On Saturday night, July 31, we will experience a blue moon. I had always heard this phrase and idiom used throughout my life, but I really didn't come to appreciate it's true meaning until a few years back.
It would seem that a blue moon is exactly what it's name implies. An event that happens infrequently and does command a degree of attention. It seems that two full moons in the same month is quite odd. I suppose that this happened this year because of leap-year, but according to the CNN website, it happens every 32 months--so about one in three years. Even though, I think back to the time when we had two in the same year! According to the website, it was in 1999. It's odd that I would remember something so strange!
Maybe I should go get my head examined for remembering such a weird fact, but it could come in use if I'm ever on Jeopardy!
Friday, July 30, 2004
CNN's F*Word Faux Pas
Last night as I watched the finale of the Democratic National Convention, I was pleased with the entire outcome of the event. I was happy with John Kerry's inspiring acceptance speech of hope and direction. I was taken by the delegates' energy and engagement.
At the end of the events, however, they were releasing the balloons and confetti from the top of the Fleet Center, when CNN decided to carry the voice of the event's organizer (why I have no clue). It would have been otherwise uneventful if the balloons and confetti operated within the parameters set by the event's coordinators.
The guy speaking in the background was becoming obviously upset by the fact the balloons were not being released as quickly as he had anticipated. At this point, I believe it would have behooved CNN to terminate the live audio feed, but they allowed it to continue uncensored. By this point, he had already said the benign word "hell" (I think). His voice was getting more aggravated, but the live feed continued, until he belted out something along the lines of: What the fuck is going on up there?
At this time, CNN immediately cut the live audio feed. I only heard CNN anchor Judy Woodruff later elude to the fact that some "profanity" might have been used. Oh Judy, yes it had been! I heard it and who knows how many other millions did. Although, the word doesn't personally offend me (I've been known to use it as need arises), I am sure that some fall-out will have to occur as a result! I am thinking back to Janet Jackson and then other nationally televised events. As of now, I haven't heard anything said about it...yet! But I may have missed it earlier today or late last night.
Only time will tell if it is simply ignored or if it balloons (pardon the pun) into something larger. I was afraid that it might overshadow the Democratic National Convention, but they cannot be held responsible for the obvious mistake on CNN's part.
At the end of the events, however, they were releasing the balloons and confetti from the top of the Fleet Center, when CNN decided to carry the voice of the event's organizer (why I have no clue). It would have been otherwise uneventful if the balloons and confetti operated within the parameters set by the event's coordinators.
The guy speaking in the background was becoming obviously upset by the fact the balloons were not being released as quickly as he had anticipated. At this point, I believe it would have behooved CNN to terminate the live audio feed, but they allowed it to continue uncensored. By this point, he had already said the benign word "hell" (I think). His voice was getting more aggravated, but the live feed continued, until he belted out something along the lines of: What the fuck is going on up there?
At this time, CNN immediately cut the live audio feed. I only heard CNN anchor Judy Woodruff later elude to the fact that some "profanity" might have been used. Oh Judy, yes it had been! I heard it and who knows how many other millions did. Although, the word doesn't personally offend me (I've been known to use it as need arises), I am sure that some fall-out will have to occur as a result! I am thinking back to Janet Jackson and then other nationally televised events. As of now, I haven't heard anything said about it...yet! But I may have missed it earlier today or late last night.
Only time will tell if it is simply ignored or if it balloons (pardon the pun) into something larger. I was afraid that it might overshadow the Democratic National Convention, but they cannot be held responsible for the obvious mistake on CNN's part.
Monday, July 26, 2004
Fox News...Balanced?
I was sitting here watching Al Gore to the Democratic National Convention in Boston just a little bit ago on CNN, and I simply turned the channel over to Fox News...guess what I found?
I found Fox News not even covering Al Gore's message. They claim to have "fair and balanced" reporting, but they are unwilling to cover a major political event, and a major political figure (even Fox News has to admit that Al Gore won the popular vote for president in 2000). I will be interested to see if Fox News covers the opening of the Republican National Convention next month. If they do, then we know they are truly not fair or balanced. Indeed, they will be biased and deflated.
So in the words of Teresa Heinz, Fox News can shove it!
I found Fox News not even covering Al Gore's message. They claim to have "fair and balanced" reporting, but they are unwilling to cover a major political event, and a major political figure (even Fox News has to admit that Al Gore won the popular vote for president in 2000). I will be interested to see if Fox News covers the opening of the Republican National Convention next month. If they do, then we know they are truly not fair or balanced. Indeed, they will be biased and deflated.
So in the words of Teresa Heinz, Fox News can shove it!
Shove it!
I have found myself laughing quite a bit at all the hoop-la surrounding Teresa Heinz's invitation to a Pittsburgh reporter to "shove it!"
It was very refreshing to see the confrontation as put out on many media outlets. She is a very outspoken and polarizing figure. She says what she wants and means what she says. You don't see many politicians (or their spouses) telling the media exactly what they think of them and their tactics. Yet, Mrs. Heinz-Kerry stands out from the crowd, and I adore her for that!
One thing that the media probably will not tell is the fact that this particular newspaper is a rather conservative publication. (You certainly won't hear that on Fox News!) In addition, the newspaper has perhaps misconstrued the relationships between the Kerry and Heinz families. Let's face it: if someone is dogging you, you'd probably stand up and say more than simply "shove it!" I know that I would! I think I am a calm and patient person--to an extent. Beyond that, I can say or do almost anything. Sure, I'll probably wake up tomorrow and regret it, but at least the world knows where I stand and what I think about a broad laundry list of issues, both personal and public.
In the end, Teresa Heinz-Kerry deserves a pat on the back. She has put in many long and arduous hours, I am sure as she is bussed and flown from one shore of America to the other. Such a personal sacrifice can only be rewarded and adored. I salute her for her ability to contain herself, yet express herself adequately as the moments and situations dictate.
