international realm are much different, and the grudge of far greater consequence. The grudge doesn't take the form of an ignored phone call, but an increase in mistrust resulting in further misunderstanding, which in the case of some countries leads to radicalism, violence, and terrorism toward the United States.
We're victims right now of one man's stubborn nature; but, this is a sickness that many in this country suffer from. This uncompromising attitude permeates American society. We're taught almost from the moment we're born that it is our way or no way. Their needs to be fundamental changes about America's arrogance, and intransigence before the world will be safer. If I were a citizen of any other country I would be petrified over the United States. Heck, even as a citizen of this country I am frightened, since I see no radical change occurring over this sort of war mongering in the near future.
Instead of taking a more conciliatory stance toward Iran, Bush had this to say, "So, I view this report as a warning signal that they had the program, they halted the program. And the reason why it's a warning signal is that they could restart it." This reasoning, seems faulty and completely intransigent since no matter what we find out about Iran Bush will craft an argument which portrays Iran as a threat. One would think that a logical, reasonable individual would reach the conclusion that perhaps pressures have worked against Iran, and that this should be a hopeful sign; But, we're not dealing with a logical, intelligent individual here, Bush only understands violence, and he doesn't understand compromise or what diplomacy really means.
Now of extreme importance here, at least to note, is the blatant hypocrisy of the United States ostracizing a country for developing nuclear weapons, when America has a hefty arsenal of nuclear weapons itself, and always important is that this country is the only one to have actually used the devastating weapon. So who is more dangerous to world stability? This isn't to say that Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons, but neither should the U.S. or Russia or Pakistan or Britain, etc. Violence, destruction, devastation is not subjective, it's all wrong.
The always unyielding Bush responded to criticism over the increased credibility gap he faces with the American people by saying thus, ""No, I'm feeling pretty spirited — pretty good about life." Fantastic, our president feels great about life, of course he wouldn't have to worry about a surreptitious terrorist attack on himself, it is usually civilians who feel the impact of war or terrorism.
There are so many things wrong with this man, this issue, and this country's stance toward the rest of the world. What's so wrong with saying, "hey, we had it wrong, let's go to the bargaining table and bring about a practical, long term solution to this situation." Well, there a few things that are wrong with it, mainly that the United States is not sincere about any non military solution to problems with countries such as Iran. The United States does not know the meaning of compromise and must have all diplomacy conducting under its own terms, how can this be an effectual way of conducting international relations, it's not possible. It's is extremely suggestive of America's stance on diplomacy when one of the conditions for talks is suspending of a nuclear program, and after information is revealed which dictates that that program was suspended three years ago there is no attempt at pursuing a peaceful solution. Instead, Bush is stronger in his resolve to portray Iran as a threat, which means further fabrication of disinformation.
Power is the fundamental element of our leaders intentions. I'm not sure how else this could be explained. I think it's perfectly clear that this country needs to be more conciliatory, and genuinely so, toward the rest of the world if our government really wants to make its citizens safer. Think about personal relationships, if you constantly talk down to a friend or significant other, disregarding their opinions and concerns; if you constantly bully them and preach to them ideals you yourself do not follow, what chance is their that they'll listen to you? Not good. Generally, they will get angry and all reason and logic will go out the window and there will then be no rectifying the problem. However, the effects in the international realm are much different, and the grudge of far greater consequence. The grudge doesn't take the form of an ignored phone call, but an increase in mistrust resulting in further misunderstanding, which in the case of some countries leads to radicalism, violence, and terrorism toward the United States.
We're victims right now of one man's stubborn nature; but, this is a sickness that many in this country suffer from. This uncompromising attitude permeates American society. We're taught almost from the moment we're born that it is our way or no way. Their needs to be fundamental changes about America's arrogance, and intransigence before the world will be safer. If I were a citizen of any other country I would be petrified over the United States. Heck, even as a citizen of this country I am frightened, since I see no radical change occurring over this sort of war mongering in the near future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)