It was very refreshing to see the confrontation as put out on many media outlets. She is a very outspoken and polarizing figure. She says what she wants and means what she says. You don't see many politicians (or their spouses) telling the media exactly what they think of them and their tactics. Yet, Mrs. Heinz-Kerry stands out from the crowd, and I adore her for that!
One thing that the media probably will not tell is the fact that this particular newspaper is a rather conservative publication. (You certainly won't hear that on Fox News!) In addition, the newspaper has perhaps misconstrued the relationships between the Kerry and Heinz families. Let's face it: if someone is dogging you, you'd probably stand up and say more than simply "shove it!" I know that I would! I think I am a calm and patient person--to an extent. Beyond that, I can say or do almost anything. Sure, I'll probably wake up tomorrow and regret it, but at least the world knows where I stand and what I think about a broad laundry list of issues, both personal and public.
In the end, Teresa Heinz-Kerry deserves a pat on the back. She has put in many long and arduous hours, I am sure as she is bussed and flown from one shore of America to the other. Such a personal sacrifice can only be rewarded and adored. I salute her for her ability to contain herself, yet express herself adequately as the moments and situations dictate.
Saturday, July 24, 2004
Let's Update the Electoral College
Dear Founding Fathers,
I am writing to you as a citizen of the Revolution of 1776--albeit, 228 years later. I have little complaint about the framework of government you created so long ago in our Constitution; however, I must address one fallacy it has created in modern times.
I am speaking specifically of the Electoral College in the selection of the Executive of our federal government. Why was it so important to keep the people out of the direct selection of the president? Why must we be so removed from the process of an act that so directly affects us in our daily lives? I agree that the presidency as you envisioned it is nothing as it exists today. Yes, it has wildly stepped outside of its Constitional bounds, but what can we expect when we give one individual so much power?
Could the Executive Branch have been more effective as a committee of three elected individuals? Yes, I believe that this is the case. By having more than one individual in the position we eliminate the over-zealous nature of political parties and the arrogance of people who see no limits to their power. I digress, however, from the original intent of this letter.
There are lessons that we as the oldest existing democracy may learn from those nations that have evolved and adopted our form of government--the fledgling democracies of our world. Specifically, they entrust the people to directly select their executive from a broad selection of candidates. Although, they are highly political, no one group or state is disenfranchised by the population of any state, regardless of its size. Yes, the power and independence of the states were highly politicized during your time, but I argue, also, that this is no longer a viable consideration. The states exist on a specific level that does not require them to compete on the national level.
Gentlemen, the system you envisioned and designed is not an honest system today. Simply put, we must discontinue its use and amend the Constitution to address and adapt to the needs of a modern society that demands direct involvment in the selection of its leadership.
We have a system that allows the top two candidates to control the vast majority of power in the selection process. Third party candidates are only minor (or in the case of the 2000 presidential election major annoyances) contenders. In a modern democracy, all cadidates, regardless of the number in the field, stand equally for election. In addition, they provide for "run-off" elections for the top two candidates who win the majority of the votes, so that the best leader may be selected.
An example is the 2000 presidential election (again). Three candidates battled for the right to represent the United States of America as its president. Two candidates actually stood as strong candidates garnishing the vast majority of the votes cast in all fifty states (yes, we've grown). One candidate won the popular vote, but he is not the president because of the archaic and puzzling system instituted by you so long ago. In a modern democracy, the two top candidates would then have entered another election to see who would be president. In essence, your system failed the American people. They are represented today by a president who did not win a popular mandate from the nation he purpoits to represent; therefore, the people were disenfranchised on a national and epidemic scale. This must never happen again!
Therefore, the purpose of my letter has been explained. I would hope that the great document--the Constitution of the United States of America--you envisioned over two centuries ago can grow and evolve to meet the challenges of the American people today!
Sincerely,
An American Citizen
I am writing to you as a citizen of the Revolution of 1776--albeit, 228 years later. I have little complaint about the framework of government you created so long ago in our Constitution; however, I must address one fallacy it has created in modern times.
I am speaking specifically of the Electoral College in the selection of the Executive of our federal government. Why was it so important to keep the people out of the direct selection of the president? Why must we be so removed from the process of an act that so directly affects us in our daily lives? I agree that the presidency as you envisioned it is nothing as it exists today. Yes, it has wildly stepped outside of its Constitional bounds, but what can we expect when we give one individual so much power?
Could the Executive Branch have been more effective as a committee of three elected individuals? Yes, I believe that this is the case. By having more than one individual in the position we eliminate the over-zealous nature of political parties and the arrogance of people who see no limits to their power. I digress, however, from the original intent of this letter.
There are lessons that we as the oldest existing democracy may learn from those nations that have evolved and adopted our form of government--the fledgling democracies of our world. Specifically, they entrust the people to directly select their executive from a broad selection of candidates. Although, they are highly political, no one group or state is disenfranchised by the population of any state, regardless of its size. Yes, the power and independence of the states were highly politicized during your time, but I argue, also, that this is no longer a viable consideration. The states exist on a specific level that does not require them to compete on the national level.
Gentlemen, the system you envisioned and designed is not an honest system today. Simply put, we must discontinue its use and amend the Constitution to address and adapt to the needs of a modern society that demands direct involvment in the selection of its leadership.
We have a system that allows the top two candidates to control the vast majority of power in the selection process. Third party candidates are only minor (or in the case of the 2000 presidential election major annoyances) contenders. In a modern democracy, all cadidates, regardless of the number in the field, stand equally for election. In addition, they provide for "run-off" elections for the top two candidates who win the majority of the votes, so that the best leader may be selected.
An example is the 2000 presidential election (again). Three candidates battled for the right to represent the United States of America as its president. Two candidates actually stood as strong candidates garnishing the vast majority of the votes cast in all fifty states (yes, we've grown). One candidate won the popular vote, but he is not the president because of the archaic and puzzling system instituted by you so long ago. In a modern democracy, the two top candidates would then have entered another election to see who would be president. In essence, your system failed the American people. They are represented today by a president who did not win a popular mandate from the nation he purpoits to represent; therefore, the people were disenfranchised on a national and epidemic scale. This must never happen again!
Therefore, the purpose of my letter has been explained. I would hope that the great document--the Constitution of the United States of America--you envisioned over two centuries ago can grow and evolve to meet the challenges of the American people today!
Sincerely,
An American Citizen
2004 Democratic National Convention
Okay...here is the part where my rather liberal ideals come into play--for that I do not apologize.
I read about the reports of people who say that they can't get visibility for protesting and various other activities (who knows). I argue that the security of the individuals attending and directly participating in the Convention are paramount to the needs of those who stand on the fringe of society in their desire to indirectly participate in the activities in Boston.
Firstly, if they were up to legal participation it would not be necessary to keep them on the fringes. Furthermore, I submit that they individuals the say be protesting against are the sitting administration in Washington. They should impede on the fascist policies of King George, not those seeking to turn around America's image and return us to an honorable international course. I believe that the Democratic Convention is so far removed from the atmosphere of disdain and discord in America that we should be listening to what the delegates have to say, rather than try to drown out their voice. Of course, I realize these protestors and trouble-makers are probably Republicans or other right-wing extremists.
I admit that I will not feel this disturbed during the Republican National Convention in New York City next month. Is this hypocrisy? I don't care! But thanks for labeling me a hypocrite...I love that word!
I read about the reports of people who say that they can't get visibility for protesting and various other activities (who knows). I argue that the security of the individuals attending and directly participating in the Convention are paramount to the needs of those who stand on the fringe of society in their desire to indirectly participate in the activities in Boston.
Firstly, if they were up to legal participation it would not be necessary to keep them on the fringes. Furthermore, I submit that they individuals the say be protesting against are the sitting administration in Washington. They should impede on the fascist policies of King George, not those seeking to turn around America's image and return us to an honorable international course. I believe that the Democratic Convention is so far removed from the atmosphere of disdain and discord in America that we should be listening to what the delegates have to say, rather than try to drown out their voice. Of course, I realize these protestors and trouble-makers are probably Republicans or other right-wing extremists.
I admit that I will not feel this disturbed during the Republican National Convention in New York City next month. Is this hypocrisy? I don't care! But thanks for labeling me a hypocrite...I love that word!
Friday, July 16, 2004
Martha Stewart: My Gracious Hero
Grace and civility have a goddess and her name is Martha Stewart. Few Americans can be called icons, but I believe Martha falls into this category with ease and charm. I have always admired Martha Stewart. She took home ec and made it a thing of elegance and functionality. Her ideas are neo-chic, with a hint of grandma's tradition thrown in the mix.
Martha has suffered a road that many of us can only imagine traveling. I have felt since day one that she has received more criticism and disdain than is necessary for something she was charged and eventually found guilty of doing. Previously, ImClone is a company that 99.9% of Americans had never heard of and could care less about. I, for one, am one of these Americans! Of course, there are worse crimes that one can commit, but the government seems most concerned with those that term a tidy profit for them in the end. Martha, a billionaire in her prime, was targeted for "dumping" a piddly (well it was to her) amount of stock after receiving a so-called inside-tip from her stock broker.
I'll be happy to see this all this hub-bub laid to rest in the media, but no more than Martha will be, I'm sure. I'll be happy to see Martha cooking up delicious cakes in television kitchen, rather than seeing her in a tacky orange jump suit! Nevertheless, I hope to see Martha beat her five month prison sentence on appeal.
Go Martha!
Martha has suffered a road that many of us can only imagine traveling. I have felt since day one that she has received more criticism and disdain than is necessary for something she was charged and eventually found guilty of doing. Previously, ImClone is a company that 99.9% of Americans had never heard of and could care less about. I, for one, am one of these Americans! Of course, there are worse crimes that one can commit, but the government seems most concerned with those that term a tidy profit for them in the end. Martha, a billionaire in her prime, was targeted for "dumping" a piddly (well it was to her) amount of stock after receiving a so-called inside-tip from her stock broker.
I'll be happy to see this all this hub-bub laid to rest in the media, but no more than Martha will be, I'm sure. I'll be happy to see Martha cooking up delicious cakes in television kitchen, rather than seeing her in a tacky orange jump suit! Nevertheless, I hope to see Martha beat her five month prison sentence on appeal.
Go Martha!
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
Civil Rights for the 21st Century
America was founded over 228 years ago to protect the minority from discrimination and protect our "inalienable rights." Today, we stand before a new tyranny. It is a tyranny of a majority, not found in the greater community, perse, but in the United States Senate and the White House. In due time, the Senate will vote on whether or not an amendment to the Constitution of the United States is necessary for the so-called "protection" of marriage as an institution between a man and woman.
Yesterday, I wrote both of my conservative Republican senators in the United States Senate (Senator Mitch McConnell is a sponsor of this legislation, so you know how far my comments went) regarding this important issue. I said that this form of discrimination is like the segregation and universal suffrage African-Americans fought against in the 1950s and 1960s in the South. It is like the suffrage movement of the late-19th and early-20th centuries that brave and vocal women championed. It is a disgruntled group standing up against "the man." In near years to come we will look at this movement with regret and horror. We are a nation founded upon our diversity. We must embrace this diversity or we can no longer consider ourselves as an independent and democratic people. We will be no different than those nations we lash out against for their abhorrant policies. In essence, we will be hypocrites defining for the world what a true democracy is. Democracy will be defined as an oligarchy that appeases the majority and discriminates wholly against its minority groups.
Many proponents of this blatant anti-gay legislation are fond of quoting the Bible for their reasoning. They say that marriage has always existed between one male and one female, and we must protect it. They say, we must defend historical precedent. But instead of using obscure and religious texts as a viable defense, I believe that we must look no further than our own Constitution and Declaration of Independence for the answers we seek. You see, we were not founded as a theocracy, a government created upon the sole principles of a religious doctrine and text as our authoritative document for day-to-day existence, but we are a nation founded upon democratic principles that looks to the rule of civil law for our legal guidance, not the rule of the fanatic mob.
Either we are a nation founded upon the creed that "all men [and women] are created equal" or we are not. Simply, the United States Senate today is testing this hypothesis, and we will be judged based upon this single act of cowardice and ignorance by history. The president of the United States is reaching out and stirring up a little trouble. He is looking for a way to redeem himself, not by an act of unity, but by division. He is playing upon senseless notions of hatred and discrimination. Surely, the homosexual community is the last acceptable group to discriminate against in our country. We have come so far, yet we are so far from the finish line. We, as a nation, have said that racial discrimination is unacceptable, and the denial of suffrage to a group of people is unacceptable. Is it such a far leap to accept that every group is entitled to live their lives as they see fit? Will we give the government another bit of our freedom? Will we allow the government to dictate whom we select to love and cherish?
I applaud groups like Moveon.org for their ceaseless work to protect our freedoms from right wing conservative interest groups. This group is working through their United, Not Divided project to provide a voice to Americans who are disturbed by this movement to use our democratic source of government--the U.S. Constitution--to discriminate against a group of Americans. I have joined Moveon.org's project to fight back and protect our great civil liberties from an administration that seems motivated to the destruction of our greatest of all institutions, freedom!
Our freedom is defined by the ability for all Americans to make choices and set goals in life for themselves. Freedom is something that we all take for granted, but we must protect it. It is a foundation that we have always embraced and accepted throughout our history as a nation. In our moments of greatest national despair we have allowed freedom to be our beacon of hope and motivation. Freedom cannot, and must not, become a right only for those who support the government. It must be protected as a fundamental institution that is guaranteed to every citizen, no matter his or her race, religion, handicap, political views, or sexual orientation. By accepting the discrimanation of one group, we are all discriminated against. We give the government precedent to discriminate again and again. We give the government the right to use our Constitution--a document of freedom and liberty--as a tool for oppression and tyranny!
Think about it!
Yesterday, I wrote both of my conservative Republican senators in the United States Senate (Senator Mitch McConnell is a sponsor of this legislation, so you know how far my comments went) regarding this important issue. I said that this form of discrimination is like the segregation and universal suffrage African-Americans fought against in the 1950s and 1960s in the South. It is like the suffrage movement of the late-19th and early-20th centuries that brave and vocal women championed. It is a disgruntled group standing up against "the man." In near years to come we will look at this movement with regret and horror. We are a nation founded upon our diversity. We must embrace this diversity or we can no longer consider ourselves as an independent and democratic people. We will be no different than those nations we lash out against for their abhorrant policies. In essence, we will be hypocrites defining for the world what a true democracy is. Democracy will be defined as an oligarchy that appeases the majority and discriminates wholly against its minority groups.
Many proponents of this blatant anti-gay legislation are fond of quoting the Bible for their reasoning. They say that marriage has always existed between one male and one female, and we must protect it. They say, we must defend historical precedent. But instead of using obscure and religious texts as a viable defense, I believe that we must look no further than our own Constitution and Declaration of Independence for the answers we seek. You see, we were not founded as a theocracy, a government created upon the sole principles of a religious doctrine and text as our authoritative document for day-to-day existence, but we are a nation founded upon democratic principles that looks to the rule of civil law for our legal guidance, not the rule of the fanatic mob.
Either we are a nation founded upon the creed that "all men [and women] are created equal" or we are not. Simply, the United States Senate today is testing this hypothesis, and we will be judged based upon this single act of cowardice and ignorance by history. The president of the United States is reaching out and stirring up a little trouble. He is looking for a way to redeem himself, not by an act of unity, but by division. He is playing upon senseless notions of hatred and discrimination. Surely, the homosexual community is the last acceptable group to discriminate against in our country. We have come so far, yet we are so far from the finish line. We, as a nation, have said that racial discrimination is unacceptable, and the denial of suffrage to a group of people is unacceptable. Is it such a far leap to accept that every group is entitled to live their lives as they see fit? Will we give the government another bit of our freedom? Will we allow the government to dictate whom we select to love and cherish?
I applaud groups like Moveon.org for their ceaseless work to protect our freedoms from right wing conservative interest groups. This group is working through their United, Not Divided project to provide a voice to Americans who are disturbed by this movement to use our democratic source of government--the U.S. Constitution--to discriminate against a group of Americans. I have joined Moveon.org's project to fight back and protect our great civil liberties from an administration that seems motivated to the destruction of our greatest of all institutions, freedom!
Our freedom is defined by the ability for all Americans to make choices and set goals in life for themselves. Freedom is something that we all take for granted, but we must protect it. It is a foundation that we have always embraced and accepted throughout our history as a nation. In our moments of greatest national despair we have allowed freedom to be our beacon of hope and motivation. Freedom cannot, and must not, become a right only for those who support the government. It must be protected as a fundamental institution that is guaranteed to every citizen, no matter his or her race, religion, handicap, political views, or sexual orientation. By accepting the discrimanation of one group, we are all discriminated against. We give the government precedent to discriminate again and again. We give the government the right to use our Constitution--a document of freedom and liberty--as a tool for oppression and tyranny!
Think about it!
Saturday, July 10, 2004
Learned Helplessness on a National Scale
Learned helplessness is a psychological term that is often associted with the elderly. It is a mental condition where an individual feels he or she is unable to complete a task they could in the passed without the help of others. Many times this can be observed in such places as nursing homes and to a lesser degree in hospitals. People who rely entirely on another individual (or group) to take care of their most basic of needs.
Iraq is a nation of people who are being taught learned helplessness on a national scale. They play little if any role in the reconstruction of their nation. The Iraqi people have another nation, the United States, that is willing to complete this task for them. Before the American invasion of Iraq, these people were oppressed and apathetic. They could only see what was in front of their faces; a people unable to dream, only follow orders. I fear the United States is creating another environment where the Iraqis can only see what is before them, and unable to see the greater picture and opportunites they have in a sovereign nation in which they control exclusively. Instead of allowing the Iraqi government to create a viable security/police/military apparatus, we see an increase in American military presence. We are teaching them that they need not worry about fighting these battles for themselves when they can rely on us to complete the task for them.
That is what I mean by learned helplessness on a epidemic scale. This isn't grandma or grandpa in the nursing home in the next county. This is a culture, a society that cannot logically fend for itself. A society of infants that are looking to us for their survival in a post-Saddam environment. We have created a situation where we must take care of these people's future. This is simply not feeding a group of people, but providing for them the principles of democracy in an environment of disdain and mistrust.
We have given over one-thousand American lives to securing this nation; however, we really have gotten no closer to solving this problem than the day the occupation of Iraq began. Instead of Saddam Hussein and Republican Guard, we are facing militants and guerilla warfare. We know that guerilla warfare can be a viable alternative to standard military combat, just consider the American Revolution!
I think the US government must return more autonomy to the Iraqi government. There must be an immediate push for the creation of Iraqi military and police forces. This will secure the sovereignty of the new government in a way that it can protect and legitimize itself. In the final idealistic Iraq, the people will be able to care for themselves in every way a sovereign nation can and must, without the polarizing effects of a foreign power dominating it! That is true independence from tyranny.
Iraq is a nation of people who are being taught learned helplessness on a national scale. They play little if any role in the reconstruction of their nation. The Iraqi people have another nation, the United States, that is willing to complete this task for them. Before the American invasion of Iraq, these people were oppressed and apathetic. They could only see what was in front of their faces; a people unable to dream, only follow orders. I fear the United States is creating another environment where the Iraqis can only see what is before them, and unable to see the greater picture and opportunites they have in a sovereign nation in which they control exclusively. Instead of allowing the Iraqi government to create a viable security/police/military apparatus, we see an increase in American military presence. We are teaching them that they need not worry about fighting these battles for themselves when they can rely on us to complete the task for them.
That is what I mean by learned helplessness on a epidemic scale. This isn't grandma or grandpa in the nursing home in the next county. This is a culture, a society that cannot logically fend for itself. A society of infants that are looking to us for their survival in a post-Saddam environment. We have created a situation where we must take care of these people's future. This is simply not feeding a group of people, but providing for them the principles of democracy in an environment of disdain and mistrust.
We have given over one-thousand American lives to securing this nation; however, we really have gotten no closer to solving this problem than the day the occupation of Iraq began. Instead of Saddam Hussein and Republican Guard, we are facing militants and guerilla warfare. We know that guerilla warfare can be a viable alternative to standard military combat, just consider the American Revolution!
I think the US government must return more autonomy to the Iraqi government. There must be an immediate push for the creation of Iraqi military and police forces. This will secure the sovereignty of the new government in a way that it can protect and legitimize itself. In the final idealistic Iraq, the people will be able to care for themselves in every way a sovereign nation can and must, without the polarizing effects of a foreign power dominating it! That is true independence from tyranny.
Friday, July 09, 2004
McDonald's...sued again!
McDonald's is going to have install a drive-thru for lawsuits at their restaurants! It seems every time I turn around McDonald's head is on the proverbial chopping block again. This time it's fat, again!
Duh! Hello! It's McDonald's, it's supposed to be fat! I seldom eat at fast food locations, but when I do enter one of these sacrosanct houses of high fat and calories, I always see that BIG poster with all the different foods listed on there and their obscene calories and fat grams for everyone to see. I don't think it's a secret really...maybe it was in 1984, but not now!
I think we have to use a little common sense when we eat. If it tastes better than it should, then it's probably loaded with more fat than a bucket of lard! And of course, a Big Mac is going to kill you in the long run if you eat enough of them. They will make you fat and raise your cholestrol. It's written in the Bible, I think! Look it up! And Happy Meals make us happy because they have fat in them! Those new "Happy Meals" for adults should be called Sad Meals because they force you to eat a salad and drink water! Where's the humanity in that! If I want that I'll steal carrots from poor unsuspecting bunny rabbits in my backyard.
SO...just in case you didn't realize it before, YOU WILL GET FAT EATING AT McDONALD'S THREE TIMES A DAY! I swear...it's true! Trust me! The next time you're running into McDonald's, Burger King, or anywhere fat is god, take one minute and scan that little chart they have in the entrance/exit area! It's there in black and white! The whole sha-bang for the poor, ignorant, lost souls who think McDonald's is going to give them the figure of a 14 year-old girl!
The moral of the story is if you're going to wolf down a supersized french fries and Coke with your Big Mac Value Meal #1, then prepare to reap the fruits of your mighty fine tasting labor! 'Cause that puppy probably has two days worth of fat in it!
ENJOY!
Duh! Hello! It's McDonald's, it's supposed to be fat! I seldom eat at fast food locations, but when I do enter one of these sacrosanct houses of high fat and calories, I always see that BIG poster with all the different foods listed on there and their obscene calories and fat grams for everyone to see. I don't think it's a secret really...maybe it was in 1984, but not now!
I think we have to use a little common sense when we eat. If it tastes better than it should, then it's probably loaded with more fat than a bucket of lard! And of course, a Big Mac is going to kill you in the long run if you eat enough of them. They will make you fat and raise your cholestrol. It's written in the Bible, I think! Look it up! And Happy Meals make us happy because they have fat in them! Those new "Happy Meals" for adults should be called Sad Meals because they force you to eat a salad and drink water! Where's the humanity in that! If I want that I'll steal carrots from poor unsuspecting bunny rabbits in my backyard.
SO...just in case you didn't realize it before, YOU WILL GET FAT EATING AT McDONALD'S THREE TIMES A DAY! I swear...it's true! Trust me! The next time you're running into McDonald's, Burger King, or anywhere fat is god, take one minute and scan that little chart they have in the entrance/exit area! It's there in black and white! The whole sha-bang for the poor, ignorant, lost souls who think McDonald's is going to give them the figure of a 14 year-old girl!
The moral of the story is if you're going to wolf down a supersized french fries and Coke with your Big Mac Value Meal #1, then prepare to reap the fruits of your mighty fine tasting labor! 'Cause that puppy probably has two days worth of fat in it!
ENJOY!
Tuesday, July 06, 2004
Justice for Slobodan Milosevic
I have always been interested in the story of Slobodan Milosevic. He is almost like a mini-Hitler or mini-Bush. He is a very controversial figure, but I can't help but like him.
On Monday, July 5, he was scheduled to begin defending himself from these charges. He, however, was unable to continue due to ill-health. I admire him because he is always in the face of the Tribunal's judges. He is a very polarizing figure and he defends himself against the world! You have to admire a figure that is willing to sacrifice his very freedom and future on his own merits and abilities.
Today, the Tribunal handed down an order that states Milosevic must undergo independent evaluations from an outside cardiologist. The Court is unwilling to allow his health to hold up the proceedings as they have so many times in the past. They decided that his health is poor, but not poor enough for the Court to suspend his trial. They decided he may be unable to continue representing himself and they may have to impose a defense attorney to represent Milosevic's interests in the conclusion of this years long proceeding.
I agree with the Court's tentative findings. I believe that he deserves every opportunity to best defend himself. Although, he is a lawyer by profession, he is unable to continue in that capacity for himself. There must be a degree of finality to this matter. We have watched and waited for years. Most people have lost interest or most can't even remember who he is. It has been that long!
I wonder if Saddam Hussein's trial will be something like Milosevic's? A controversial figure on stage before the world forced to parade and act for our amusement and sensibilities. It is a little ironic that the students have now become the teachers. Those that licked the boots of Saddam will now be the ones imposing his final justice (but will it be Iraqi or American justice?).
On Monday, July 5, he was scheduled to begin defending himself from these charges. He, however, was unable to continue due to ill-health. I admire him because he is always in the face of the Tribunal's judges. He is a very polarizing figure and he defends himself against the world! You have to admire a figure that is willing to sacrifice his very freedom and future on his own merits and abilities.
Today, the Tribunal handed down an order that states Milosevic must undergo independent evaluations from an outside cardiologist. The Court is unwilling to allow his health to hold up the proceedings as they have so many times in the past. They decided that his health is poor, but not poor enough for the Court to suspend his trial. They decided he may be unable to continue representing himself and they may have to impose a defense attorney to represent Milosevic's interests in the conclusion of this years long proceeding.
I agree with the Court's tentative findings. I believe that he deserves every opportunity to best defend himself. Although, he is a lawyer by profession, he is unable to continue in that capacity for himself. There must be a degree of finality to this matter. We have watched and waited for years. Most people have lost interest or most can't even remember who he is. It has been that long!
I wonder if Saddam Hussein's trial will be something like Milosevic's? A controversial figure on stage before the world forced to parade and act for our amusement and sensibilities. It is a little ironic that the students have now become the teachers. Those that licked the boots of Saddam will now be the ones imposing his final justice (but will it be Iraqi or American justice?).
Kerry & Edwards
I secretly knew in the back of my mind that John Kerry would pick John Edwards as his running mate for the 2004 presidential election.
After all, Senator Edwards was the candidate that gave Kerry a run for his money in a few of the primary eletions earlier this year. At one point, I wasn't sure that Kerry would keep his lead. I thought that Iowa might have been a fluke of sorts.
I read that this is the first time two senators have run on a ticket since John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson in 1960. Although, that was a few years before my time, I know they barely beat Richard Nixon that year for the presidency. I believe that the Kerry-Edwards ticket can beat the Bush-Cheney ticket too.
I know that when November 2 rolls around in a few months, I'll be voting for a change in our leadership!
After all, Senator Edwards was the candidate that gave Kerry a run for his money in a few of the primary eletions earlier this year. At one point, I wasn't sure that Kerry would keep his lead. I thought that Iowa might have been a fluke of sorts.
I read that this is the first time two senators have run on a ticket since John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson in 1960. Although, that was a few years before my time, I know they barely beat Richard Nixon that year for the presidency. I believe that the Kerry-Edwards ticket can beat the Bush-Cheney ticket too.
I know that when November 2 rolls around in a few months, I'll be voting for a change in our leadership!
Thursday, July 01, 2004
Justice for Saddam Hussein
In a country that espouses democracy and individual freedom, I find it appalling that today is the first time in over six months we have seen Saddam Hussein.
Let me tell you why...
Why is the government so afraid of this deposed despot? I believe the situation in Iraq is more precarious than any American living within this country understands. When Slobodan Milosevic was arrested in Serbia for crimes against the people of Yugoslavia, he was not quelled. We heard him speak, we read what he said, we heard from his family, and we heard others share their opinions on the situation. This has not been the case for Saddam Hussein.
Although, I do not prescribe to the government or ideology of Hussein, I believe that every human, despite their situation or history, is entitled to basic human rights and assurances. By keeping this man silent for so long, I believe his rights have been violated. Even though, he is not an American, he was arrested by American soldiers; therefore, I believe he deserves the same rights and privileges that any accused figure in the United States would receive while in American custody.
Of course, since June 28, 2004, the new Iraqi Republic has been forged from the ashes of a fallen nation, like a phoenix. It is illogical to assume that the new government is truly sovereign from their American overlords, namely King George.
Today, we saw Saddam Hussein emerge into an Iraqi courtroom to answer for crimes he committed while the president of a sovereign nation. We must logically ask ourselves, are our leaders accountable for the actions they take while serving in the capacity of president? If so, then we have no choice but to indict George Bush on the counts of misleading our nation into a war based on conjecture and personal revenge; creating a state of conflict with a sovereign nation acting within its own accord; interfering with the basic human rights of a sovereign nation's citizens; and the massacre of thousands of Americans and Iraqis.
Will we ever see such a trial? It is doubtful. Even though, we did see an impeachment and trial for a president who lied about a personal matter! I dare to ask the question: which is more offensive--a president having consensual extramarital relations in the White House or a president who has brought hundreds of Americans home in body bags; furthermore losing their lives for a senseless, selfish cause?
Today, as I saw the pictures of Saddam Hussein, I wondered what it must really be like to be in his position. An individual who went from total power to being totally defenseless. Essentially, a man without a country. Then he said, "I am Saddam Hussein, president of Iraq." That caught me a little off guard when I heard his statement. In all honesty, I think he still is the president of Iraq. He was elected by the people of Iraq. It may or may not have been fraudulent, but who can rely on the CIA or FBI for accurate information these days?
If he still is the president, then what about those that now claim power? I would agree that they illegitimate. They received their power from a conquering power. In the eyes of the Iraqi people and the world they have not been legitimized. It is impossible to say how this will play out in the grand scheme of things. Only time can tell us the eventual conclusion. I dare say, though, that the Iraq issue is far from complete! I just hope that in the end it will have been worth all the sacrifice, deceit, and blood.
Let me tell you why...
Why is the government so afraid of this deposed despot? I believe the situation in Iraq is more precarious than any American living within this country understands. When Slobodan Milosevic was arrested in Serbia for crimes against the people of Yugoslavia, he was not quelled. We heard him speak, we read what he said, we heard from his family, and we heard others share their opinions on the situation. This has not been the case for Saddam Hussein.
Although, I do not prescribe to the government or ideology of Hussein, I believe that every human, despite their situation or history, is entitled to basic human rights and assurances. By keeping this man silent for so long, I believe his rights have been violated. Even though, he is not an American, he was arrested by American soldiers; therefore, I believe he deserves the same rights and privileges that any accused figure in the United States would receive while in American custody.
Of course, since June 28, 2004, the new Iraqi Republic has been forged from the ashes of a fallen nation, like a phoenix. It is illogical to assume that the new government is truly sovereign from their American overlords, namely King George.
Today, we saw Saddam Hussein emerge into an Iraqi courtroom to answer for crimes he committed while the president of a sovereign nation. We must logically ask ourselves, are our leaders accountable for the actions they take while serving in the capacity of president? If so, then we have no choice but to indict George Bush on the counts of misleading our nation into a war based on conjecture and personal revenge; creating a state of conflict with a sovereign nation acting within its own accord; interfering with the basic human rights of a sovereign nation's citizens; and the massacre of thousands of Americans and Iraqis.
Will we ever see such a trial? It is doubtful. Even though, we did see an impeachment and trial for a president who lied about a personal matter! I dare to ask the question: which is more offensive--a president having consensual extramarital relations in the White House or a president who has brought hundreds of Americans home in body bags; furthermore losing their lives for a senseless, selfish cause?
Today, as I saw the pictures of Saddam Hussein, I wondered what it must really be like to be in his position. An individual who went from total power to being totally defenseless. Essentially, a man without a country. Then he said, "I am Saddam Hussein, president of Iraq." That caught me a little off guard when I heard his statement. In all honesty, I think he still is the president of Iraq. He was elected by the people of Iraq. It may or may not have been fraudulent, but who can rely on the CIA or FBI for accurate information these days?
If he still is the president, then what about those that now claim power? I would agree that they illegitimate. They received their power from a conquering power. In the eyes of the Iraqi people and the world they have not been legitimized. It is impossible to say how this will play out in the grand scheme of things. Only time can tell us the eventual conclusion. I dare say, though, that the Iraq issue is far from complete! I just hope that in the end it will have been worth all the sacrifice, deceit, and blood.
Independence Day!
The first day of July always brings about a certain passion in me. And that passion is the Fourth of July. This day has always held a special place inside me.
But what is this day if it's not about fireworks (which it is if you happen to be a Chinese fireworks peddler)? I honestly have to say that the fireworks are what do it for me! I know that is selfish and a bit contrite on my part.
Don't get me wrong, I very much understand the meaning behind this day. I understand it's symbolism and importance; however, I think in the hub-bub of the day we forget what is exactly at stake.
The United States is coming upon its 228th birthday this Sunday. We have changed greatly as a country and people since that somber July day so long ago. We have fought world superpowers, only to become ourselves the greatest of the them all. We have engaged enemies from within our own ranks and sought patriotism through triumph and adversity.
With that said, are we the same nation founded on such grandiose ideals in 1776? Like a baby emerging from the womb into the greater world outside, so is the story of America. We were shaped not by the swords and bullets of our own conquering hordes, but by the simplistic and greater honor of our desire to stand as a free, sovereign nation in the face of a tyrant. Our nation was the first of such freedom fighters, and the greatest. We inspired other great nations, like the French to emerge from their oppression under the French monarchy (although Louis XVI was fairly benign).
Not only were we the first, but the best example of freedom. The nation that faced down the world's greatest military with only a small militia of farmers and common folk (and the backing of the French). We, as a people and nation, have abandoned this simple philosophy. We have grown beyond the roots of our ancestors and we have become the same oppressor that we successfully stood against. Our nation has become a police state led by an oligarchy of paranoid elitists.
We are no longer a nation whose leaders are sought and elected for their values, strength, and integrity, but for the amount of money they receive from special interests' groups. Specifically, the presidency has become a popularity contest that is fought and won through television advertisements, mud-slinging, and generally negative campaigning. Our founders would not agree with this type of government.
Although, we still embrace the skeleton they created, the United States' body is grossly mis-shapen. It has emerged as a figure of tyranny and regret. It stands upon the blood of the countless individuals who sacrificed themselves in the name of justice, honor, and freedom, but their memories are rememebered with unjust war and oppression of a different kind. Our freedoms are trampled by a government that is more interested in its own political agenda, rather than the personal liberties of its people and their general welfare. Simply, the oppressed have become the oppressors and they are slaves to their destiny.
As we celebrate this 228th year of our independence from tyranny, let's not forget that another form of tyranny (even more sinister) awaits us tomorrow. If we continue to escalate in the way that we have in the recent decade we can only hurl ourselves into decline and decay. It is a story as old as Rome. The Roman Empire stood as the beacon of civilization to the world, but in its ambition it met its downfall.
Like Rome, today we have leaders who care more about their political futures than the needs of those they represent. Like Rome, we have leaders who care more about their legacies than the stability of the nation. They are leaders who make secret deals with the enemy in dark alley-ways while they publically disdain them. They are ignorant of their actions, but the solution resides in each of us. We have the power (for now) to break free from this cycle of history and seek a different, more fulfilling path for every citizen.
We must not forget that we are a nation "by the people, and for the people." And not a nation "by the souls, sweat, and tears, of the people, and for the wealthy, privileged few." If we do not claim our rights as the majority, then we become cynical and apathetic to the cause our founders set in motion so long ago. In the long run, we stand to become a footnote in the great history of our planet, like the Roman Empire. A great society that crumbled to dust through its own poor leadership, dimmed vision, and inability to embrace change and diversity from within itself and the world.
But what is this day if it's not about fireworks (which it is if you happen to be a Chinese fireworks peddler)? I honestly have to say that the fireworks are what do it for me! I know that is selfish and a bit contrite on my part.
Don't get me wrong, I very much understand the meaning behind this day. I understand it's symbolism and importance; however, I think in the hub-bub of the day we forget what is exactly at stake.
The United States is coming upon its 228th birthday this Sunday. We have changed greatly as a country and people since that somber July day so long ago. We have fought world superpowers, only to become ourselves the greatest of the them all. We have engaged enemies from within our own ranks and sought patriotism through triumph and adversity.
With that said, are we the same nation founded on such grandiose ideals in 1776? Like a baby emerging from the womb into the greater world outside, so is the story of America. We were shaped not by the swords and bullets of our own conquering hordes, but by the simplistic and greater honor of our desire to stand as a free, sovereign nation in the face of a tyrant. Our nation was the first of such freedom fighters, and the greatest. We inspired other great nations, like the French to emerge from their oppression under the French monarchy (although Louis XVI was fairly benign).
Not only were we the first, but the best example of freedom. The nation that faced down the world's greatest military with only a small militia of farmers and common folk (and the backing of the French). We, as a people and nation, have abandoned this simple philosophy. We have grown beyond the roots of our ancestors and we have become the same oppressor that we successfully stood against. Our nation has become a police state led by an oligarchy of paranoid elitists.
We are no longer a nation whose leaders are sought and elected for their values, strength, and integrity, but for the amount of money they receive from special interests' groups. Specifically, the presidency has become a popularity contest that is fought and won through television advertisements, mud-slinging, and generally negative campaigning. Our founders would not agree with this type of government.
Although, we still embrace the skeleton they created, the United States' body is grossly mis-shapen. It has emerged as a figure of tyranny and regret. It stands upon the blood of the countless individuals who sacrificed themselves in the name of justice, honor, and freedom, but their memories are rememebered with unjust war and oppression of a different kind. Our freedoms are trampled by a government that is more interested in its own political agenda, rather than the personal liberties of its people and their general welfare. Simply, the oppressed have become the oppressors and they are slaves to their destiny.
As we celebrate this 228th year of our independence from tyranny, let's not forget that another form of tyranny (even more sinister) awaits us tomorrow. If we continue to escalate in the way that we have in the recent decade we can only hurl ourselves into decline and decay. It is a story as old as Rome. The Roman Empire stood as the beacon of civilization to the world, but in its ambition it met its downfall.
Like Rome, today we have leaders who care more about their political futures than the needs of those they represent. Like Rome, we have leaders who care more about their legacies than the stability of the nation. They are leaders who make secret deals with the enemy in dark alley-ways while they publically disdain them. They are ignorant of their actions, but the solution resides in each of us. We have the power (for now) to break free from this cycle of history and seek a different, more fulfilling path for every citizen.
We must not forget that we are a nation "by the people, and for the people." And not a nation "by the souls, sweat, and tears, of the people, and for the wealthy, privileged few." If we do not claim our rights as the majority, then we become cynical and apathetic to the cause our founders set in motion so long ago. In the long run, we stand to become a footnote in the great history of our planet, like the Roman Empire. A great society that crumbled to dust through its own poor leadership, dimmed vision, and inability to embrace change and diversity from within itself and the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)